Dispatch Supplements (Special Reports), 1991-Current

<doc>
<f 151><ht><phrase>Speeches, Testimony, Statements</phrase></ht></f>
<f 101><ht><phrase>Central Europe</phrase></ht></f>
<f 201><ht><phrase>Yugoslavia (former)</phrase>, <phrase>Bosnia-Herzegovina</phrase>, <phrase>Serbia-Montenegro</phrase>,
<phrase>Croatia</phrase></ht></f>
<f 150><ht><phrase>State Department</phrase>, <phrase>United Nations</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase>,
<phrase>Development/Relief Aid</phrase>, <phrase>Democratization</phrase>, <phrase>Refugees/Population/Migration</phrase>,
<phrase>NATO</phrase>, <phrase>Military Affairs</phrase>, <phrase>Regional/Civil Unrest</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase></ht></f>
U.S. Department of State Dispatch Supplement
<h1><nsh>Dispatch Supplements (Special Reports), 1991-Current</nsh></h1>
<h2>Dispatch Supplements, Volume 6 (1995)</h2>
<h3>U.S. Department of State Dispatch Supplement
Vol. 6, No. 5,  December 1995 (Dayton Peace Agreement Speeches)</h3>
<b>"Securing a Peace Agreement for Bosnia"</b>
Published by the Bureau of Public Affairs
ARTICLE 1: pages 1-7

<h4><ti>The Last Best Chance for Peace In Bosnia and Herzegovina </ti></h4>
President <f 100>Clinton</f>, Secretary <f 100>Christopher</f>, Deputy Secretary <f 100>Talbott</f>

<h5>The Balkan Proximity Peace Talks: A Defining Moment  </h5>
Opening statement by President Clinton at a press conference,
Washington, DC, <date2>Oct 31, 1995</date2>.

Good morning. I have just met with Secretary Christopher and our Bosnia
negotiating team, led by Ambassador Holbrooke. As you know, they are
preparing to leave for Dayton, Ohio, in just a few moments. There, the
presidents of Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia will start direct negotiations
which we hope will lead to a peaceful, lasting settlement in Bosnia.

I want to repeat today what I told President Tudjman and President
Izetbegovic when we met in New York last week. We have come to a
defining moment in Bosnia. This is the best chance we've had for peace
since the war began. It may be the last chance we have for a very long
time. Only the parties to this terrible conflict can end it. The world
now looks to them to turn the horror of war into the promise of peace.

The United States and our partners--Russia, Germany, France, and the
United Kingdom--must do everything in our power to support them. That is
what I have just instructed Secretary Christopher and our team to do in
the days ahead in Dayton. We will succeed only if America continues to
lead.

Already our military strength through NATO and our diplomatic
determination have advanced the possibility of peace in Bosnia. We can't
stop now. The responsibilities of leadership are real, but the benefits
are greater. We see them all around the world--a reduced nuclear threat,
democracy in Haiti, peace breaking out in the Middle East and in
Northern Ireland. In Bosnia, as elsewhere, when the United States leads
we can make progress. If we don't, progress will be much more
problematic.

Making peace in Bosnia is important to America. Making peace will end
the terrible toll of this war--the innocent lives lost, the futures
destroyed. For four years, the people of Bosnia have suffered the worst
atrocities in Europe since World War II-- mass executions, ethnic
cleansing, concentration camps, rape and terror, starvation and disease.
We continue to learn more and more even in the present days about the
slaughters in Srebrenica.

The best way--the only way--to stop these horrors is to make peace.
Making peace will prevent the war from spreading. So far, we have been
able to contain this conflict to the former Yugoslavia. But the Balkans
lie at the heart of Europe, next door to several of our key NATO allies
and to some of the new, fragile European democracies. If the war there
reignites, it could spread and spark a much larger conflict--the kind of
conflict that has drawn Americans into two European wars in this
century. We have to end the war in Bosnia and do it now.

Making peace will advance our goal of a peaceful, democratic, and
undivided Europe--a Europe at peace, with extraordinary benefits to our
long-term security and prosperity, a Europe at peace, with partners to
meet the challenges of the new century--challenges that affect us here
at home, such as terrorism and drug trafficking, organized crime, and
the spread of weapons of mass destruction. A peaceful, democratic,
undivided Europe will be that kind of partner.

In Dayton, our diplomats face a tremendous challenge. There is no
guarantee that they will succeed. America can help the parties negotiate
a settlement, but we cannot impose a peace. In recent weeks, thanks to
our mediation efforts, the parties to the war have made real progress.
The parties have put into effect a Bosnia-wide cease-fire. They have
agreed to the basic principles of a settlement. Bosnia will remain a
single state comprised of two entities--but, I repeat, a single state.
There must be free elections and democratic institutions of government
at the national and regional levels.

Now, beyond this, many difficult issues remain to be resolved. These
include the internal boundary between the Bosnia-Croat Federation and
the Serb Republic, the status of Sarajevo, the practical steps that need
to be taken to separate hostile forces, and the procedures for free
elections. Those are just a few of the difficult issues this team will
have to confront beginning today. I urge the parties to negotiate
seriously for the good of their own people. So much is riding on success
in Dayton, and the whole world is watching.

If the parties do reach a settlement, NATO must help secure it, and the
United States, as NATO's leader, must participate in such an effort.
Again I say, there is no substitute for American leadership. After so
many years of violence and bloodshed, a credible international military
presence in Bosnia is needed to give the parties confidence to live up
to their own agreements and give them time to begin the long, hard work
of rebuilding and living together again. NATO is the one organization
with the track record and the strength to implement a settlement.

As I have said many times, the United States--the source of NATO's
military strength--must participate. If we don't participate in the
implementation force, our NATO partners, understandably, would
reconsider their own commitments. We would undermine American leadership
of the alliance. We would weaken the alliance itself. And the hard-won
peace in Bosnia could be lost.

American troops would not be deployed--I say this again--would not be
deployed unless and until the parties reach a peace agreement. We must
first have a peace agreement. That is what I would urge the American
people and Members of Congress to focus on over the next few days.
Troops would, if going into Bosnia, operate under NATO command, with
clear rules of engagement and a clearly defined mission. They would not
be asked to keep a peace that cannot be kept, but they would make sure
we do our part in helping peace hold.

As the peace process moves forward, I will continue to consult closely
with the Congress. If a peace agreement is reached, I will request an
expression of support in Congress for committing United States troops to
a NATO implementation force. Our foreign policy works best when we work
together. I want the widest possible support for peace.

But it would be premature to request an expression of support now,
because we can't decide many of the details of implementation until an
agreement is clearly shaped and defined. Let me stress again: We are not
there yet; there are still difficult obstacles ahead. The focus on
Dayton must be on securing the peace. Without peace, there will be
nothing for us to secure.

Earlier this month in New Jersey, I had the privilege of spending time
with His Holiness Pope John Paul II. At the end of our meeting, the Pope
said something to me I would like to repeat. He said:

"You know, I am not a young man. I have lived through most of this
century. The 20th century began with a war in Sarajevo. Mr. President,
you must not let it end with a war in Sarajevo."

All of us must do our part to hear the Pope's plea. Our conscience as a
nation devoted to freedom and tolerance demands it. Our conscience as a
nation that wants to end this mindless slaughter demands it. Our
enduring interest in the security and stability of Europe demands it.
This is our challenge, and I am determined to do everything I can to see
that America meets that challenge.

<h5>Eyes on Dayton: Bringing Peace To the Heart of Europe </h5>

Statement by Secretary Christopher upon arrival at Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base, Dayton, Ohio, November 1, 1995.

Good morning. Today, the eyes of the world are on Dayton, Ohio. We have
come to the heartland of America to try to bring peace to the heart of
Europe.

On behalf of President Clinton, let me extend my thanks to the people of
Dayton and the uniformed and civilian personnel of Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base. They have come together in just two short weeks to support
this critical effort. I know that their hopes and prayers, like those of
many millions around the world, are with the peacemakers.

I am here, at the instruction of the President, to ensure that the
United States does everything possible to bring about a successful
result at this conference. Later this morning, I will meet with the
presidents of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia. And then,
this afternoon, I will open this historic peace conference.

Today, we are embarking on a process that may be the last best chance
for peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I hope that, someday, Dayton, Ohio,
will be remembered as the place where we seized this chance to stop the
killing and to start building a better future for the people of the
former Yugoslavia.

<h5>The Promise of This Moment Must Be Fulfilled </h5>

Statement by Secretary Christopher at the opening of the Balkan
Proximity Peace Talks, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio,
November 1, 1995.

Good afternoon. President Izetbegovic, President Tudjman, President
Milosevic, Prime Minister Bildt, Deputy Minister Ivanov, honored
colleagues: On behalf of President Clinton and the American people, I
welcome you to the United States for the start of these historic
proximity peace talks. My special thanks go to the people of Dayton,
Ohio, and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base for their magnificent support.

We have an urgent and important purpose today. We are here to give
Bosnia and Herzegovina a chance to be a country at peace, not a killing
field--a place where people can sleep in their homes, walk to work, and
worship in their churches, mosques, and synagogues without fear of
violence or death. We are here to prevent a wider war that would
undermine the security of Europe at a time when the whole continent
should finally be at peace.

The talks that begin here today offer the best chance to achieve peace
since this war began four years ago. If we fail, the war will resume,
and future generations will surely hold us accountable for the
consequences that would follow. The lights so recently lit in Sarajevo
would once again be extinguished. Death and starvation would once again
spread across the Balkans, threatening to engulf the region and possibly
Europe itself.

To the three presidents, I say that it is within your power to chart a
better future for the people of the former Yugoslavia. The United
States, the European Union, Russia, and others in the international
community will help you succeed. But while the world can and will help
you make peace, only you can ensure that this process will succeed. And
you must begin today. As President Clinton said yesterday, the "whole
world is watching." We must persevere until an agreement is reached and
the promise of this hopeful moment is fulfilled.

There are some who say these talks can only end in failure. They have
written off the Balkans as a region cursed by its past to a future of
endless hatred and retribution. I have heard those arguments before--in
the Middle East, where Arabs and Israelis are now ending an armed
conflict that has lasted 10 times as long as the one in the former
Yugoslavia. I have heard the same arguments applied to Northern Ireland,
where a centuries-old conflict may be nearing resolution. I have heard
them applied to South Africa, where former enemies have abandoned
apartheid to build a multi-ethnic democracy. I know that negotiations
can work when people have the courage and patience to make them work.

We have reached this moment because the international community took
firm measures to enforce its mandate in Bosnia and Herzegovina and
because, for the first time, all sides have agreed to a cease-fire, to
constitutional principles, and to a common set of institutions for a
single Bosnian state. We must all resolve to stay on the path that
brought us here. For each of us, the stakes are enormous.

For the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whatever their heritage, the
success of our efforts can mean an end to the killing and the beginning
of hope for a normal life. The people of Bosnia deserve a chance to live
as they once did--in harmony with their neighbors in a country at peace.

For the nations at war, the stakes are clear as well. They have a choice
between two futures--a future of peace and integration or a future of
violence, poverty, and isolation from Europe and the world. We must
always remember:  As this region is engulfed in flames and violence, a
new Europe is being built around it. Some of the fastest-growing
economies in Europe today are found in this region. The new democracies
of Central Europe are resolving disputes with their neighbors and
earning the right to be considered for membership in NATO and the
European Union.

When the Cold War ended, nobody imagined that once-vibrant cities such
as Sarajevo, Mostar, and Vukovar would be set so tragically apart from
Europe by the sight of tanks and the sound of gunfire. The door to
Europe and the West is still open to the nations of the region--if you
end this war peacefully and respect the human rights of your people. You
alone can choose your destiny.

The United States and the international community also have a vital
stake in sustaining progress toward peace. If war in the Balkans is
reignited, it could spark a wider conflict like those that drew American
soldiers in huge numbers into two European wars in this century. If this
conflict continues--and certainly if it spreads--it would jeopardize our
efforts to promote stability and security in Europe as a whole. It would
threaten the viability of NATO, which has been the bedrock of European
security for 50 years. If the conflict continues, so would the worst
atrocities Europe has seen since World War II. As President Clinton has
said, the "only way to stop these horrors is to make peace." We must,
and we will stay engaged to advance our interests and to uphold our
values.

The United States and its Contact Group partners will make every effort
to help you reach an agreement that will settle outstanding questions
over territory, constitutional arrangements, elections, and the return
of refugees. We have worked hard to create the right atmosphere for
progress at this site. And I know that Ambassador Holbrooke, Prime
Minister Bildt, and Deputy Minister Ivanov will continue to provide the
most effective and evenhanded mediation that is possible.

If peace is to endure, we must do more than separate the military
forces. For peace to last, several key conditions must be met.

First, Bosnia and Herzegovina must continue as a single state within its
internationally recognized borders and with a single international
personality. The principles to which the parties have agreed provide a
firm foundation for achieving that goal.

Second, the settlement must take into account the special history and
significance of Sarajevo and its environs. Sarajevo was the city where
the first of this century's two bloody world wars began. But 10 years
ago, it was also the city where the world came together to celebrate the
Olympics--a city of many communities living, working, and prospering
together in peace. It must have a chance to become that wonderful city
again. It deserves that chance.

Third, any agreement must guarantee that the human rights of all the
citizens of the region are respected. This terrible war has uprooted
people from every ethnic community. All must be able to return home or
receive just compensation. And it is vital that all those who have
committed atrocities are held accountable. Full investigation of all
such charges, regardless of where they occurred, must be undertaken
swiftly and firmly, and responsibility must be assigned.

Finally, we also believe that these talks must establish a process of
normalizing the status of Eastern Slavonia, as a part of Croatia and in
a peaceful manner.

If and when a formal agreement is reached--but only then--the United
States and its partners, including Russia, will provide military
personnel to help implement the peace. NATO is the only organization
with the resources and capacity to perform this task. It already has
begun planning for a robust peace implementation force.

For each nation participating in the implementation force, deploying
soldiers is a difficult and solemn choice. The American people and the
United States Congress are asking serious and appropriate questions
about U.S. participation in the implementation force. They will watch
very closely for signs that the parties are finally ready to lay down
their arms and begin a lasting, stable peace.

The United States will not send troops where there is no peace to keep.
Before we deploy, the parties must reach a peace agreement. They must be
prepared to stick to it. They must use the time when our troops are on
the ground to consolidate it. And the implementation force must have a
clear exit strategy.

The international community is also determined to help the people of the
region rebuild their institutions, their economies, and their lives. The
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe will help organize
and supervise elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina--which ought to come
at the earliest possible date--to ensure that they are free and fair.
Under the leadership of the EU, a major effort to support the
reconstruction of Bosnia and Herzegovina will be launched. Lasting
security will depend on bringing the region's economy back to life.

In other words, once an agreement is signed, a multi-dimensional effort
will begin, to help ensure its success. It will be backed by soldiers,
diplomats, bankers, and engineers; by governments; and by private
organizations from countries around the world.

We know that Bosnia and Herzegovina will not easily recover from four
years of ethnic cleansing and destruction. Nothing we do will erase our
memory of the violence or bring back its victims. But if we succeed, we
can make it possible for the sons and daughters of those who have died
to live without fear. If we succeed, we can ensure that the sons and
daughters of America and Europe do not have to fight again in a larger,
more terrible war. If we succeed, we may yet realize our vision of a
Europe at peace, united, prosperous, and free. We must rise to the
challenge.

This will be a long journey, but it all starts here. Let us get to work,
and let us reaffirm our pledge to make it work.

<h5>Strengthening American Security Through World Leadership:  Bosnia and
Beyond </h5>

Remarks by Deputy Secretary Talbott at a State Department Town Meeting,
Washington, DC, November 1, 1995.

On behalf of Secretary Christopher, let me welcome all of you to the
Dean Acheson Auditorium. Let me also thank Chic Dambach and Harry Blaney
of the Coalition for American Leadership Abroad for organizing this
event. I like the name of that organization for reasons that I'll come
to in a moment.

Over the past nine months, I've attended a number of the Town Hall
Meetings that Foreign Policy Associations and World Affairs Councils
have sponsored or supported--in Denver, Dayton, New York, Cleveland,
Wilmington, Milwaukee, and here in Washington. I have been particularly
impressed by the ability of these events to bring together diverse
constituencies: ethnic and religious groups; labor unions and business
organizations; and civic action groups ranging from the Girl Scouts to
the Grey Panthers, from the Sierra Club to the Salvation Army.

I urge all of you to expand these grass-roots efforts. I can't think of
a better way to increase the quantity and the quality of the American
people's interest in international affairs. And I can't think of a more
important time for meetings like this one--all across America.

I say that because today, 20 blocks from here, up Constitution Avenue,
there is a historic national debate underway on the floor of the U.S.
Congress. Its outcome will effect the future of America's role in the
world. The Congress is considering legislation that would slash the
foreign affairs budget of our government by almost 20% from last year's
levels, and that's on top of a more than 40% decline in real dollars for
our foreign affairs budget over the past decade.

The Senate has proposed cutting more than $600 million--a whopping 45%--
from our country's annual contributions to international organizations,
including the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and the
International Atomic Energy Agency. Other proposed Senate cuts would
slash the State Department's operating budget, forcing us to close
dozens of embassies and consulates around the world.

Secretary Christopher has expressed his deep concern about the impact of
such cuts on the ability of this Department to serve you when you travel
abroad; or to make it easier for American businesses to engage
competitively and profitably in international trade and investment; or
to protect our cities against international crime, drug-trafficking, and
terrorism.

We are also facing the reluctance of some in Congress to ratify START II
and a raft of other important treaties, as well as a refusal to act on a
number of important ambassadorial nominations. Why is all this
happening? The answer, I'm sorry to say, is that it is fashionable in
some influential quarters to flirt with ideas that are isolationist in
their potential consequence, if not in their actual intent. And why is
that?  The reason, I believe, is that with the end of the Cold War,
there's no longer a single, clearly identified, global villain and,
therefore, no longer a single, simple, bumper-sticker slogan to explain
America's role in the world. Instead, the world is more complex and,
therefore, so is the case for American engagement and leadership.

There's a resurgence of the view that we can no longer afford to bear
the burden of world leadership--or, to put it differently, that we can
now afford to go it alone in this new, more complicated world of ours.
Some legislators have even suggested diverting the money that we now
spend on foreign aid to the construction of a giant fence along our
borders. Ponder the symbolism of that misguided sense of priorities: The
instinct here is to wall us in and wall the world out; the instinct is
to build barriers to ensure that what happens elsewhere--far away or
right next door--does not affect us here in the United States.

This view is anathema to President Clinton and his Administration. We
believe that if the United States leads, the world will be a safer place
for Americans to live, work, travel, and trade. We believe that we face
historic opportunities not just to combat threats and enemies from
abroad but also to build a world that promotes our interests and
reflects our ideals.

The flip side of that conviction is just as important: If we do not
provide international leadership, then there is no other country on
earth that can or will step in and lead in our place as a constructive,
positive influence. America is not just another country; we are a global
power with global interests. If we do not lead the way in promoting
freedom, peace, and prosperity on a global scale, no one else will.

So the American Congress, and the American people, now face some
fundamental choices. At issue is whether we are prepared to do what it
takes--and that means spending what it takes--to have a foreign policy
worthy of our aspirations, our opportunities, and our interests as a
world leader--indeed, as the world leader.

Let me now zero in on a specific region where the choice between
engagement and isolation, between leadership and retreat, is
particularly stark--and particularly urgent: that is, in the former
Yugoslavia. I want to use the remainder of my remarks to address the
question, much in debate, of why we must lead both in the negotiation of
a Bosnian peace settlement and in the implementation of an agreement.

Bosnia matters to everyone here today--and to everyone in this country.
It matters because Europe matters to America. This is not the first time
that we've sent our soldiers and diplomats across the Atlantic in a time
of crisis, and it probably will not be the last. Three times before in
this century, we Americans have joined our European allies in pursuit of
a common goal--twice in hot wars, once in a cold one. Each time we did
so for reasons that reflected not just our generosity and our sense of
obligation to others but that also reflected a hard-headed, forward-
looking calculation of our own needs and safety. That same combination
of international responsibility and national self-interest underlies our
involvement in Central Europe and the Balkans today.

We have made significant and promising strides in meeting several
challenges there. To cite just one example: The interim accord reached
on September 13 by the governments of Macedonia and Greece was an
important step toward reducing suspicions and normalizing relations
between those two countries. But that encouraging development--indeed,
peace throughout the area--is still threatened by the simmering conflict
in the former Yugoslavia. If the fighting in Bosnia resumes, it could
lead to an unraveling of all the progress we've seen and helped bring
about elsewhere in the region. It could plunge the entire area into war.

That clear and present danger has about it an aspect of deja vu. The
worst of the 20th century might be said to have begun with a series of
bad-news stories datelined Sarajevo more than 80 years ago: the Balkan
wars of 1912 and 1913, followed by the assassination of Archduke Franz
Ferdinand in 1914 and all that followed. Now there is a very real danger
that we will inadvertently close out the century with gruesome symmetry,
by permitting a third Balkan war. Such a conflagration could all too
easily spread beyond the Balkans.

History and geography have conspired to make Bosnia the most explosive
powder keg on the continent of Europe. The Drina River, which flows
through the now-famous town of Gorazde and along the border between
Bosnia and Serbia, traces one of the world's most treacherous fault
lines. The three communities that live there--Serbs, Croats, and
Muslims--bear the legacies of two empires, three religions, and many
cultures.

That means if the warfare among them breaks out anew and then continues
unabated, it might extend to several points of the compass, drawing in
other nations to the north, south, and east. Albania could intervene to
protect the ethnic Albanians who live in the southern Serbian province
of Kosovo. Warfare there could unleash a massive flow of refugees into
Macedonia, destabilizing that fragile country and, potentially, draw-
ing in, on opposite sides, Greece and Turkey--two NATO allies that are
also regional rivals. A widening of the war might also see Hungary
tempted to come to the rescue of ethnic Hungarians in the Vojvodina
region of northern Serbia.

Bosnia matters outside of Europe as well. The entire Islamic world, from
Morocco to Indonesia, is watching to see how events unfold. Muslims
everywhere are waiting to see whether their co-religionists in Bosnia
will be accorded the same rights and protections as other Europeans. The
answer to that question could have an impact on the future of moderate,
pro-Western leaders such as Prime Minister Ciller of Turkey and Prime
Minister Bhutto of Pakistan. Other less-friendly forces in the Middle
East and Persian Gulf see the Balkans as a target of opportunity. Iran's
repeated offer to send "peacemakers" to Bosnia is hardly motivated by
altruism.

An ongoing conflict in the Balkans would jeopardize our efforts to
promote stability and security in Europe as a whole; it would undermine
our ability to consolidate the gains made possible by the triumph of
democracy and market economics at the end of the Cold War. If the
fighting in Yugoslavia resumes--and if it escalates and spreads--it
would put increasing strain  on relations between the United States and
Russia. A third Balkan war will undermine both of our overarching
objectives in the region. Those two objectives are, first, to promote
integration between East and West and, simultaneously, to contain and
deter the forces of disintegration that have been unleashed by the
collapse of  communism in the East.

A continuation of the war also would threaten the viability, even the
survival, of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO is the anchor
of American engagement in Europe and the linchpin of transatlantic
security. We and most of the people of Europe see NATO as the keystone
of the architecture of European security. As such, NATO must be as
successful in dealing with the new security challenges in Europe as it
was in its nearly half-century-long  mission of deterring Soviet
aggression.

The alliance can no more ignore the conflagration in the Balkans than an
architect can ignore a fire raging in one wing of a building on which he
is working. The United States is the leader of the alliance; therefore,
the United States must lead in Bosnia. Merely hoping that the fire there
will burn itself out or that someone else will put it out is not just
wishful thinking. It would be, if it were the basis of policy, extremely
irresponsible and deeply harmful to our interests.

Such an attitude of standing aside and passing the buck would put us in
triple jeopardy: It would poison our bilateral relations with Britain,
France, and other European states that have troops on the ground in
Bosnia; it would discredit both the alliance and our leadership of it;
and it would undermine the foundation of a peaceful post-Cold War Europe
in which we have much of our own security and prosperity invested.

Leadership cannot be a sometime thing, and it is not cost-free. If we
want to continue to derive the benefits of our unique position--and they
are legion--we must share with those who follow our lead the costs and
risks of engagement--and sometimes that means of bold action.

As we ponder those costs and risks, let us also consider those
associated with inaction, particularly inaction or inadequate action in
the face of systematic atrocities: mass rape, concentration camps,
massacres, forced deportation of entire villages. How many of us, four
years ago, had ever heard of Srebrenica? Today, it is a household word.
It is not just a place name, it is a synonym for man's inhumanity to
man. The Yugoslavs may not have invented the phrase "ethnic cleansing,"
but they have inscribed it into the glossary of this century--right
there next to "final solution"--as an administrative euphemism for
genocide.

One of the great strengths of our country's foreign policy is that when
it is at its best, it is rooted as solidly in American idealism as it is
in American pragmatism. The world continues to look to us for leadership
not just because of our economic and military might but also because,
despite our initial reluctance to undertake what George Washington
described as "foreign entanglements," we as a people have at crucial
moments been willing to do the right thing.

Doing the right thing in the Balkans has been especially difficult.
There were, for a long time, severe limits on what we--the United States
and the international community--could do to make peace until the
parties themselves were prepared to do so. But there is no question what
doing the right thing means today, and today is surely a crucial moment.
It means using a combination of diplomatic skill and the credible threat
of force to keep the parties at the negotiating table. It means
deterring them from returning to the battlefield and to the killing
fields. It means, in short, putting an end to genocide and, to the
maximum extent possible, bringing to justice the perpetrators of crimes
against humanity. By the way--this, I believe, is a very important
point--the unacceptability of "ethnic cleansing" in the Balkans, by that
or any other name, is not just an issue of moralpolitik, it is also an
issue of realpolitik.

The concept of ethnic cleansing captures the practical, concrete essence
of the catastrophe that has befallen that troubled and troublesome
neighborhood of the global village. Too many leaders of the former
Yugoslav republics have tried to define statehood and citizenship and
international boundaries in terms of ethnic homogeneity-- ethnic purity-
-and thus have sought to "purify" or cleanse the state of "impure"
elements. Hence the dream of Greater Serbia, which is a nightmare for
all non-Serbs, whether they live in Serbia proper or amidst ethnic Serbs
in neighboring states. Equally noxious is the dream of an ethnically
"pure" Croatia that would deny the legitimate rights of Muslims and
ethnic Serbs.

I stress this point because there is more at stake here than just the
Balkans. If aggressive, exclusionary nationalism triumphs in the former
Yugoslavia, it would be a disaster not only in that region but ominous
for the former Soviet empire, where similar dark forces of what might be
called Balkanization are vying with those of freedom to fill the vacuum
left by the collapse of communist totalitarianism.

If there is to be a post-Cold War peace in Europe--and not a cold peace
but a real one--it must be based on the principle of multi-ethnic,
pluralistic democracy. Since the United States is one of the first and
certainly one of the greatest examples of that principle, we have a
stake in seeing that it ultimately prevails in Europe and elsewhere.

So, ladies and gentlemen, for all these reasons, ending the war in
Bosnia is unquestionably in the national interest of the United States.
We have been working toward that objective since the beginning of the
Administration, but only recently have our efforts shown real promise.

President Clinton has long pressed for the vigorous use of NATO airpower
as a necessary component of peace-making. The fall of Srebrenica in
early July was a turning point. It galvanized the willingness of the
international community to do more to protect the UN-designated safe
areas and punish continuing Serb aggression. The London Conference in
late July streamlined the mechanism for backing diplomacy with real
force: no more "dual key;" no more pin-prick air strikes.

Seizing the moment, President Clinton undertook a new diplomatic
initiative. First Tony Lake, then Dick Holbrooke worked the diplomatic
front. Meanwhile, U.S. and NATO warplanes, no longer grounded by the
dual key, reinforced more emphatically than before the message that the
time had come to stop the killing and start talking about the terms for
a lasting political settlement.

Since then, Dick Holbrooke and his team have made real progress. They
have worked in close cooperation with the other members of the Contact
Group--Britain, France, Germany, and Russia--and with the support of
other troop-contributing nations.

In early September, the foreign ministers of Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia
agreed on a set of basic principles for a political settlement. Most
significantly, each of the parties has accepted the continuation of
Bosnia and Herzegovina as a single, multi-ethnic state within its
current, internationally recognized borders. Within that state, the
parties have agreed that there will be two constituent entities. They
have also agreed to work out mechanisms to ensure respect and equality
for all the citizens of Bosnia.

Today, the negotiations move up to the next level. Secretary Christopher
just returned on Monday night from the Middle East--another region that
American leadership is helping to move from war to peace. Five hours
from now, he will welcome the Presidents of Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia
to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. Representatives  of
the other Contact Group countries, along with the envoy of the European
Union, will be there, too.

Secretary Christopher will present the parties with a draft peace
agreement as well as with detailed constitutional and territorial
proposals for a future Bosnian state. The package includes a separation-
of-forces agreement, a proposal for national elections, and an agreement
on the return of refugees. Obviously, there is still a long way to go.

If--and it's still a big "if"--the Dayton talks are successful and the
three heads of state agree on a peace settlement, then the tough work of
implementation will begin. There, , too, the United States must lead.

After four years of brutal war, there is, to put it mildly, little trust
left among the Muslim, Croat, and Serb communities in Bosnia. It will
require an armed international presence to give the parties the
confidence that they need to carry out the settlement. The mission of
the international force will include verifying and, if necessary,
enforcing compliance with the commitments that the parties will have
undertaken in whatever agreement emerges from the Dayton talks.

There is only one organization that can give the parties the necessary
assurance to implement a peace, and that is NATO. That is why President
Clinton, President Chirac, Prime Minister Major, and other leaders have
agreed that if the parties choose the path of peace, then the United
States, France, and the United Kingdom will participate  with their
allies in a NATO-led implementation force--IFOR.

Let me stress, as President Clinton has, that IFOR will be deployed only
if the parties agree to a real peace. Let me also note that although
this will be a NATO-led operation, we are also seeking to find ways for
other nations that are not members of the alliance to participate as
well. Poland, Hungary, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Ukraine,
Pakistan, and Bangladesh have expressed an interest in contributing.

On Monday of last week, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin reached a
landmark agreement: Russian and U.S. forces will participate together in
the implementation of a Bosnian peace. Last Friday, Bill Perry and his
Russian counterpart, Pavel Grachev, hammered out many of the details.
Russia and the United States will each contribute several thousand
soldiers to a special operations unit under the command of U.S. Army
Gen. George Joulwan. That unit will provide vital engineering,
reconstruction, road-building, bridge repair, mine-clearing, and heavy-
lift services. It represents the most concrete example of U.S.-Russian
military cooperation in the post-Cold War era. It is welcome in its own
right and also as a precedent for the future.

In conclusion, I would like to return to the issue I put before you at
the outset of these remarks: We are, as I said earlier, now in the midst
of a historic debate about America's role in the world. Bosnia is one
test of where we stand, but there will be many others in the months and
years to come.

President Clinton is convinced that the United States has the heart, the
brains, and the muscle to exercise international leadership and to do so
on behalf of our interests and our values. But whether the President's
views win out in the end against those who advocate retreat will depend
in no small measure on how these questions are debated beyond the floor
of the Congress and beyond the Washington Beltway. It will depend on how
they are addressed in Town Hall Meetings and gatherings such as this one
across America. Which is to say, my colleagues from whom you will be
hearing today and I are all counting on you and the groups represented
here to make sure that we, as a nation, ask the right questions--and
that we come up with the right answers.

(###)

___________________________________________________________________

The State Department does not guarantee the authenticity of electronic
documents.  If you require the original version of a document in hard
copy, please contact the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Room 6805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.  Telephone: 202-647-5760.  State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced without consent.
Citation of source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce any
copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.
_____________________________________________________________ (###)
</doc><doc><f 151><ht><phrase>Speeches, Testimony, Statements</phrase></ht></f>
<f 101><ht><phrase>Central Europe</phrase></ht></f>
<f 201><ht><phrase>Yugoslavia (former)</phrase>, <phrase>Bosnia-Herzegovina</phrase>, <phrase>Serbia-Montenegro</phrase>,
<phrase>Croatia</phrase></ht></f>
<f 150><ht><phrase>State Department</phrase>, <phrase>United Nations</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase>,
<phrase>Development/Relief Aid</phrase>, <phrase>Democratization</phrase>, <phrase>Refugees/Population/Migration</phrase>,
<phrase>NATO</phrase>, <phrase>Military Affairs</phrase>, <phrase>Regional/Civil Unrest</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase></ht></f>
U.S. Department of State Dispatch Supplement
Volume 6, Number 5, December 1995
"Securing a Peace Agreement for Bosnia "
Published by the Bureau of Public Affairs
ARTICLE 2: pages 7-10

<h4><ti>U.S. Leadership and the Balkan Challenge </ti></h4>
Deputy Secretary <f 100>Talbott </f>
Remarks at the National Press Club, Washington, DC, <date2>Nov 9, 1995 </date2>

Thank you, Bud [Karmin]. And thanks to all of you for the chance to be
here today. I have been to many of these events over the years, and I am
glad to return for the first time in an official capacity. I do so to
discuss with you the American effort to bring peace to the former
Yugoslavia. Let me begin with an update on the Dayton talks.

I was out there on Monday to meet with Dick Holbrooke's team, with Carl
Bildt and the Contact Group, and with the leaders of the parties to the
conflict. Most of the draft documents that comprise the overall peace
agreement are now in the hands of the parties. Those include detailed
constitutional and territorial proposals for a future Bosnian state, a
separation-of-forces agreement, a plan for national elections, and an
agreement on the return of refugees. There are, every day, numerous,
intensive meetings on virtually every aspect of the prospective
settlement. President Tudjman returned to Dayton last night. We hope to
use his presence to make some progress on the problem of Eastern
Slavonia. Secretary Christopher will be going to Dayton tomorrow to
provide further high-level support for the process.

That's it. The lid is back on until about this time tomorrow, when you
can tune in with Nick Burns for your next glimpse into what we're
trying, for solid diplomatic reasons, to keep as tightly under wraps as
possible.

What I'd like to do now is step back and look at the larger question of
what's at stake in Dayton. That means having a clear sense of the
consequences for our country and for the world if the talks were to fail
and the Balkans were to be plunged back into war. Then I'd like to look
ahead to the challenge we will face if the Dayton talks succeed.

Many of you have pointed out that the Administration has a tough job of
persuasion here on the home front--up on the Hill but beyond the Beltway
as well. We know it. It's not self-evident to the American people why a
conflict nearly 5,000 miles from here matters enough to justify a heavy
investment of our treasure, prestige, and military resources.

So let me start right there. Bosnia matters to Americans because Europe
matters to America. War in Bosnia threatens the peace of Europe--
particularly, though not exclusively, those parts of Europe that are
emerging from Soviet-era dictatorships. And that means it threatens the
transatlantic community of which we are a part--and of which we are a
leader.

The conflict in the Balkans is a direct consequence of the end of the
Cold War. During that nearly half-century-long struggle, we were
concerned about the spread of communist order. Now that the Cold War is
over, we face a very different threat: the spread of post-communist
disorder.

That danger exists in part because of where the former Yugoslavia is. It
is on a fault line between East and West, between Europe and Asia. If
warfare breaks out anew and continues unabated, it could suck in other
nations to the north, south, and east. Albania could intervene to
protect the ethnic Albanians who live in the southern Serbian province
of Kosovo. Fighting there could cause a massive flow of refugees into
Macedonia, destabilizing that fragile, newly independent country and,
perhaps, drawing in, on opposite sides, Greece and Turkey. A widening of
the war might also tempt Hungary to come to the rescue of ethnic
Hungarians in the Vojvodina region of northern Serbia.

Meanwhile, the entire Islamic world is watching. Muslims everywhere are
waiting to see whether their co-religionists in Bosnia will be accorded
the same rights and protections as other Europeans. The answer to that
question could have an impact on the future of moderate, pro-Western
leaders such as Prime Minister Ciller of Turkey and Prime Minister
Bhutto of Pakistan. Other forces in the Middle East and Persian Gulf see
the Balkans as a target of opportunity. Iran's repeated offer to send
"peacekeepers" to Bosnia is hardly motivated by altruism.

Then there is the fate of NATO. A continuation of the war would threaten
the viability of an organization that is vital to us and to Europe. If
we were to adopt a posture of standing aside with our fingers crossed
behind our backs, we would harm our bilateral relations with Britain,
France, and other allies that have troops on the ground in Bosnia. We
would also discredit the alliance as a whole and our role in it.

Another point: If the fighting in Yugoslavia resumes--and if it
escalates and spreads--it would put increasing strain on relations
between the United States and Russia, and it would do so at a time of
ferment and uncertainty in Russian domestic politics. In short, a new
eruption of fighting in the Balkans would undermine our twin strategic
objectives in Europe. Those are, first, to advance integration between
East and West and, second, to restrain post-communist disintegration in
the East.

So those are the stakes. High stakes justify--indeed, require--bold
action. We must, of course, be hard-headed in assessing the costs and
risks that come with such action. But we must be just as tough-minded in
recognizing the costs and risks that we will incur if we choose
inaction--particularly inaction, or inadequate action, in the face of
atrocities like mass rape, concentration camps, massacres, and forced
deportations. As recently as August, the Bosnian Serb authorities in
Banja Luka made local Muslims wear special white arm bands and marked
their homes with white cloth, all as a prelude to "ethnic cleansing."
That administrative euphemism, coupled with the deja vu of the arm
bands, makes clear what we have been up against in Bosnia: In a word--
and it is the right word--it is genocide in our time, genocide on the
continent of Europe.

At issue here is not just an outrage against humanity but a challenge to
American interests and American leadership. Far away peoples look to us
and count on us not just because of our economic strength and the power
of our armed forces, but also because of what we stand for--and what
we're prepared to act against.

Taking decisive action in the Balkans has been especially difficult.
There were, for a long time, severe limits on what the international
community could do to make peace until the parties themselves were
prepared to do so. But there is no question what is required today. It
is a combination of diplomatic skill and the credible threat of force to
keep the parties at the negotiating table, and that means keeping them
from returning to the battlefield--not to mention the killing fields. It
also means putting an end to genocide and bringing to justice the
perpetrators of crimes against humanity.

That is why we fully support the work of Judge Richard Goldstone and the
United Nations War Crimes Tribunal. We have dispatched 23 officials of
our government to work as prosecutors and researchers for the Tribunal,
and we are fighting on Capitol Hill to preserve its funding. We are also
making an energetic, systematic effort to provide the war crimes
investigators and prosecutors with the facts they need to do their work.
Even when relevant information comes from intelligence or other
classified sources, we'll find a way to get it to Judge Goldstone in a
timely and useful manner. John Shattuck, our Assistant Secretary for
human rights, is now traveling across Bosnia. This is his fourth trip
there in two months. His mission is to mobilize the full resources of
the U.S. Government in the investigation of atrocities and to gather
additional material that we will provide to the Tribunal.

Let me add that all of us recognize the crucial, sometimes heroic role
that the press has played in informing the world about the horror in the
Balkans. You, like we, have lost colleagues. Even with a cease-fire in
place, covering the situation remains dangerous, as we were all reminded
by the ordeal of David Rohde. In talking to Mr. Rohde yesterday,
President Clinton and Secretary Christopher made it clear that we intend
to hold Serb officials to their commitments that Western journalists as
well as Western diplomats will have access to the suspected sites of
human rights violations.

The War Crimes Tribunal has already issued 46 indictments, including
three more this morning, and Judge Goldstone, who will be in Washington
next week, has told us to expect dozens more to come soon. We have made
it clear that no indicted war criminals will be involved in
negotiations, in the signing of agreements, or in subsequent elections.
The peace process will not impede the investigation of atrocities or the
prosecution of those responsible. Indicted war criminals like Dr.
Karadzic and General Mladic should recognize that amnesties and
immunities are not on the table in Dayton or anywhere else. If we or any
other responsible members of the international community apprehend them,
they will get a quick, one-way trip to the courtroom at Churchill Plein
#1 in The Hague.

Let me say a few more words about "ethnic cleansing" in the Balkans and
why that phenomenon, by that or any other name, is  not  only an issue
of moralpolitik, it is also an issue of realpolitik. Even when the
phrase "ethnic cleansing" means "merely" mass deportation rather than
mass murder, it captures the essence of what is most insidious--and most
contagious--about the catastrophe that has befallen the former
Yugoslavia.

Too many leaders of those republics-turned-independent-states have tried
to define statehood, citizenship, and international boundaries in terms
of ethnic homogeneity and ethnic purity. Hence the dream of Greater
Serbia, which is a nightmare for all non-Serbs, whether they live in
Serbia proper or amid ethnic Serbs in neighboring states.

Equally unacceptable is the idea of an ethnically "pure" Croatia that
would deny the legitimate rights of Croatian Muslims and Serbs. We have
given President Tudjman a clear, unambiguous message, and we have given
it to him in Dayton as well as in Zagreb: If Croatia wants the benefits
of membership in the community of market democracies--if it wants to
enjoy international respectability--then it will have to ensure the non-
Croats in its population have the full rights and protections of
citizenship. Our support for Croatia is contingent on Croatia's
continuing support for the Bosnian Federation. Moreover, we will, along
with our allies, do everything we can to discourage the irredentist
fantasies of any leader in the Balkans. I stress this point because if
aggressive nationalism triumphs in the former Yugoslavia, it will not
only be devastating in that region--it will be ominous elsewhere as
well, especially to the north and to the east.

Throughout the former Soviet empire, dark forces similar to those that
have convulsed the Balkans are vying with those of freedom and tolerance
to fill the partial vacuum left by the collapse of communist rule. Just
to cite one example: The lethal syndrome we often call Balkanization
could just as well be termed Caucasusization. The peoples of Georgia,
Azerbaijan, and Armenia have suffered in much the same way as the people
of the Balkans. If there is to be a post-Cold War peace in Europe--and
not a cold peace, but a real one--it must be based on the principle of
multi-ethnic democracy.

The United States is one of the first and one of the greatest examples
of that principle. What' s more, the civic behavior and constitutional
structures associated with pluralism are conducive to regional peace and
international trade. Hence, it is in our interest that multi-ethnic
democracy ultimately prevails in Europe and elsewhere.

Can those values and institutions ever take hold in the former
Yugoslavia? I realize there is a lot of skepticism if not cynicism on
that point. Many assert, or at least imply, that the conflict among
Serbs, Croats, and Muslims is, quite simply, insoluble; that the region
is a permanent and hopeless quagmire--a word intended to have, in our
ears, cautionary echoes of Vietnam. Listen carefully and you will
sometimes hear in the current debate a hint that there is something in
the air or the water of the Balkans that dooms those wretched people to
slaughter each other. That's often the subliminal message, I believe, of
the cliche about "ancient hatreds."

Having lived in Yugoslavia for two years--and having seen how the South
Slavs could live harmoniously with each other--I find this view wrong-
headed in the extreme. There was nothing predestined about the horror
that has been raging in the Balkans for the past four years. It was
foolish, demagogic local politics, along with short-sighted
international diplomacy, that helped trigger, in the late 1980s and
early 1990s, the third Balkan war of this century.

By the same token, it will take sound, far-sighted diplomacy, including
plenty of American leadership and statesmanship, to head off a
resumption and escalation of that war now. That task will be hard enough
without encumbering ourselves with the excess baggage of historical, not
to mention ethnic, determinism.

Let' s remember, as we put our shoulder to the wheel in the Balkans,
that patience and persistence have paid off in other areas that were
long believed to be in the "too hard" category--the Middle East,
Northern Ireland, and South Africa. There's hope for the former
Yugoslavia, too.

Why is that hope realistic today when it seemed so forlorn only a few
months ago? President Clinton has pressed for the vigorous use of NATO
air power as a necessary component of peacemaking since the early days
of his Presidency. But it took 2 1/2 years for the pieces of the puzzle
to come together in a way that would permit that strategy to work.

The murderous Serb capture of Srebrenica in early July was a turning
point. It moved the international community to take a quantum leap in
what it was willing to do to protect the United Nations-designated safe
areas and to punish continuing Serb aggression. As Secretary
Christopher's urging, the London Conference in late July streamlined the
mechanism for backing diplomacy with real force: no more cumbersome
"dual key" arrangements; no more pinprick air strikes.

Seizing the moment, President Clinton undertook a new diplomatic
initiative. Secretary Christopher, Tony Lake, and Dick Holbrooke worked
the diplomatic front. Meanwhile, U.S. and NATO warplanes, no longer
grounded by the dual key, reinforced much more convincingly than before
the message that the time had come to stop the killing and start talking
about the terms for a lasting political settlement.

Since then, our negotiating team has made real progress. The parties
have accepted the continuation of Bosnia-Herzegovina as a single, multi-
ethnic state within its current, inter- nationally recognized borders.
Within that state, the parties have agreed that there will be two
constituent entities. That arrangement will, we believe, make it
possible for fratricidal passions to cool. The people of Bosnia need
time to recover from the disintegration that they've been through--and
to rediscover first the possibility, then the advantages, of
integration.

If--and it's still a big "if"--the Dayton talks succeed, and the three
heads of state agree on a peace settlement, then the tough work of
implementation will begin. There, too, the United States must lead. That
means we must be willing to send troops. Let me walk you through the
logic of why that is true.

After four years of brutal war, there is, to put it mildly, little trust
left among the different communities in Bosnia. Peace will require an
armed international presence to give the parties the confidence that
they need to carry out the settlement and to begin the long, hard work
of rebuilding  and living together again.

Only one organization can enforce a peace, and that is NATO. Both the
parties to the conflict and our NATO allies have made clear that they
are counting on significant U.S. participation in the implementation
force. Without our being there, the force as a whole won't be there, in
which case there will be no peace, and we will face the array of
consequences I have outlined here.

Let me stress, as President Clinton did again yesterday in meeting with
congressional leaders, two points: first, the implementation force will
be deployed only if the parties agree to a real peace, and second, the
force will be militarily formidable. It will be capable not only of
defending itself but also of compelling the parties to the peace
agreement to live up to the commitments embodied in the peace
settlement.

We believe that 12 months is a reasonable period of time for the
implementation force to accomplish its mission. While this will be a
NATO-led operation, other nations, not members of the alliance, will
also participate. So far, more than a dozen states--including Poland,
Hungary, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Ukraine, and Pakistan--have
expressed an interest in contributing.

So has Russia. Yesterday, Bill Perry and Pavel Grachev, his Russian
counterpart, met in Brussels to hammer out the details of a joint
operation.  It will represent the most concrete example of U.S.-Russian
military cooperation in the post-Cold War era. It is welcome in its own
right and also as a precedent for the future--a future in which we hope
that Russia and the U.S., and for that matter Russia and NATO, will find
numerous ways to work together in building an undivided Europe.

Let me conclude by expanding on that last point: The conflict in the
former Yugoslavia has gone on for far too long; it has been the cause of
far, far too much carnage, too much misery, too much frustration, too
much tension between us and our partners--old and new. All of us wish
that something like the Dayton talks could have taken place a year ago,
better yet two years ago--better still three or four. But we are where
we are, and we must make the best of what we have before us today.

And what we have today is an opportunity, far from certain and still
fraught with danger but, nonetheless, real, to turn Bosnia from a
synonym for past failures and an evil portent for the future into
something positive. Bosnia could yet turn out to be a demonstration,
however belated, of international resolve to meet the first major
challenge to the collective security of post-Cold War Europe.

Taking advantage of this opportunity and passing this test will require
steadfastness in our diplomatic efforts and in our military commitment.
But success will also require public and congressional support. And to
muster and sustain that support, we had better have the best possible
answers to the toughest possible questions--starting with yours right
now.

Thank you very much.

(###)

___________________________________________________________________

The State Department does not guarantee the authenticity of electronic
documents.  If you require the original version of a document in hard
copy, please contact the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Room 6805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.  Telephone: 202-647-5760.  State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced without consent.
Citation of source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce any
copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.
_____________________________________________________________ (###)
</doc><doc><f 151><ht><phrase>Speeches, Testimony, Statements</phrase></ht></f>
<f 101><ht><phrase>Central Europe</phrase></ht></f>
<f 201><ht><phrase>Yugoslavia (former)</phrase>, <phrase>Bosnia-Herzegovina</phrase>, <phrase>Serbia-Montenegro</phrase>,
<phrase>Croatia</phrase></ht></f>
<f 150><ht><phrase>State Department</phrase>, <phrase>United Nations</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase>,
<phrase>Development/Relief Aid</phrase>, <phrase>Democratization</phrase>, <phrase>Refugees/Population/Migration</phrase>,
<phrase>NATO</phrase>, <phrase>Military Affairs</phrase>, <phrase>Regional/Civil Unrest</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase></ht></f>
U.S. Department of State Dispatch Supplement
Volume 6, Number 5, December 1995
"Securing a Peace Agreement for Bosnia "
Published by the Bureau of Public Affairs
ARTICLE 3: pages 10-11

<h4><ti>The Federation: An Essential Building Block of Peace
in Bosnia and Herzegovina </ti></h4>
Secretary <f 100>Christopher </f>
Statement at the signing of the Agreement Implementing the Federation of
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio,
<date2>Nov 10, 1995 </date2>

Thank you. Let me say a few words about what has been achieved here
today.

The Federation is an essential building block of peace in Bosnia and
Herzegovina as a whole. In the peace agreement we are discussing, the
Federation will be one of Bosnia's two constituent parts. For a
settlement to endure, the Federation must be functioning and strong.

A year and a half ago, the United States helped to mediate the agreement
that created the Federation. That agreement saved countless lives by
ending the fighting between the Bosniac and Croat communities of Bosnia
and Herzegovina. Until today, however, many serious obstacles to
implementation remained, including the slow development of common
institutions, restrictions on the freedom of movement within the
Federation, and the continued division of Mostar. Today, the parties
have adopted a plan to resolve each of these problems.

As it is implemented, today's agreement will bring the Federation to
life. It will create common political and economic institutions that
will unite the two communities. It will be a model for inter-ethnic
cooperation and renewed trust in a country that is sorely in need of
both.

This agreement was negotiated under the auspices of the U.S. and German
delegations in Dayton. It certainly could not have been reached without
the determination of President Izetbegovic and of President Tudjman.

The Contact Group and the European Union were also our full partners.
Like the United States, the EU is dedicated to the idea that one
community can be forged from many disparate parts. We share the
conviction that Europe's post-Cold War peace must be based on the
principle of multi-ethnic democracy.

The agreement finally gives the Federation the authority to govern
effectively. The central government of Bosnia and Herzegovina will keep
the powers it needs to preserve the country's sovereignty, including
foreign affairs, trade, and monetary policy. It will transfer most of
its other responsibilities, including police, courts, tax collection,
health, and education to the Federation. The new structures the
agreement creates will replace all of the separate, local Croat and
Muslim authorities on Federation territory.

The agreement commits the Federation to respect the human rights of all
who live within it regardless of their ethnic background and to allow
them to move about its territory freely.Federation authorities will
develop and implement a comprehensive plan to permit refugees and
displaced persons to return to their homes.

The agreement provides for the sharing of revenues and a joint customs
administration. Internal customs check points, which had marred the
Federation before, will be removed. Finally, the parties have agreed to
the reunification of the city of Mostar under a single administration.

Of course, the true test of this agreement will lie in the way it is
carried out. The parties have agreed to report to the United States,
Germany, and the EU every two weeks on the progress they are making. We
will monitor that progress carefully, and we stand ready to help them
however we can.

It will not be easy. But today, we can celebrate another moment of hope
in this long, hard process of building the Federation. The parties have
understood that peace means more than the absence of war. It requires
practical cooperation and the mutual recognition of shared interests. In
the case of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the ugly alternative is starkly
symbolized by the shattered bridge that once united the city of Mostar.

It is certainly harder to build bridges than it is to tear them down.
And some people, of course, still believe that the conflict between
Muslims, Croats, and Serbs is insoluble. By making the Federation work,
the communities this agreement unites are showing that view to be
cynical and false. After all, until recently, the peoples of Bosnia-
Herzegovina lived together in peace. They deserve a chance to do so
again.

If the Federation can succeed as a multi-ethnic democracy, then so can
Bosnia-Herzegovina as a whole. A comprehensive peace remains our
fundamental challenge here in Dayton. The agreement we signed today is
an important first step and a sign that progress is possible when the
parties are determined to achieve it.

(###)


___________________________________________________________________

The State Department does not guarantee the authenticity of electronic
documents.  If you require the original version of a document in hard
copy, please contact the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Room 6805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.  Telephone: 202-647-5760.  State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced without consent.
Citation of source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce any
copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.
_____________________________________________________________ (###)
</doc><doc><f 151><ht><phrase>Speeches, Testimony, Statements</phrase></ht></f>
<f 101><ht><phrase>Central Europe</phrase></ht></f>
<f 201><ht><phrase>Yugoslavia (former)</phrase>, <phrase>Bosnia-Herzegovina</phrase>, <phrase>Serbia-Montenegro</phrase>,
<phrase>Croatia</phrase></ht></f>
<f 150><ht><phrase>State Department</phrase>, <phrase>United Nations</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase>,
<phrase>Development/Relief Aid</phrase>, <phrase>Democratization</phrase>, <phrase>Refugees/Population/Migration</phrase>,
<phrase>NATO</phrase>, <phrase>Military Affairs</phrase>, <phrase>Regional/Civil Unrest</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase></ht></f>
U.S. Department of State Dispatch Supplement
Volume 6, Number 5, December 1995
"Securing a Peace Agreement for Bosnia "
Published by the Bureau of Public Affairs
ARTICLE 4: pages 11-15

<h4><ti>Initialing of the Dayton Peace Agreement </ti></h4>
Following are remarks by Secretary <f 100>Christopher</f>; the Presidents of
Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina; Representatives of the
European Union; and the Contact Group and negotiating team members at
the signing ceremony, Wright-Patterson  Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio,
<date2>Nov 21, 1995</date2>.

<h5>Secretary Christopher</h5>. President Izetbegovic, President Milosevic,
President Tudjman, former Prime Minister Carl Bildt, Deputy Minister
Ivanov, General Shalikashvili, Deputy Secretary White, Senator Jim
Jefforrds, honored colleagues, guests, ladies and gentlemen: Three weeks
ago, the people of the United States welcomed all of us to Dayton and
urged that the three Presidents seize this last best chance for peace in
the former Yugoslavia.

Today, you will leave Dayton with a comprehensive agreement in hand. On
this Thanksgiving weekend, our joint work has made it possible for the
people of Bosnia to spend New Year's Day in peace for the first time in
four years. In a moment, the three Presidents will initial the
agreement. They have come a long way in the last 20 days, and their
initialing here today will signal their determination to stay on the
path of peace.

To the three presidents, I especially want to thank you for your hard
and skillful work over the last 20 days. You have cooperated splendidly
and given a great deal of attention to these tough problems.

I will witness the agreement on behalf of the United States, as will
Carl Bildt on behalf of the European Union and Deputy Minister Ivanov on
behalf of the Russian Federation. The agreement will also be witnessed
by the heads of the other Contact Group missions: Ambassador Jacques
Blot of France; Wolfgang Ischinger of Germany; Pauline Neville-Jones of
the United Kingdom.

Before we begin today, I want to pay a special tribute on behalf of the
United States and the other delegations here to the people of Dayton and
especially to the people of the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. With
very little time to prepare for this immensely complicated endeavor, the
people of the base provided us with marvelous support from the very
beginning. They created exactly the right atmosphere for success. Our
choice of Wright-Patterson Air Base here in Dayton turned out to be
better than we could possibly have expected, and we are grateful to all
of you.

Now let's proceed with the initialing of the agreement.

[All parties initial the agreement.]

<h5>Secretary Christopher</h5>. Ladies and gentlemen, we have reached a day that
many believed would never come. After three weeks of intensive
negotiations here in Dayton, the leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Croatia, and Serbia have agreed to end the war in the former Yugoslavia.
They have agreed that four years of destruction is enough. The time has
come to build peace with justice.

Today's agreement would not have come without the vision and leadership
of President Clinton. The diplomatic and military strategy that he
launched this summer has borne fruit. I'm gratified at the result and
determined that it should be put into effect.

We've come to this hopeful moment because the parties made the
fundamental choice that lasting peace can be achieved here, and they've
done the things that peace requires. We're here because the
international negotiating team successfully led the parties to this
agreement.

Assistant Secretary Holbrooke and his team took a hard and exacting task
and succeeded in a way that will be long-remembered and admired. I also
want to recognize the tireless efforts of somebody who couldn't be here
today, my friend and colleague, National Security Adviser Tony Lake, who
played a very important role all through this endeavor. The European
Union and the members of the Contact Group--Germany, France, the United
Kingdom and Russia--were with us at every critical step of this long
negotiating process.

No one thought that these negotiations would be easy, and all of us here
on the stage can testify to the fact that they were not. Nevertheless,
we got what we wanted--a comprehensive settlement, and one that must now
be implemented. The hard-won commitments that have been initialed today
address the wrenching and fundamental issues for which the war was
fought and which must be resolved if peace is to endure.

Today's agreement assures the continuity of the single state of Bosnia
and Herzegovina, with effective federal institutions, a single currency,
and full respect by its neighbors for its sovereignty. The city of
Sarajevo, which has gripped the attention of the world for such a long
time, will no longer be divided. It will be unified under the Federation
of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Checkpoints and closed bridges will no longer
divide the families of that city. All of Bosnia's people will have a
right under these agreements to move freely throughout the country.
Refugees and displaced persons will have a right to return to their
homes or to receive just compensation. Free and democratic elections
will be held next year.

The agreement contains strong human rights provisions. It confirms the
parties' obligations to cooperate fully in the investigation and
prosecution of war crimes. The agreement excludes indicted war criminals
from public office, or military office, in this new government.

The agreement requires the parties to withdraw their armed forces to
agreed positions, and it also provides for important confidence-building
measures among the parties. The parties have pledged to cooperate fully
with a NATO-led peace implementation force and to ensure the safety of
its personnel, and it sets the stage for a comprehensive program of
reconstruction so necessary in that beleaguered country.

Today's agreement certainly does not erase the stark memories of the
past nor does it guarantee that the fabric of the society of Bosnia will
be easily restored. But, still, it is a victory for all of us. It is a
victory for people of every heritage in the former Yugoslavia. It offers
tangible hope that there will be no more days of dodging bullets, no
more winters of freshly dug graves, no more years of isolation from the
outside world.

The agreement is a victory for all of those who believe in a multi-
ethnic democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Securing that goal will
require an immense effort in the days ahead. But that effort can now
begin now that the war that has torn the country apart has finally come
to an end.

The agreement was a victory for all those in the world who believe that
with determination a principled peace is possible. That conviction was
shared by three brave American diplomats who gave their lives in pursuit
of peace in Bosnia--Bob Frasure, Joe Kruzel, and Nelson Drew. We honor
their memories here today. I'm so pleased that their families are able
to be with us in the audience today.

But the victory achieved here will not be secure unless we all get to
work to ensure that the promise of this moment is realized. The parties
have put their solemn commitments on paper. In the coming days and
weeks, they'll have to put these commitments into practice, extending
them to every mayor, every soldier, every police officer on the
territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The United States and the international community will have to work hard
to help them succeed. It is profoundly in our self-interest to do so.

As we move forward, we must be both realistic and clear-eyed. We should
not assume that the people of the former Yugoslavia have resolved all of
their historic differences, but we should also remember that we have now
an opportunity to put behind them the horrors of the last four years.
The war was waged against civilians; it is they who are the real winners
today. The American people should be proud of their help in achieving
this result today. The war in Bosnia has been a challenge not only to
our interests but to our values. By our leadership here, we have upheld
both.

I trust that one day we'll look back at this time and say: Dayton was
the place where fundamental choices were made. This is the place where
the parties chose peace over war, dialogue over destruction, reason over
revenge; and this is where each of us has accepted the challenges to
make the choices made here meaningful and to put them into effect so
that they will endure.

Thank you very much. Now, I would like to introduce former Prime
Minister Carl Bildt.


<h5>Prime Minister Bildt</h5>. Presidents, Mr. Secretary: It is easy to start a
war but difficult to conclude a peace. What has been achieved here in
Dayton has been achieved not without difficulty, but the important thing
is that it has been achieved. Important as that achievement here of
Dayton is, we must understand that it represents but the beginning of
peace. We must all be deeply aware of the challenges and the
difficulties in the days and the weeks and the months and the years that
lie ahead of us. We'll meet in a short time in Paris to sign these
agreements, and after that we will meet in London to discuss how the
difficult parts of this comprehensive peace package can be properly and
fully implemented.

Because implementation is now the key to true peace in Bosnia and the
region--to take Bosnia to free and fair elections during the next year;
to let all of those who have been forced to flee to other countries or
to inside the region, or inside Bosnia, have the possibility of
returning to their homes, to disarm and demobilize; to start to rebuild
a ruined economy; to secure human rights for each and everyone; to build
that reconciliation that is the road to a future in harmony in Bosnia:
All of this will certainly be difficult. It will also require a massive
effort by the international community to both secure the immediate
military implementation and to help with the decisive political,
humanitarian, and economic implementation. It is those tasks that are
the true keys to the real possibilities of an enduring peace.

The 15 nations of the European Union have already outlined a broad and
comprehensive program of help and assistance and support for all of
Bosnia and for cooperation with all of the region. We are fully prepared
to make our contribution to making this peace work, but decisive will,
of course, be the extent to which all parties themselves are fully
prepared to continue along the path set here in Dayton and to be
confirmed in Paris and London.

I wish to pay tribute to all those that have made the agreement here
possible. First and foremost, of course, to the three presidents--
President Izetbegovic, President Milosevic, and President Tudjman--and
their entire delegations. Without your common determination, without
your statesmanship, nothing would have succeeded.

Also to the American team, so ably led by Secretary Christopher and
Assistant Secretary Holbrooke. Dick, if I might say that--on an official
occasion like this--you did a great job. You deserve a lot of credit for
it. You will be given that officially, but, here, a more personal
tribute from us who have been working with you and with your entire
impressive and very nice team as well; to the colleagues in the Contact
Group, to all the people here at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
Packey's Sports Bar--never to be forgotten--and to all of the people in
Dayton.

War is a terrible thing. Peace is difficult to build. Let the memories
of all of the horrors of war be the force that takes us through the
challenges of peace during the weeks, the months, the days of peace that
are now ahead of us.


<h5>Deputy Foreign Minister <f 100>Ivanov </f></h5>[through interpreter, delayed audio of
interpretation].   achieve solutions corresponding to the present
realities and to the interests of peace.

These decisions, however, will become historic only when they are
implemented. The parties have taken upon themselves obligations and must
strictly abide by them.

Russia intends to continue to actively contribute to the peace process
in Bosnia; in particular, with regard to the implementation of civilian
aspects of the settlement. The decision of Russia's participation in
fulfilling the military aspects of this agreement will be made by us
later and will take into account all the existing conditions. In this
regard, Russia reserves its position in regards to Annex 11(b), which
deals with issues of military implementation.

It is important that simultaneously with the adoption of the peace
agreements, the issue of sanctions is being settled. This will
contribute to stabilization in this region. The agreements have been
difficult to achieve. They don't answer all the questions, but these are
the agreements which we could reach today. It will be even more
difficult to achieve these agreements.

Russia, together with other members of the Contact Group, is ready to do
everything necessary for the earliest achievement of the comprehensive
peaceful settlement of Bosnia. Just now President Yeltsin made an
address on Russian TV where he stressed that Russia would like to see
Bosnia become a democratic, prosperous state, where all the peoples
inhabiting it could live in peace. We shall actively contribute toward
this goal.

In conclusion, on behalf of the Russian delegation, I would like to
express deep appreciation to the U.S. Administration for its hospitality
and excellent working conditions. In particular, we express our
appreciation to you Mr. Secretary of State for your personal
contribution to the achievement of the agreement. Thank you.


<h5>President <f 100>Milosevic</h5></f>. Presidents, Mr. Christopher, ladies and gentlemen:
Due to the successful conclusion of the negotiations in Dayton, this day
will enter into the history as the date of the end of the war in the
area of the former Yugoslavia. In a civil war like this one in Bosnia
there are no winners, and there could be no winners; all are losers.
Only peace is a victory.

The solutions achieved here include painful concessions by all sides.
However, without such concessions, it would be impossible to succeed
here, and peace would be impossible. Therefore, no party should regret
the concessions which were given. Starting with the present day, the war
in Bosnia should be left to the past, while peace and future
cooperation, understanding and economic and cultural development should
enter the scene of the area. I would like to avail myself of this
opportunity to emphasize that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia shall
continue with the same persistence with which it struggled for peace and
equality of peoples in the area during the past years to promote
cooperation and development on equal basis in the best interests of all
countries and people in the region.

Mr. Christopher, I would like to express my gratitude to the people and
the Government of the United States of America--the President, the
American negotiating team headed by Richard Holbrooke, and to you,
personally, for the great efforts the United States invested in the
achievement of peace, expressing at the same time the expectation that
the United States shall take part in the implementation of the agreement
in the same way as they contributed to the achievement of the agreement.

I thank the representatives of the Russian Federation and the
representatives of the European Union for their constructive
cooperation. I would like to pay special tribute to the people of
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and the citizens of Dayton for their
cordial hospitality and moral support, which they gave to the success of
the proximity talks. Thank you.


<h5>President <f 100>Izetbegovic</f></h5>. Presidents, Secretary Christopher, Ambassador
Holbrooke, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends: Today is a historic day
for Bosnia and for the rest of the world. For Bosnia because the war, we
hope, will be replaced by peace and for the rest of the world because
the suffering of Bosnia and everything that followed it has been a moral
question of the first rate--and moral questions concern every man and
every woman in the world.

The documents that we have just signed guarantee the sovereignty and
integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina and development of an open society
based on tolerance and freedom. This we consider as the main and
greatest result of the just-completed negotiations. We are thoroughly
committed to honor and fulfill the obligations stemming from them. We
plead to America, Europe, the Islamic world, and all the countries in
the world to support us in this important and noble task.

This support and help are especially expected from the United States of
America--from the President of the United States, from the Congress, and
from the American people. Don't hesitate, since by doing so you help to
relieve the suffering of many people and to quell the fire of a
dangerous spot that presents a constant threat to the region and to the
world.

And to my people I say, this may not be a just peace, but it is more
just than a continuation of war. In the situation as it is and in the
world as it is, a better peace could not have been achieved.

God is our witness that we have done everything in our power so that the
extent of injustice for our people and our country would be decreased.


<h5>President <f 100>Tudjman</f></h5>. Mr. Secretary of State, Mr. Co-Chairman of these
peace talks, distinguished presidents, ladies and gentlemen: Let me
express my satisfaction with the fact that we have finally reached a
solution promising lasting peace in Bosnia--that is, in the former
Yugoslavia--after five years of crisis, four years of war, and more than
three years of intensive negotiations. The dramatic character of these
negotiations in which the solution has been reached when everyone
thought that the negotiations had failed also symbolizes all the
complexity and difficulty of this crisis--certainly, the major crisis to
affect Europe after World War II.

The Republic of Croatia has done everything in order to avoid war, and,
when it unfortunately did break out, we have spared no effort in seeking
a peaceful settlement. At this conference, we have also contributed in
every possible respect to achieve a solution.

Thanks to the efforts of the organizers and host, as well as the other
members of the Contact Group, we have reached an agreement which we
believe will bring about the complete cessation of war in Bosnia and
Herzegovina and of the crisis in the former Yugoslavia.

I would like to emphasize my conviction that this agreement will result
in further strengthening of the federation between the Croats and
Bosniacs in accordance with the Washington agreement. In particular, we
look forward to the peaceful integration of the remaining occupied areas
of Croatia and to complete normalization of relations among all the
states emerged from the former Yugoslavia and their people on the ground
on mutual recognition. I believe that the implementation of these
agreements will result in lasting peace and create conditions necessary
for the establishment of a new international order in this part of the
world.

Aware of the complexity of the situations in my letter to President
Clinton a few years ago, I expressed the opinion that only respectable
forces such as NATO would have political and military strength needed
for the implementation of peace. Therefore, I strongly support the
expected arrival of NATO and U.S. forces. And I assure you that the
Republic of Croatia will spare no effort to cooperate with them and
provide them with all necessary assistance in fulfilling their noble
task.

For all these reasons, let me express my gratitude to the United States
of America--President Clinton and Vice President Gore--and all member
states of the Contact Group. In particular, I would stress your role,
dear Mr. Christopher, and that of your co-workers, headed by Mr.
Holbrooke, in organizing these negotiations. Thank you for your efforts,
best evidenced by the several last working nights which, as we see, have
resulted in this historic agreement. Thank you.

<h5>Assistant Secretary <f 100>Holbrooke</f></h5>. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Fourteen weeks
ago--it seems like 14 years--President Clinton launched five of us on a
mission to turn Bosnia from war toward peace. Within a week, we had
suffered the greatest imaginable tragedy--the loss of three cherished
colleagues and friends on Mt. Igman. But they are with us in spirit
today, and we would not be here today without their efforts and their
contribution.

The agreements and territorial arrangements initialed today are a huge
step forward, the biggest by far since the war began. But ahead lies an
equally daunting task: implementation. On every page of the many
complicated documents and annexes initialed here today lie challenges to
both sides to set aside their enmities, their differences, which are
still raw with open wounds. They must work together.

On paper, we have peace. To make it work is our next and our greatest
challenge. A challenge is, of course, also an opportunity. The Contact
Group and many other nations will be there to help, but the peoples of
Bosnia must do it for themselves.

On a personal note, I want to thank my colleagues on our traveling team:
Gen. Wes Clark, Roberts Owen, Chris Hill, Gen. Don Kerrick, Jim Pardew,
Rosemary Pauli-Gikas, and the entire support team for their putting up
with impossible hours, long separations from their family, and, if I
understand what I read in the papers correctly, an occasionally
impossible boss. Also, the augmented team in Dayton and the best support
and guidance from Washington throughout--from Vice President Gore; from
Warren Christopher, my colleague and friend for 19 years; from Bill
Perry; Tony Lake, a colleague and friend for over 30 years; Madeleine
Albright; John Shalikashvili; and, of course, the incredible support we
have gotten from the people of Dayton and, above all, from the Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, headed by General Viccellio and his team.

It's been a long and winding road for all of us, and it's not over yet--
far from it. The immense difficulties and the roller-coaster ride we
have lived through in Dayton in the last 21 days, and especially in the
last few days, only serves to remind us how much work lies ahead. Let us
pledge, therefore, that this day in Dayton be long-remembered as the day
in which Bosnia and its neighbors turned from war to peace. Thank you.

I'd like to ask Jacques Blot, Pauline Neville-Jones, and Wolfgang
Ischinger--from France, the United Kingdom, and the Federal Republic of
Germany--if they would join me, and I'd like to ask each of them to say
a few words. Come up together, please.

<h5>Ambassador <f 100>Ischinger</f></h5>. Presidents, Mr. Secretary: On behalf of the German
Government, it is my privilege to congratulate the three presidents and
their delegations and all of the people in Bosnia and Herzegovina on the
peace agreement reached today.

After so many months of war and suffering, we move today from war to
peace. This is a moment of joy and great relief for all of us. In
Germany, hundreds of thousands of refugees from Bosnia are sharing this
moment of joy with us today.

My government expresses its firm support for this comprehensive
agreement. We will actively participate in the complex tasks of
implementation which lie ahead. In particular, we are proposing to
launch the arms control negotiations provided for in this agreement with
a conference to be held in Bonn in the coming weeks.

Today's success can be sealed only if the entire peace package will be
faithfully implemented by all of the parties in the weeks and months
ahead. That is our common challenge.

Today's success is also a success for the Contact Group, which has been
able to make significant contributions to the agreement which has just
been initialed. My special tribute goes to Carl Bildt, the negotiator of
the European Union. Our thanks go to our American hosts--to you, Mr.
Secretary, to Dick Holbrooke, to all the members of his very able team,
and to the people of Dayton, Ohio, for the gracious hospitality which we
have been offered here in Dayton for three full weeks. Thank you very
much.

<h5>Ambassador <f 100>Blot </f></h5>[through interpreter]. Presidents, Mr. Secretary of
State: With our permission, as a small contribution, I would like to
speak French.

With the contribution of all the people in Bosnia and Herzegovina who
have suffered so much, France is very satisfied to see that the
agreements concluded today [inaudible] have gone toward peace. We would
like to pay tribute and the courage to all those who have chosen the--.
. . . [audio difficulties/interpretation not broadcast.]

[Interpretation, continuing]... We would like to hail your personal
efforts, Mr. Presidents. Since the beginning of the war, France has
spared no effort to help Bosnia and Herzegovina to find peace again.
With other European countries, France has undertaken a number of
actions. France participated in the actions of the Contact Group. Here,
Mr. Secretary, in Dayton, France has given its support.   [audio
difficulties/inaudible]

[Interpretation continuing ... by their signature in the conference to
which they are invited by the President of France in December. It is
important that each community understands that without cooperation,
nothing will be realized. Very quickly it will be also necessary to take
action to help ensure that each community, especially in Sarajevo, will
be assured that its security has become real.

France will bring its contribution to the implementation of the
agreements reached in Dayton and to be signed in Paris in the military
field, where its forces will participate at the NATO operations or with
its partners at the European Union for the civilian aspects of it. And
France [audio difficulties] to do everything that will ensure the
identity of a united political, cultural, democratic Bosnia and
Herzegovina which will, like all the other states of the former
Yugoslavia, find its place in Europe.

<h5>Ms. Pauline Neville-Jones</h5>. Mr. Secretary, Presidents, ladies and
gentlemen: I'd like to add my thanks to those of the previous speakers
for the generous hospitality shown us here by the base commander and
also by the people of Dayton. We have been made to feel very welcome for
the important work that we've carried out here.

I would also like to congratulate the presidents for having signed and
the United States Administration for the energy and the determination
that has been shown in leading these talks to success. Everybody who's
been involved in them knows that they were not easy.

I think this positive outcome demonstrates the importance of the Contact
Group process. Dick (Holbrooke), with whom other members of the Contact
Group have been working closely for a long time, I'd like to thank you
personally for the contribution that you have made. I think everybody
knows how important it's been. It's been a privilege, Mr. Secretary, to
work with your colleague.

This agreement is a landmark in the history of Bosnia, and if it is
implemented, it will open the way to a prosperous and secure future for
the people of that country in both entities. It is a huge opportunity,
but it does depend upon implementation. These agreements are not self-
implementing.

We look to the Bosnian parties to comply with their obligations. They
know that, for they have undertaken to cooperate with the international
community actively. We welcome that, and we want to help because the
opportunity there is to restore this country to normality and to set it
on a new path. It is at the end of the day only the people of Bosnia who
can achieve that outcome.

I'd like to say on behalf of the United Kingdom that we will play a full
part in that process. We shall play, for one thing, a central role in
the NATO-led international implementation force that I hope will shortly
be able to deploy. We, as you know, already have troops in Bosnia and
Herzegovina. We have, indeed, suffered loss of life. We want to make
good on that investment with the help of the people of Bosnia.

My government will also contribute to reconstruction and to development.
We want to develop a direct and dynamic relationship between Bosnia and
the European Union, and we will do that with our European partners.

I'd just like to say in conclusion that the British Government will host
a conference at ministerial level in London, probably on 8-9 December,
concerned with the implementation of the peace settlement that has been
initialed today. We shall do that in the presence of Bosnian
representatives. The object will be to get agreement in the
international community on the future program for implementation of the
civilian aspects of the Dayton Agreement.

Mr. Secretary, Presidents, ladies and gentlemen: I just want to say one
other thing, which is that, for me personally, this has been a very
great privilege to have been able to make some small contribution to the
conclusion of this important settlement that was initialed today. Thank
you.

<h5>Assistant Secretary <f 100>Holbrooke</f></h5>. Mr. Secretary, in your name and on behalf
of the President of the United States, the people of Dayton and this air
base, we're about to close the proceedings. Before we do, I wonder if we
could ask the three presidents to stand up and for us to join them
standing and express our appreciation for what they've done in Dayton
and our hopes for the future.

<h5>Secretary <f 100>Christopher</f></h5>. Ladies and gentlemen, the next step in this
important process will be a peace conference to be held in Paris some
time in mid-December. That will be an important formal step in this
process that was launched here today by the initialing of these
agreements.

We appreciate all of your attendance here today to help us mark this
important occasion. Thank you very much for coming, and now the meeting
is adjourned.

(###)


___________________________________________________________________

The State Department does not guarantee the authenticity of electronic
documents.  If you require the original version of a document in hard
copy, please contact the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Room 6805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.  Telephone: 202-647-5760.  State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced without consent.
Citation of source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce any
copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.
_____________________________________________________________ (###)
</doc><doc><f 151><ht><phrase>Speeches, Testimony, Statements</phrase></ht></f>
<f 101><ht><phrase>Central Europe</phrase></ht></f>
<f 201><ht><phrase>Yugoslavia (former)</phrase>, <phrase>Bosnia-Herzegovina</phrase>, <phrase>Serbia-Montenegro</phrase>,
<phrase>Croatia</phrase></ht></f>
<f 150><ht><phrase>State Department</phrase>, <phrase>United Nations</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase>,
<phrase>Development/Relief Aid</phrase>, <phrase>Democratization</phrase>, <phrase>Refugees/Population/Migration</phrase>,
<phrase>NATO</phrase>, <phrase>Military Affairs</phrase>, <phrase>Regional/Civil Unrest</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase></ht></f>
U.S. Department of State Dispatch Supplement
Volume 6, Number 5, December 1995
"Securing a Peace Agreement for Bosnia "
Published by the Bureau of Public Affairs
ARTICLE 5: pages 16-17

<h4><ti>The Dayton Peace Agreement: Building Peace With Justice
Secretary Christopher </ti></h4>
Remarks at the initialing of the Dayton Peace Agreement, Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio, <date2>Nov 21, 1995 </date2>

President Izetbegovic, President Milosevic, President Tudjman, Mr.
Bildt, Deputy Minister Ivanov, General Shalikashvili, Deputy Secretary
White, honored colleagues and guests: We have reached a day many
believed would never come. After three weeks of intensive negotiations
in Dayton, the leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia
have agreed to end the war in the former Yugoslavia. They have agreed
that four years of destruction is enough. The time has come to build
peace with justice.

Today's agreement would not have come without the vision and leadership
of President Clinton. The diplomatic and military strategy that he
launched this summer has borne fruit. I am gratified at the result and
determined to see that it is implemented.

We have come to this hopeful moment because the parties made the
fundamental choices that lasting peace will require. And we are here
because our international negotiating team successfully led the parties
to agreement. Assistant Secretary Holbrooke and his team took on a hard,
exhausting task and succeeded in a way that will long be remembered and
admired. I also want to recognize the tireless efforts of my friend and
colleague, National Security Adviser Tony Lake. The European Union and
the members of the Contact Group--Germany, France, the United Kingdom,
and Russia--were with us every critical step of the way.

No one thought these negotiations would be easy, and all of us on this
stage can tell you they were not. What we wanted was a comprehensive
settlement, and that is what we have achieved. The hard-won commitments
we will initial today address the wrenching and fundamental issues over
which the war was fought.

Today's agreement assures the continuity of a single state of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, with effective federal institutions, a single currency, and
full respect by its neighbors for its sovereignty. The city of Sarajevo,
which has gripped the world's attention for the last four years, will no
longer be divided. It will be reunified under the Federation of Bosnia
and Herzegovina. Checkpoints and closed bridges will no longer divide
its families. All Bosnia's people will have the right to move freely
throughout the country. Refugees and displaced persons will have the
right to return home or to obtain just compensation. Free and democratic
elections will be held next year

The agreement contains strong human rights protections. It confirms the
parties' obligation to cooperate fully in the investigation and
prosecution of war crimes. It excludes indicted war criminals from
military or government office.

The agreement requires the parties to withdraw their forces to agreed
positions and provides for important confidence-building measures among
them. The parties have pledged to cooperate fully with a NATO-led peace
implementation force and to ensure the safety of its personnel. And it
sets the stage for a comprehensive program of economic reconstruction.

Today's agreement certainly does not erase memories of what has come
before or guarantee that the fabric of Bosnia's society will easily be
restored. But still, it is a victory for us all. The agreement is a
victory for people of every heritage in the former Yugoslavia. It offers
tangible hope that there will be no more days of dodging bullets, no
more winters of freshly dug graves, and no more years of isolation from
the outside world.

The agreement is a victory for all those who believe in a multi-ethnic
democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Securing that goal will require an
immense effort in the days ahead. But that effort can now begin as the
war that has torn Bosnia apart finally comes to an end.

The agreement is a victory for all those in the world who believed that
with determination, a principled peace is possible. That conviction was
shared by the three brave American diplomats who gave their lives in
pursuit of peace in Bosnia--Bob Frasure, Joe Kruzel, and Nelson Drew. We
honor their memories. I am so pleased that their families are with us
today.

But this victory will not be secure unless we all get to work to ensure
that the promise of this moment is realized. The parties have put a
solemn set of commitments on paper. In the coming days and weeks, they
will have to put them into practice--extending them to every mayor,
every soldier, every police officer in their territory. The United
States and the international community will continue to help them
succeed. It is profoundly in our self-interest to do so.

As we move forward, we must be realistic and clear-eyed. We should not
assume that the people of the former Yugoslavia have resolved all their
differences. But we should also remember that we can now begin to leave
behind the horrors of the last four years. This war was waged against
civilians; it is they who are the real winners today. The American
people should be proud of that achievement. The war in Bosnia has been a
challenge to our interests and our values. By our leadership here, we
have upheld both.

I trust that one day, people will  look back on Dayton and say: This is
the place where the fundamental choices were made; this is where the
parties chose peace over war, dialogue over  destruction, and reason
over revenge; this is where each of us accepted the challenge to make
those choices meaningful and to make them endure. Thank you.


[Box Item]

<h5>Culmination of Intense Diplomatic Negotiations </h5>
Remarks to the press by Secretary Christopher following the initialing
of the Dayton Peace Agreement, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton,
Ohio, November 21, 1995.

Good afternoon again. Today's event, obviously, marks the culmination of
a diplomatic process that has gone on for several weeks--indeed, several
months. I marked the beginning of it about the time of the London
Conference.

We pursued the diplomatic initiative very aggressively after that. Tony
Lake's trip to the capitals of Europe, followed by NATO action to
determine that there would be decisive air action if there were further
attacks on safe areas; the attack on Sarajevo responded to by a very
strong air campaign; shuttle diplomacy then commenced by Ambassador
Holbrooke and the American team, aided by the Contact Group and others.
That is what has brought us to today.

Throughout this period, we followed a series of principles, and I think
you will find them reflected in the agreement--throughout the agreement-
-when you have an opportunity to study it more fully.

First, there should be a single Bosnian state, with a single
international personality, and a commitment to its internationally
recognized borders; a federal government representing all the people of
Bosnia with foreign policy powers and other national government powers;
democratic elections to be held next year; and strong guarantees of
human rights.

Finally, let me say that diplomacy is about more than technicalities and
paper. Diplomacy is about people. We ought to concentrate on the fact
that there will be a different kind of winter in Sarajevo this winter--a
different kind of winter in Bosnia. The starving and suffering, the
hunger, the cold, the freezing--those, we hope, are things of the past.
This agreement determines that that can be made a thing of the past.

There will be considerable national debate commencing in the United
States. It is important that the people of America remember the stark,
terrible images of the last four years of people dying and freezing,
people hungry, people in camps. Those are the things that we should have
in our mind when we engage on this national debate which will determine
whether the United States continues to play its leadership role in the
world.

[End Box Item]


(###)

___________________________________________________________________

The State Department does not guarantee the authenticity of electronic
documents.  If you require the original version of a document in hard
copy, please contact the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Room 6805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.  Telephone: 202-647-5760.  State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced without consent.
Citation of source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce any
copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.
_____________________________________________________________ (###)
</doc><doc><f 151><ht><phrase>Speeches, Testimony, Statements</phrase></ht></f>
<f 101><ht><phrase>Central Europe</phrase></ht></f>
<f 201><ht><phrase>Yugoslavia (former)</phrase>, <phrase>Bosnia-Herzegovina</phrase>, <phrase>Serbia-Montenegro</phrase>,
<phrase>Croatia</phrase></ht></f>
<f 150><ht><phrase>State Department</phrase>, <phrase>United Nations</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase>,
<phrase>Development/Relief Aid</phrase>, <phrase>Democratization</phrase>, <phrase>Refugees/Population/Migration</phrase>,
<phrase>NATO</phrase>, <phrase>Military Affairs</phrase>, <phrase>Regional/Civil Unrest</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase></ht></f>
U.S. Department of State Dispatch Supplement
Volume 6, Number 5, December 1995
"Securing a Peace Agreement for Bosnia "
Published by the Bureau of Public Affairs

ARTICLE 6: page 18

<h4><ti>Agreement Reached on Peace In the Balkans </ti></h4>
President <f 100>Clinton </f>
Statement in the White House Rose Garden, Washington, DC, <date2>Nov 21, 1995 </date2>

Good morning. About an hour ago, I spoke with Secretary Christopher in
Dayton, Ohio. He informed me that the Presidents
of Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia have reached a peace agreement to end the
war in Bosnia--to end the worst conflict in Europe since World War II.

After nearly four years of 250,000 people killed, 2 million refugees,
and atrocities that have appalled people all over the world, the people
of Bosnia finally have a chance to turn from the horror of war to the
promise of peace.

The Presidents of Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia have made a historic and
heroic choice. They have heeded the will of their people. Whatever their
ethnic group, the overwhelming majority of Bosnia citizens and the
citizens of Croatia and Serbia want the same thing. They want to stop
the slaughter; they want to put an end to the violence and war; they
want to give their children and their grandchildren a chance to lead a
normal life. Today, thank God, the voices of those people have been
heard.

I want to congratulate America's negotiating team, led by Secretary
Christopher and Ambassador Holbrooke, for their extraordinary service.
Their determination, along with that of our European and Russian
partners, along with NATO's resolve, brought the parties to the
negotiating table. Then their single-minded pursuit of peace in Dayton
made today's agreement a possibility and, eventually, a reality.

The people of Bosnia, the American people, indeed, people throughout the
world should be very thankful for this event today. The peace plan
agreed to would preserve Bosnia as a single state within its present
borders and with international recognition. The state will be made up of
two parts--the Bosnian Croat Federation and the Bosnian Serb Republic--
with a fair distribution of land between the two. The capital city of
Sarajevo will remain united.

There will be an effective central government, including a national
parliament; a presidency; and a constitutional court, with
responsibility for foreign policy, foreign trade, monetary policy,
citizenship, immigration, and other important functions.

The presidency and the parliament will be chosen through free democratic
elections, held under international supervision. Refugees will be
allowed to return to their homes, people will be able to move freely
throughout Bosnia, and the human rights of every Bosnian citizen will be
monitored by an independent commission and an internationally trained
civilian police. Those individuals charged with war crimes will be
excluded from political life.

Now that the parties to the war have made a serious commitment to peace,
we must help them to make it work. All the parties have asked for a
strong international force to supervise the separation of forces and to
give them confidence that each side will live up to their agreements.
Only NATO can do that job, and the United States as NATO's leader must
play an essential role in this mission. Without us, the hard-won peace
would be lost, the war would resume, the slaughter of innocents would
begin again--and the conflict that already has claimed so many people
could spread like poison throughout the entire region.

We are at a decisive moment. The parties have chosen peace. America must
choose peace as well. Now that a detailed settlement has been reached,
NATO will rapidly complete its planning for the implementation force
known as IFOR. The plan soon will be submitted to me for review and for
approval. As of now, we expect that about one-third of IFOR's force will
be American. The rest will come from our NATO partners and from other
nations throughout the world.

At the same time, once the agreement is signed, the international
community will initiate a parallel program to provide humanitarian
relief, to begin the job of rebuilding, to help the thousands of
refugees return to their homes, to monitor free elections--in short, to
help the Bosnian people create the conditions of lasting peace.

The NATO military mission will be clear and limited. Our troops will
take their orders only from the American general who commands NATO. They
will have authority to meet any threat to their safety or any violation
of the peace agreement with immediate and decisive force. And there will
be a reasonable timetable for their withdrawal.

I am satisfied that the NATO implementation plan is clear, limited, and
achievable and that the risks to our troops are minimized. I will
promptly consult with Congress when  I receive this plan, and, if I am
fully satisfied with it when I see it in its final form, I will ask
Congress to support American participation.

The central fact for us as Americans is this: Our leadership made this
peace agreement possible and helped to bring an end to the senseless
slaughter of so many innocent people that our fellow citizens had to
watch night after night after night for four long years on their
television screens. Now American leadership--together with our allies--
is needed to make this peace real and enduring. Our values, our
interests, and our leadership all over the world are at stake.

I ask all Americans during this Thanksgiving week to take some time to
say a simple prayer of thanksgiving that this peace has been reached,
that our nation was able to play an important role in stopping the
suffering and the slaughter. May God bless the peace and the United
States.

(###)


___________________________________________________________________

The State Department does not guarantee the authenticity of electronic
documents.  If you require the original version of a document in hard
copy, please contact the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Room 6805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.  Telephone: 202-647-5760.  State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced without consent.
Citation of source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce any
copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.
_____________________________________________________________ (###)
</doc><doc><f 151><ht><phrase>Speeches, Testimony, Statements</phrase></ht></f>
<f 101><ht><phrase>Central Europe</phrase></ht></f>
<f 201><ht><phrase>Yugoslavia (former)</phrase>, <phrase>Bosnia-Herzegovina</phrase>, <phrase>Serbia-Montenegro</phrase>,
<phrase>Croatia</phrase></ht></f>
<f 150><ht><phrase>State Department</phrase>, <phrase>United Nations</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase>,
<phrase>Development/Relief Aid</phrase>, <phrase>Democratization</phrase>, <phrase>Refugees/Population/Migration</phrase>,
<phrase>NATO</phrase>, <phrase>Military Affairs</phrase>, <phrase>Regional/Civil Unrest</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase></ht></f>
U.S. Department of State Dispatch Supplement
Volume 6, Number 5, December 1995
"Securing a Peace Agreement for Bosnia "
Published by the Bureau of Public Affairs

ARTICLE 7: pages 19-21

<h4><ti>U.S. Support for Implementing  The Bosnian Peace Agreement</ti></h4>
President <f 100>Clinton </f>
Address to the nation, Washington, DC, Nov 27, 1995

Good evening. Last week, the warring factions in Bosnia reached a peace
agreement as a result of our efforts in Dayton, Ohio, and the support of
our European and Russian partners. Tonight, I want to speak with you
about implementing   the Bosnian peace agreement and why our values and
interests as Americans require that we participate.

Let me say at the outset that America's role will not be about fighting
a war; it will be about helping the people of Bosnia to secure their own
peace agreement. Our mission   will be limited, focused, and under the
command of an American general.

In fulfilling this mission, we will have the chance to help stop the
killing of innocent civilians, especially children, and, at the same
time, to bring stability to Central Europe, a region of the world that
is vital to our national interests. It is the right thing to do.

From our birth, America has always been more than just a place. America
has embodied an idea that has become the ideal for billions of people
throughout the world. Our founders said it best: America is about life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

In this century especially, America has done more than simply stand for
these ideals. We have acted on them and sacrificed for them. Our people
fought two world wars so that freedom could triumph over tyranny. After
World War I, we pulled back from the world, leaving a vacuum that was
filled by the forces of hatred. After World War II, we continued to lead
the world. We made the commitments that kept the peace, that helped to
spread democracy, that created unparalleled prosperity, and that brought
victory in the Cold War.

Today, because of our dedication, America's ideals--liberty, democracy,
and peace--are more and more the aspirations of people everywhere in the
world. It is the power of our ideas--even more than our size, our
wealth, and our military might--that makes America a uniquely trusted
nation.

With the Cold War over, some people now question the need for our
continued active leadership in the world. They believe that, much like
after World War I, America can now step back from the responsibilities
of leadership. They argue that to be secure, we need only to keep our
own borders safe and that the time has come now to leave to others the
hard work of leadership beyond our borders; I strongly disagree.

As the Cold War gives way to the global village, our leadership is
needed more than ever, because problems that start beyond our borders
can quickly become problems within them. We are all vulnerable to the
organized forces   of intolerance and destruction; terrorism; ethnic,
religious, and regional rivalries; the spread of organized crime;
weapons of mass destruction; and drug trafficking. Just as surely as
fascism and communism, these forces also threaten freedom and democracy,
peace and prosperity. And they, too, demand American leadership.

Nowhere has the argument for our leadership been more clearly justified
than in the struggle to stop or prevent war and civil violence. From
Iraq to Haiti, from South Africa to Korea, from the Middle East to
Northern Ireland,   we have stood up for peace and freedom because it is
in our interest to do so, and because it is the right thing to do.

Now, that doesn't mean we can solve every problem. My duty as President
is to match the demands for American leadership to our strategic
interest and to our ability to make a difference. America cannot and
must not be the world's policeman. We cannot stop all war for all time,
but we can stop some wars. We cannot save all women and all children,
but we can save many of them. We can't do everything, but we must do
what we can.

There are times and places where our leadership can mean the difference
between peace and war and where we can defend our fundamental values as
a people and serve our most basic, strategic interests. My fellow
Americans, in this new era there are still times when America and
America alone can and should make the difference for peace. The terrible
war in Bosnia is such a case. Nowhere today is the need for American
leadership more stark or more immediate than in Bosnia.

For nearly four years, a terrible war has torn Bosnia apart. Horrors we
prayed had been banished from Europe forever have been seared into our
minds again. Skeletal prisoners caged behind barbed-wire fences; women
and girls raped as a tool of war; defenseless men and boys shot down
into mass graves, evoking visions of World War II concentration camps;
and endless lines of refugees marching toward a future of despair.

When I took office, some were urging immediate intervention in the
conflict. I decided that American ground troops should not fight a war
in Bosnia because the United States could not force peace on Bosnia's
warring ethnic groups--the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims. Instead, America
has worked with our European allies in searching for peace, stopping the
war from spreading, and easing the suffering of the Bosnian people.

We imposed tough economic sanctions on Serbia. We used our air power to
conduct the longest humanitarian airlift in history and to enforce a no-
fly zone that took the war out of   the skies. We helped to make peace
between two of the three warring parties--the Muslims and the Croats.
But as the months of war turned into years, it became clear that Europe
alone could not end the conflict.

This summer, Bosnian Serb shelling once again turned Bosnia's play-
grounds and marketplaces into killing fields. In response, the United
States led NATO's heavy and continuous air strikes, many of them flown
by skilled and brave American pilots. Those air strikes--together with
the renewed determination of our European partners and the Bosnian and
Croat gains on the battlefield--convinced the Serbs, finally, to start
thinking about making peace.

At the same time, the United States initiated an intensive diplomatic
effort that forged a Bosnia-wide cease-fire and got the parties to agree
to the basic principles of peace. Three dedicated American diplomats--
Bob Frasure, Joe Kruzel, and Nelson Drew--lost their lives in that
effort. Tonight, we remember their sacrifice and that of their families.
And we will never forget their exceptional service to our nation.

Finally, just three weeks ago, the Muslims, Croats, and Serbs came to
Dayton, Ohio, in America's heartland, to negotiate a settlement. There,
exhausted by war, they made a commitment to peace. They agreed to put
down their guns; to preserve Bosnia as a single state; to investigate
and prosecute war criminals; to protect the human rights of all
citizens; to try to build a peaceful, democratic future. And they asked
for America's help as they implement this peace agreement.

America has a responsibility to answer that request; to help to turn
this moment of hope into an enduring reality. To do that, troops from
our country and around the world would go into Bosnia to give them the
confidence and support they need to implement their peace plan. I refuse
to send American troops to fight a war in Bosnia, but I believe we must
help to secure the Bosnian peace. I want you to know tonight what is at
stake, exactly what our troops will be asked to accomplish, and why we
must carry out our responsibility to help implement the peace agreement.

Implementing the agreement in Bosnia can end the terrible suffering of
the people--the warfare, the mass executions, the ethnic cleansing, the
campaigns of rape and terror. Let us never forget that a quarter of a
million men, women, and children have been shelled, shot, and tortured
to death. Two million people--half of the population--were forced from
their homes and into a miserable life as refugees. And these faceless
numbers hide millions of real personal tragedies; for each of the war's
victims was a mother or daughter, a father or son, a brother or sister.

Now the war is over. American leadership created the chance to build a
peace and stop the suffering. Securing peace in Bosnia will also help to
build a free and stable Europe. Bosnia lies at the very heart of Europe,
next-door to many of its fragile new democracies and some of our closest
allies. Generations of Americans have understood that Europe's freedom
and Europe's stability is vital to our own national security. That's why
we fought two wars in Europe; that's why we launched the Marshall Plan
to restore Europe; that's why we created NATO and waged the Cold War;
and that's why we must help the nations of Europe to end their worst
nightmare since World War II--now.

The only force capable of getting this job done is NATO--the powerful,
military alliance of democracies that has guaranteed our security for
half a  century now. And as NATO's leader and the primary broker of the
peace agreement, the United States must be an essential part of the
mission. If we're not there, NATO will not be there. The peace will
collapse; the war will reignite; and the slaughter of innocents will
begin again. A conflict that already has claimed so many victims could
spread like poison throughout the region, eat away at Europe's
stability, and erode our partnership with our European allies.

America's commitment to leadership will be questioned if we refuse to
participate in implementing a peace agreement that we brokered right
here in the United States, especially since the presidents of Bosnia,
Croatia, and Serbia all asked us to participate and all pledged their
best efforts to the security of our troops.

When America's partnerships are weak and our leadership is in doubt, it
undermines our ability to secure our interests and to convince others to
work with us. If we do maintain our partnerships and our leadership, we
need not act alone. As we saw in the Gulf war and in Haiti, many other
nations who share our goals will also share our burdens. But when
America does not lead, the consequences can be very grave, not only for
others, but eventually for us as well.

As I speak to you, NATO is completing its planning for IFOR, an
international force for peace in Bosnia of about 60,000 troops. Already,
more than 25 other nations, including our major NATO allies, have
pledged to take part. They will contribute about two-thirds of the total
implementation force, some 40,000 troops. The United States would
contribute the rest, about 20,000 soldiers.

Later this week, the final NATO plan will be submitted to me for review
and approval. Let me make clear what I expect it to include, and what it
must include, for me to give final approval to the participation of our
armed forces.

First, the mission will be precisely defined with clear, realistic goals
that can be achieved in a definite period of time. Our troops will make
sure that each side withdraws its forces behind the front lines and
keeps them there. They will maintain the cease-fire to prevent the war
from accidentally starting again. These efforts, in turn, will help to
create a secure environment, so that the people of Bosnia can return to
their homes, vote in free elections, and begin to rebuild their lives.
Our Joint Chiefs of Staff have concluded that this mission should and
will take about one year.

Second, the risks to our troops will be minimized. American troops will
take their orders from the American general who commands NATO. They will
be heavily armed and thoroughly trained. By making an overwhelming show
of force, they will lessen the need to use force. But unlike the UN
forces, they will have the authority to respond immediately and the
training and the equipment to respond with overwhelming force to any
threat to their own safety or any violations of the military provisions
of the peace agreement.

If the NATO plan meets with my approval, I will immediately send it to
Congress and request its support. I will also authorize the
participation of a small number of American troops in a NATO advance
mission that will lay the groundwork for IFOR, starting sometime next
week. They will establish headquarters and set up the sophisticated
communication systems that must be in place before NATO can send in its
troops, tanks, and trucks to Bosnia.

The implementation force itself would begin deploying in Bosnia in the
days following the formal signature of the peace agreement in mid-
December. The international community will help to implement arms
control provisions of the agreement so that future hostilities are less
likely and armaments are limited, while the world community--the United
States and others--will also make sure that the Bosnian Federation has
the means to defend itself once IFOR withdraws. IFOR will not be a part
of this effort.

Civilian agencies from around the world will begin a separate program of
humanitarian relief and reconstruction, principally paid for by our
European allies and other interested countries. This effort is also
absolutely essential to making the peace endure. It will bring the
people of Bosnia the food, shelter, clothing, and medicine so many have
been denied for so long. It will help them to rebuild--to rebuild their
roads and schools, their power plants and hospitals, their factories and
shops. It will reunite children with their parents and families with
their homes. It will allow the Bosnians to freely choose their own
leaders. It will give all the people of Bosnia a much greater stake in
peace than war, so that peace takes on a life and a logic of its own.

In Bosnia, we can and will succeed because our mission is clear and
limited and our troops are strong and very well-prepared. But, my fellow
Americans, no deployment of American troops is risk-free, and this one
may well involve casualties. There may be accidents in the field or
incidents with people who have not given up their hatred. I will take
every measure possible to minimize these risks, but we must be prepared
for that possibility.

As President, my most difficult duty is to put the men and women who
volunteer to serve our nation in harm's way when our interests and
values demand it. I assume full responsibility for any harm that may
come to them. But anyone contemplating any action that would endanger
our troops should know this: America protects its own. Anyone--anyone--
who takes on our troops will suffer the consequences. We will fight fire
with fire--and then some.

After so much bloodshed and loss, after so many outrageous acts of
inhuman brutality, it will take an extraordinary effort of will for the
people of Bosnia to pull themselves from their past and start building a
future of peace. But with our leadership and the commitment of our
allies, the people of Bosnia can have the chance to decide their future
in peace. They have a chance to remind the world that just a few short
years ago, the mosques and churches of Sarajevo were a shining symbol of
multi-ethnic tolerance; that Bosnia once found unity in its diversity.
Indeed, the cemetery in the center of the city was just a few short
years ago a magnificent stadium which hosted the Olympics--our universal
symbol of peace and harmony. Bosnia can be that kind of place again. We
must not turn our backs on Bosnia now.

And so I ask all Americans, and I ask every Member of Congress--
Democrat and Republican alike--to make the choice for peace. In the
choice between peace and war, America must choose peace.

My fellow Americans, I ask you to think just for a moment about this
century that is drawing to a close and the new one that will soon begin.
Because previous generations of Americans stood up for freedom and
because we continue to do so, the American people are more secure and
more prosperous. All around the world, more people than ever before live
in freedom; more people than ever before are treated with dignity; more
people than ever before can hope to build a better life. That is what
America's leadership is all about.

We know that these are the blessings of freedom, and America has always
been freedom's greatest champion. If we continue to do everything we can
to share these blessings with people around the world, if we continue to
be leaders for peace, then the next century can be the greatest time our
nation has ever known.

A few weeks ago, I was privileged to spend some time with His Holiness,
Pope John Paul, II, when he came to America. At the very end of our
meeting, the Pope looked at me and said,:

"I have lived through most of this century. The 20th century began with
a war in Sarajevo. Mr. President, you must not let it end with a war in
Sarajevo."

In Bosnia, this terrible war has challenged our interests and troubled
our souls. Thankfully, we can do something about it. I say again, our
mission will be clear, limited, and achievable. The people of Bosnia,
our NATO allies, and people all around the world are now looking to
America for leadership. So let us lead. That is our responsibility as
Americans. Goodnight, and God bless America.

(###)

___________________________________________________________________

The State Department does not guarantee the authenticity of electronic
documents.  If you require the original version of a document in hard
copy, please contact the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Room 6805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.  Telephone: 202-647-5760.  State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced without consent.
Citation of source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce any
copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.
_____________________________________________________________ (###)
</doc><doc><f 151><ht><phrase>Speeches, Testimony, Statements</phrase></ht></f>
<f 101><ht><phrase>Central Europe</phrase></ht></f>
<f 201><ht><phrase>Yugoslavia (former)</phrase>, <phrase>Bosnia-Herzegovina</phrase>, <phrase>Serbia-Montenegro</phrase>,
<phrase>Croatia</phrase></ht></f>
<f 150><ht><phrase>State Department</phrase>, <phrase>United Nations</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase>,
<phrase>Development/Relief Aid</phrase>, <phrase>Democratization</phrase>, <phrase>Refugees/Population/Migration</phrase>,
<phrase>NATO</phrase>, <phrase>Military Affairs</phrase>, <phrase>Regional/Civil Unrest</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase></ht></f>
U.S. Department of State Dispatch Supplement
Volume 6, Number 5, December 1995
"Securing a Peace Agreement for Bosnia "
Published by the Bureau of Public Affairs

ARTICLE 8: page 22

<h4><ti>Peace in Bosnia: A Dividend Of American Leadership </ti></h4>
President <f 100>Clinton </f>
Remarks to the Committee for American Leadership in Bosnia, Washington,
DC, <date2>Dec 6, 1995 </date2>

I want to welcome this distinguished group of Americans to the White
House. Each of you has worked very hard throughout your career to
preserve and to project America's leadership around the world. Today you
have joined across partisan lines to make a strong case for America's
leadership in Bosnia, and I thank you for that.

I welcome the support that you and others, including Presidents Bush and
Ford, have shown for our troops and our efforts to secure peace in
Bosnia. All of you represent a spirit that has helped keep our country
strong. Regardless of party or political differences, you've stood up
for America's leadership on behalf of our interests and our values.

Many of you have been working for peace in Bosnia since that terrible
war began. Now that the Balkan leaders have made a commitment to peace,
you know that we must help that peace take hold. You understand the
importance of our action and the costs of our failure to act--something,
I might add, that has been under-discussed in the public arena in the
last few weeks. Our conscience demands that we seize this chance to end
the suffering, but our national security interests are deeply engaged as
well.

Europe's security is still inextricably tied to America's. We need a
strong Europe as a strong partner on problems from terrorism to the
spread of weapons of mass destruction. Europe's stability is threatened
as long as this war burns at its center. We have to stand with the
Europeans on Bosnia if we're going to stand with them--and if we expect
them to stand with us--on the whole range of other issues we clearly are
going to face together in the years ahead.

Our engagement in Bosnia is also essential for the continued viability
of NATO. All the parties there--all the parties--asked for NATO's help
in securing this peace. If we're going to be NATO's leader, we have to
be part of this mission. If we turn our backs on Bosnia now, our allies
will do the same; the peace will fail, the conflict could spread, the
slaughter will certainly resume. NATO would be shaken to its core. Its
ability to shape a stable, undivided Europe would be thrown into doubt,
and our leadership in Europe and around the world would pay a terrible,
terrible price.

For 50 years, the bipartisan consensus for our leadership in the world
has been a source of America's progress and strength. At the dawn of the
post-Cold War era, that consensus is being questioned. But I believe
that vision and unity are still called for.

During my recent trip to Europe, everywhere I went and every person with
whom I talked--from people on the street to prime ministers--said the
very same thing: American leadership matters. American leadership is
welcome. American leadership is necessary. But leadership is not a
spectator sport. In Bosnia, our leadership can make a difference between
peace and war. It demands our participation.

I have to tell you that I knew how the European leaders felt, and I
thought I knew how the people in the street felt. But the personal
expression of support for America's willingness to help broker this
peace agreement in Dayton and then to participate in the peace mission
in Bosnia was more intense, more persistent, and more urgent than I had
imagined--from the Prime Minister of Great Britain to the Prime Minister
of Germany, to the Prime Minister of Spain, to the Prime Minister of
Ireland, everyone else I talked to. This is a very, very, very important
thing in terms of our relationships with Europe and what we expect in
terms of a partnership with Europe in the years ahead.

Let me say to those of you who come here from both parties: I understand
that bipartisanship in foreign policy has never meant agreement on every
detail of every policy. And while we may differ from time to time on the
specifics of our policies, we still must agree--and we have never
fundamentally disagreed on purpose--to defend our interests, to preserve
peace, to protect human rights, to promote prosperity around the world.

That does not mean that we can solve every problem; we cannot be the
world's policeman. But when our leadership can make a difference between
war and peace and when our interests are engaged, we have a duty to act.
We have seen the dividends from the Persian Gulf to the Middle East,
from North Korea to Northern Ireland to Haiti. American leadership can
also produce those dividends and more in Bosnia, because we can make a
difference there.

I'm convinced that this mission is clear, and it's achievable. Our
troops will have strong rules of engagement: They will operate under an
American general; they will be fully trained and heavily armed. Our
commanders have done all they can to minimize the risks and to maximize
their ability to carry out a clearly defined mission with a clear end
point. There will be no "mission creep."

The peace agreement has given these parties a real opportunity to have a
peaceful future. But they can't do it alone, and they're looking to us
to help.

America is seen by all of them as an honest broker and a fair player.
Each of you has played a role in creating that image, and I want to
thank you for that as much as anything else. The thing that has
constantly impressed me as I have dealt with people all around the world
is that people believe we are a nation with no bad motives for them or
their future.

That is what has made this moment possible in Bosnia, and that is what
has also imposed upon us our responsibilities at this moment. For all
that you have done to bring that about and for your support today, I
thank you very, very much.

(###)

___________________________________________________________________

The State Department does not guarantee the authenticity of electronic
documents.  If you require the original version of a document in hard
copy, please contact the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Room 6805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.  Telephone: 202-647-5760.  State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced without consent.
Citation of source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce any
copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.
_____________________________________________________________ (###)
</doc><doc><f 151><ht><phrase>Speeches, Testimony, Statements</phrase></ht></f>
<f 101><ht><phrase>Central Europe</phrase></ht></f>
<f 201><ht><phrase>Yugoslavia (former)</phrase>, <phrase>Bosnia-Herzegovina</phrase>, <phrase>Serbia-Montenegro</phrase>,
<phrase>Croatia</phrase></ht></f>
<f 150><ht><phrase>State Department</phrase>, <phrase>United Nations</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase>,
<phrase>Development/Relief Aid</phrase>, <phrase>Democratization</phrase>, <phrase>Refugees/Population/Migration</phrase>,
<phrase>NATO</phrase>, <phrase>Military Affairs</phrase>, <phrase>Regional/Civil Unrest</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase></ht></f>
U.S. Department of State Dispatch Supplement
Volume 6, Number 5, December 1995
"Securing a Peace Agreement for Bosnia "
Published by the Bureau of Public Affairs
ARTICLE 9: pages 23-24

<h4><ti>Turning From the Horror of War to the Promise of Peace in the Balkans </ti></h4>
President <f 100>Clinton </f>
Remarks at the signing of the General Agreement on the Framework for
Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Paris, France, <date2>Dec 14, 1995 </date2>

President Chirac, President Izetbegovic, President Tudjman, President
Milosevic, Secretary General Boutros-Ghali, Secretary General Solana,
Representative Bildt, Prime Minister Filali, Prime Minister
Chernomyrdin, Prime Minister Major, Prime Minister Gonzales, Chancellor
Kohl: Let me begin, on behalf of the people of the United States, by
thanking all of those whose labor and wisdom helped keep hope alive
during the long, dark years of war--the humanitarian relief workers, the
United Nations forces from Europe and beyond. Had it not been for their
dedication and their sacrifice, the toll of the war in Bosnia would have
been even greater.

And I thank those whose work helped make this moment of peace possible,
beginning with our host, Prime Minister Chirac, for his vigor and
determination; Prime Minister Major, who was a full partner in the
development of the rapid reaction force and our NATO cooperation; and
our friend, Chancellor Kohl, who has taken in so many of the refugees
and who now is sending German troops beyond his borders in this
historic, common endeavor. I thank the leaders of the strong NATO and
the determined negotiating team of Russians, Europeans, and Americans.

All of you have brought us to this bright, new day, when Bosnia turns
from the horror of war to the promise of peace. President Izetbegovic,
President Tudjman, President Milosevic: By making peace, you have
answered the call of your people. You have heard them say, "Stop the
war, end the suffering, give our children the blessings of a normal
life."

In this chorus for peace today we also hear the hallowed voices of the
victims--the children whose playgrounds were shelled in the killing
fields, the young girls brutalized by rape, the men shot down in mass
graves, those who starved in the camps, those who died in battle, the
millions taken from their homes and torn from their families. Even from
beyond the grave, there are victims singing the song of peace today. May
their voices be in our minds and hearts forever.

In Dayton, these three Balkan leaders made the fateful choice for peace.
Today, Mr. Presidents, you have bound yourselves to peace, but tomorrow,
you must turn the pages of this agreement into a real-life future of
hope for those who have survived this horrible war. At your request, the
United States and more than 25 other nations will send you our most
precious resource--the men and women of our armed forces. Their mission:
to allow the Bosnian people to emerge from a nightmare of fear into a
new day of security, according to terms you have approved in a manner
that is evenhanded and fair to all.

The international community will work with you to change the face of
Bosnia: to meet human needs; to repair and to rebuild; to reunite
children with their families and refugees with their homes; to oversee
democratic elections, advance human rights, and call to account those
accused of war crimes.

We can do all these things, but we cannot guarantee the future of
Bosnia. No one outside can guarantee that Muslims, Croats, and Serbs in
Bosnia will come together and stay together as free citizens in a united
country sharing a common destiny. Only the Bosnian people can do that.

I know that the losses have been staggering, that the scars are deep. We
feel even today that the wounds have not healed. But Bosnia must find a
way, with God's grace, to lay down the hatreds, to give up the revenge,
to go forward together. That is the road--indeed, that is the only road-
-to the future.

We see, from Northern Ireland to the Middle East, from South Africa to
Haiti, people turning from hatred to hope. Here in Europe, countries
that for centuries fought now work together for peace. Soon the Bosnian
people will see for themselves the awesome potential of people to turn
from conflict to cooperation. In just a few days, troops from all over
Europe and North America and elsewhere--troops from Great Britain,
France, and Germany; troops from Greece and Turkey; troops from Poland
and Lithuania; and troops from the United States and Russia, former
enemies, now friends--will answer the same call and share the same
responsibilities to achieve the same goal--a lasting peace in Bosnia
where enemies can become friends.

Why would they do this? Because their hearts are broken by the suffering
and the slaughter; because their minds recoil at the prospect of a
needless, spreading war in the heart of Europe. But they--we--do so in
the face of skeptics who say the people of the Balkans cannot escape
their bloody past, that Balkan hearts are too hard for peace.

But let us remember this war did violence not only to Bosnia's people
but also to Bosnia's history, for Bosnia once found unity in its
diversity. Generations of Muslims, Orthodox Catholics, and Jews lived
side by side and enriched the world by their example. They built schools
and libraries and wondrous places of worship. Part of the population
laid down their tools on Friday, part on Saturday, and part on Sunday.
But their lives were woven together by marriage and culture, work, a
common language, and a shared pride in a place that then they all called
home. Now, if that past is any guide, this peace can take hold. And if
the people of Bosnia want a decent future for their children, this peace
must take hold.

Here in this City of Light, at this moment of hope, let us recall how
this century--marked by so much progress and too much bloodshed, witness
to humanity's best and humanity's worst--how this century began in
Bosnia. At the dawn of the century, when gunfire in Sarajevo sparked the
first of our two world wars, the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward
Gray, said these words:  "The lamps are going out all over Europe. We
shall not see them lit again in our lifetimes."

But they were lit again, by an extraordinary generation of Europeans and
Americans. The torch of freedom they carried now shines more brightly
than ever before on every continent. That torch can shine on Bosnia
again, but first it must warm the hearts of the Bosnian people.

So I say to all the people of the Balkans on behalf of all of us who
would come to see this peace take hold: You have seen what war has
wrought; you know what peace can bring. Seize this chance and make it
work. You can do nothing to erase the past, but you can do everything to
build the future. Do not let your children down.

(###)
___________________________________________________________________

The State Department does not guarantee the authenticity of electronic
documents.  If you require the original version of a document in hard
copy, please contact the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Room 6805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.  Telephone: 202-647-5760.  State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced without consent.
Citation of source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce any
copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.
_____________________________________________________________ (###)
</doc><doc><f 151><ht><phrase>Fact sheets</phrase></ht></f>
<f 101><ht><phrase>Central Europe</phrase></ht></f>
<f 201><ht><phrase>Yugoslavia (former)</phrase>, <phrase>Bosnia-Herzegovina</phrase>, <phrase>Serbia-Montenegro</phrase>,
<phrase>Croatia</phrase></ht></f>
<f 150><ht><phrase>State Department</phrase>, <phrase>United Nations</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase>,
<phrase>Development/Relief Aid</phrase>, <phrase>Democratization</phrase>, <phrase>Refugees/Population/Migration</phrase>,
<phrase>NATO</phrase>, <phrase>Military Affairs</phrase>, <phrase>Regional/Civil Unrest</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase></ht></f>
U.S. Department of State Dispatch Supplement
Volume 6, Number 5, December 1995
"Securing a Peace Agreement for Bosnia "
Published by the Bureau of Public Affairs
ARTICLE 10: pages 24-26

<b>Fact Sheets and Chronology </b>


<h4><ti>Fact Sheet: Summary of the Dayton Peace Agreement</ti></h4>

The Dayton proximity talks culminated in the initialing on November 21,
1995, of a General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and
Herzegovina. The agreement was initialed by the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, and the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia. It was witnessed by representatives of the Contact Group
nations--the United States, Britain, France, Germany, and Russia--and
the European Union Special Negotiator. According to the terms of the
agreement, a sovereign state known as the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina will consist of two entities: the Bosnian Serb Republic and
the Federation of Bosnia.

The agreement and its annexes are summarized below.


<h5>General Framework Agreement </h5>

-- Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia (FRY) agree to fully respect the sovereign equality of one
another and to settle disputes by peaceful means;
-- The FRY and Bosnia and Herzegovina recognize each other and agree to
discuss further aspects of their mutual recognition;
-- The parties agree to fully respect and promote fulfillment of the
commitments made in the various annexes, and they obligate themselves to
respect human rights and the rights of refugees and displaced persons;
and
-- The parties agree to cooperate fully with all entities, including
those authorized by the United Nations Security Council, in implementing
the peace settlement and investigating and prosecuting war crimes and
other violations of international humanitarian law.


<h5>Annex 1-A: Military Aspects  </h5>

-- The cease-fire that began with the agreement of October 5, 1995, will
continue;
-- Foreign combatant forces currently in Bosnia are to be withdrawn
within 30 days;
-- The parties must complete withdrawal of forces behind a zone of
separation of approximately 4 km within an agreed period. Special
provisions relate to Sarajevo and Gorazde;
-- As a confidence-building measure, the parties agree to withdraw heavy
weapons and forces to cantonment/barracks areas within an agreed period
and to demobilize forces which cannot be accommodated in those areas;
-- The agreement invites into Bosnia and Herzegovina a multinational
military implementation force, the IFOR, under the command of NATO, with
a grant of authority from the UN;
-- The IFOR will have the right to monitor and help ensure compliance
with the agreement on military aspects and fulfill certain supporting
tasks. The IFOR will have the right to carry out its mission vigorously,
including with the use of force as necessary. It will have unimpeded
freedom of movement, control over air space, and status of forces
protection;
-- A Joint Military Commission is established, to be chaired by the IFOR
Commander. Persons under indictment by the international war crimes tri-
bunal cannot participate;
-- Information on mines, military personnel, weaponry, and other items
must be provided to the Joint Military Commission within agreed periods;
and
-- All combatants and civilians must be released and transferred without
delay in accordance with a plan to be developed by the International
Committee of the Red Cross.


<h5>Annex 1-B: Regional Stabilization </h5>

-- Representatives of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the
Federation of Bosnia, and the Bosnian Serb Republic must begin
negotiations within 7 days, under Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) auspices, with the objective of agreeing on
confidence-building measures within 45 days. These could include, for
example, restrictions on military deployments and exercises,
notification of military activities, and exchange of data;
-- The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Federation of Bosnia, and
the Bosnian Serb Republic, as well as Croatia and the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia agree not to import arms for 90 days and not to import any
heavy weapons, heavy weapons ammunition, mines, military aircraft, and
helicopters for 180 days or until an arms control agreement takes
effect;
-- All five parties must begin negotiations within 30 days, under OSCE
auspices, to agree on numerical limits on holdings of tanks, artillery,
armored combat vehicles, combat aircraft, and attack helicopters;
-- If the parties fail to establish limits on these categories within
180 days, the agreement provides for specified limits to come into force
for the parties; and
-- The OSCE will organize and conduct negotiations to establish a
regional balance in and around the former Yugoslavia.


<h5>Annex 2: Inter-Entity Boundary </h5>

-- An inter-entity boundary line between the Federation of Bosnia and
the Bosnian Serb Republic is agreed to;
-- Sarajevo will be reunified within the Federation of Bosnia and will
be open to all people of the country;
-- Gorazde will remain secure and accessible, linked to the Federation
of Bosnia by a land corridor; and
-- The status of Brcko will be determined by arbitration within one
year.


<h5>Annex 3: Elections </h5>

-- Free and fair, internationally supervised elections will be conducted
within six to nine months for the presidency and House of
Representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, for the House of
Representatives of the Federation of Bosnia, and the National Assembly
and presidency of the Bosnian Serb Republic, and, if feasible, for local
offices;
-- Refugees and persons displaced by the conflict will have the right to
vote (including by absentee ballot) in their original place of residence
if they choose to do so;
-- The parties must create conditions in which free and fair elections
can be held by protecting the right to vote in secret and ensuring
freedom of expression and the press;
-- The OSCE is requested to supervise the preparation and conduct of
these elections; and
-- All citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina aged 18 or older listed on the
1991 Bosnian census are eligible to vote.


<h5>Annex 4: Constitution  </h5>

-- A new constitution for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which
will be known as "Bosnia and Herzegovina," will be adopted upon
signature at Paris;
-- Bosnia and Herzegovina will continue as a sovereign state within its
present internationally-recognized borders. It will consist of two
entities: the Federation of Bosnia and the Bosnian Serb Republic;
-- The constitution provides for the protection of human rights and the
free movement of people, goods, capital and services throughout Bosnia
and Herzegovina;
-- The central government will have a presidency, a two chamber
legislature, and a constitutional court. Direct elections will be held
for the presidency and one of the legislative chambers;
-- There will be a central bank and monetary system, and the central
government will also have responsibilities for foreign policy, law
enforcement, air traffic control, communications and other areas to be
agreed;
-- Military coordination will take place through a committee including
members of the presidency;
-- No person who is serving a sentence imposed by the international
tribunal, and no person who is under indictment by the tribunal and who
has failed to comply with an order to appear before the tribunal, may
stand as a candidate or hold any appointive, elective, or other public
office in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina.


<h5>Annex 5: Arbitration  </h5>

The Federation of Bosnia and the Bosnian Serb Republic agree to enter
into reciprocal commitments to engage in binding arbitration to resolve
disputes between them, and they agree to design and implement a system
of arbitration.


<h5>Annex 6: Human Rights </h5>

-- The agreement guarantees internationally recognized human rights and
fundamental freedoms for all persons within Bosnia and Herzegovina;
-- A Commission on Human Rights, composed of a human rights ombudsman
and a human rights chamber (court), is established;
-- The ombudsman is authorized to investigate human rights violations,
issue findings, and bring and participate in proceedings before the
human rights chamber;
-- The human rights chamber is authorized to hear and decide human
rights claims and to issue binding decisions; and
-- The parties agree to grant UN human rights agencies, the OSCE, the
international tribunal and other organizations full access to monitor
the human rights situation.


<h5>Annex 7: Refugees and Displaced Persons </h5>

-- The agreement grants refugees and displaced persons the right to
return home safely and either regain lost property or obtain just
compensation;
-- A Commission for Displaced Persons and Refugees will decide on return
of real property or compensation, with the authority to issue final
decisions;
-- All persons are granted the right to move freely throughout the
country, without harassment or discrimination; and
-- The parties commit to cooperate with the ICRC in finding all missing
persons.


<h5>Annex 8: Commission to Preserve National Monuments </h5>

-- A Commission to Preserve National Monuments is established;
-- The commission is authorized to receive and act upon petitions to
designate as national monuments movable or immovable property of great
importance to a group of people with a common cultural, historic,
religious, or ethnic heritage; and
-- When property is designated as a national monument, the entities will
make every effort to take appropriate legal, technical, financial and
other measures to protect and conserve the national monument and refrain
from taking deliberate actions which might damage it.


<h5>Annex 9: Bosnia and Herzegovina Public Corporations </h5>

-- A Bosnia and Herzegovina Transportation Corporation is established to
organize and operate transportation facilities, such as roads, railways,
and ports; and
-- A Commission on Public Corporations is created to examine
establishing other Bosnia and Herzegovina public corporations to operate
joint public facilities such as utilities and postal service facilities.


<h5>Annex 10: Civilian Implementation </h5>

-- The parties request that a high representative be designated,
consistent with relevant UN Security Council resolutions, to coordinate
and facilitate civilian aspects of the peace settlement, such as
humanitarian aid, economic reconstruction, protection of human rights,
and the holding of free elections;
-- The high representative will chair a Joint Civilian Commission
comprised of senior political representatives of the parties, the IFOR
Commander, and representatives of civilian organizations; and
-- The high representative has no authority over the IFOR.


<h5>Annex 11: International Police Task Force </h5>

-- The UN is requested to establish a UN International Police Task Force
(IPTF) to carry out various tasks, including training and advising local
law enforcement personnel, as well as monitoring and inspecting law
enforcement activities and facilities;
-- The IPTF will be headed by a commissioner appointed by the UN
Secretary General; and
-- IPTF personnel must report any credible information on human rights
violations to the Human Rights Commission, the International Tribunal or
other appropriate organizations.


<h5>Agreement on Initialing the General Framework Agreement </h5>

-- In this agreement, which was signed at Dayton, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Croatia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia agree that
the negotiations have been completed. They and the Entities they
represent commit themselves to sign the General Framework Agreement and
its Annexes in Paris.
-- They also agree that the initialing of the General Framework
Agreement and its Annexes in Dayton expresses their consent to be bound
by these agreements.

(###)


___________________________________________________________________

The State Department does not guarantee the authenticity of electronic
documents.  If you require the original version of a document in hard
copy, please contact the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Room 6805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.  Telephone: 202-647-5760.  State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced without consent.
Citation of source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce any
copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.
_____________________________________________________________ (###)
</doc><doc><f 151><ht><phrase>Fact sheets</phrase></ht></f>
<f 101><ht><phrase>Central Europe</phrase></ht></f>
<f 201><ht><phrase>Yugoslavia (former)</phrase>, <phrase>Bosnia-Herzegovina</phrase>, <phrase>Serbia-Montenegro</phrase>,
<phrase>Croatia</phrase></ht></f>
<f 150><ht><phrase>State Department</phrase>, <phrase>United Nations</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase>,
<phrase>Development/Relief Aid</phrase>, <phrase>Democratization</phrase>, <phrase>Refugees/Population/Migration</phrase>,
<phrase>NATO</phrase>, <phrase>Military Affairs</phrase>, <phrase>Regional/Civil Unrest</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase></ht></f>
U.S. Department of State Dispatch Supplement
Volume 6, Number 5, December 1995
"Securing a Peace Agreement for Bosnia "
Published by the Bureau of Public Affairs
ARTICLE 11: pages 26-27

<h4><ti>Fact Sheet: The Road to the Dayton Peace Agreement </ti></h4>

-- The international community is united in its desire to see the Balkan
conflict resolved at the negotiating table. The United Nations (UN), the
European Union (EU), and the United States and other nations, acting
separately and in groups, have attempted to resolve the Balkan conflict
through negotiations since it began in 1991.
-- In October 1992, EU mediator Lord David Owen and UN mediator and
former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance proposed a draft constitution
organizing Bosnia into a decentralized federation. This became known as
the "Vance-Owen" plan.
-- In February 1993, President Clinton, at the beginning of his
Administration, named the first U.S. special envoy to UN-EU joint
negotiations, Ambassador Reginald Bartholomew. In May 1993, U.S. efforts
helped gain the parties' agreement to the Vance-Owen plan, but the
Bosnian Serbs subsequently renounced the accord.
-- In early 1994, with UN-EU efforts bogged down, the United States
decided to undertake more active involvement, seeking to back diplomacy
with the threat of NATO air power in protecting safe areas and UN
peacekeepers.
-- In March 1994, the new United States special envoy, Ambassador
Charles Redman, and other U.S. officials led negotiations between
Bosnia's Muslims and Croats which resulted in a cease-fire, the
formation of a bi-communal federation, and improved relations with
neighboring Croatia.
-- Later in the spring of 1994, the United States, Russia, Britain,
France, and Germany established a five-nation Contact Group, with the
goal of brokering a settlement between the Federation and Bosnian Serbs.

The Contact Group based its efforts on three principles:

- Bosnia would remain a single state;
- That state would consist of the Federation and a Bosnian Serb entity;
and
- These two entities would be linked via mutually agreed constitutional
principles, which would also spell out relationships with Serbia and
Croatia proper.

-- In July 1994, the Contact Group put forward a proposed map presenting
a 51/49 percent territorial compromise between the Federation and
Bosnian Serbs. The Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian Governments all
accepted the proposal. The Bosnian Serbs repeatedly rejected it.
However, all of its key principles were accepted as the basis for
negotiations at the November 1995 proximity peace talks in Dayton.
-- In the fall of 1994, Serbia announced it was withdrawing support for
the Bosnian Serbs, would seal them off economically, and would allow a
UN-EU team to monitor the border closure. The Security Council then
offered a temporary suspension of some of the economic sanctions that
had been in place against Serbia since 1992.
-- In the summer of 1995, a series of events changed the situation on
the ground.

- In July, two UN-declared safe areas--Srebrenica and Zepa--were overrun
by Bosnian Serb forces.
- In July and August, Croatia retook most of the territory held for
three years by separatist Krajina Serbs and thus presented itself as a
counterweight to further Serb aggression in the region.

-- In response to the fall of the safe areas, President Clinton insisted
that NATO and the UN make good on their commitment to protect the
remaining safe areas. The allies agreed to U.S. insistence on NATO
decisiveness at the London Conference on July 21 and threatened broad-
based air strikes if the safe areas were attacked again.
-- In late July, President Clinton decided that the changes on the
ground and the new resolve displayed by NATO provided the basis for an
all-out diplomatic effort to end the conflict. In early August, he sent
his National Security Adviser, Anthony Lake, to present a U.S. peace
initiative to our NATO allies and the Russians.
-- In mid-August, U.S. negotiators, led by Assistant Secretary of State
Richard Holbrooke, began intensive shuttle diplomacy with the parties to
the conflict. The death of three members of the U.S. negotiating team--
Ambassador Robert Frasure, Dr. Joseph Kruzel, and Col. Nelson Drew--were
an enormous tragedy, but U.S. efforts for peace intensified.
-- In  late August, a Bosnian Serb shell killed 37 people in a Sarajevo
market. NATO and the UN issued an ultimatum to the Bosnian Serbs:

- Stop shelling Sarajevo;
- Stop offensive action against the remaining safe areas;
- Withdraw heavy weapons from around Sarajevo; and
- Allow road and air access to Sarajevo.

-- On August 30, after the Bosnian Serbs refused, NATO began heavy and
continuous air strikes against the Bosnian Serb military--with many
missions flown by American pilots. The Bosnian Serbs then complied with
the NATO demands.
-- At meetings sponsored by the Contact Group in Geneva (September 8,
1995) and New York (September 26, 1995), the Foreign Ministers of
Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia (now also representing the Bosnian Serbs)
agreed to basic principles for a settlement in Bosnia:

- The preservation of Bosnia as a single state;
- An equitable division of territory between the Muslim/Croat Federation
and a Bosnian Serb entity based on the Contact Group's 51/49 formula;
- Constitutional structures;
- Free and fair elections; and
- Respect for human rights.

-- In early October, the United States helped broker a cease-fire, now
holding throughout Bosnia.
-- The United States and the other Contact Group countries invited the
parties to Dayton, Ohio, to begin "proximity peace talks" on November 1.
-- On November 21, the parties agreed to a settlement and initialed the
Dayton Peace Accord, which was formally signed in Paris on December 14,
1995.

(###)


___________________________________________________________________

The State Department does not guarantee the authenticity of electronic
documents.  If you require the original version of a document in hard
copy, please contact the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Room 6805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.  Telephone: 202-647-5760.  State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced without consent.
Citation of source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce any
copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.
_____________________________________________________________ (###)
</doc><doc><f 151><ht><phrase>Fact sheets</phrase></ht></f>
<f 101><ht><phrase>Central Europe</phrase></ht></f>
<f 201><ht><phrase>Yugoslavia (former)</phrase>, <phrase>Bosnia-Herzegovina</phrase>, <phrase>Serbia-Montenegro</phrase>,
<phrase>Croatia</phrase></ht></f>
<f 150><ht><phrase>State Department</phrase>, <phrase>United Nations</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase>,
<phrase>Development/Relief Aid</phrase>, <phrase>Democratization</phrase>, <phrase>Refugees/Population/Migration</phrase>,
<phrase>NATO</phrase>, <phrase>Military Affairs</phrase>, <phrase>Regional/Civil Unrest</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase></ht></f>
U.S. Department of State Dispatch Supplement
Volume 6, Number 5, December 1995
"Securing a Peace Agreement for Bosnia "
Published by the Bureau of Public Affairs
ARTICLE 12: pages 27-28

<h4><ti>Fact Sheet: NATO Involvement in the Balkan Crisis </ti></h4>

-- Throughout the Balkan crisis, NATO has undertaken a variety of
activities in support of UN peacekeeping operations.

-- In July 1992, NATO established a joint naval operation with the
Western European Union to patrol the Adriatic to help enforce the UN's
economic sanctions regime against Serbia.

-- In the fall of 1992, the UN established a "no-fly zone" over Bosnia;
in early 1993, NATO agreed to enforce it.

-- In June 1993, NATO announced it would provide close air support to UN
peacekeepers who came under attack. In August, NATO declared its
readiness to respond with air strikes, in coordination with the UN, in
the event that UN safe areas, including Sarajevo, came under siege. This
decision temporarily ended the strangulation of Sarajevo.

-- In February and April 1994, in response to renewed Bosnian Serb
attacks on safe areas, including a brutal attack on a Sarajevo market,
NATO established heavy-weapons-free zones around Sarajevo and Gorazde.
Shelling of the Bihac safe area at the end of the year prompted NATO to
expand its range of targets to include locations within Serb-held areas
of Croatia.

-- NATO fighters provided close air support and engaged in air strikes
on several occasions in 1994 at the request of the UN. NATO and UN
commanders both had to agree before air operations could be carried out.
This arrangement, known as the "dual key," resulted in differences
between the organizations over the threshold for military action and
limited the effectiveness of air strikes.

-- In 1993, when it appeared that a settlement proposal offered by
former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and Lord David Owen might be
accepted by the sides, NATO undertook planning for troop deployments to
implement peace. NATO's plan, known as OPLAN 40103, was never finalized,
as Bosnian Serb rejection of the peace plan, coupled with renewed
fighting, rendered the chances for settlement remote.

-- In mid-1994, in response to a request from the UN, NATO began
contingency planning for withdrawal of UNPROFOR troops, should the
situation on the ground prevent them from carrying out their mission.
This plan was known as OPLAN 40104.

-- On many occasions, President Clinton and other senior officials have
expressed U.S. commitment to participation as appropriate in OPLAN 40103
and 40104. Emphasizing that they would welcome congressional support,
Administration officials have long made clear that failure to take part
in major alliance efforts would weaken NATO cohesion and strain
transatlantic relations.

-- In July 1995, after the Bosnian Serbs overran the UN safe areas of
Srebrenica and Zepa, the United States, with some of our allies, the
Russians, and others, attended a ministerial-level conference in London.
The London Conference (together with subsequent NATO decisions)
simplified the procedures for conducting air strikes, reduced the
complications of the dual key mechanism, and greatly expanded the
targets available for strikes.

-- In August 1995, after the Bosnian Serbs attacked the Sarajevo safe
area and rejected UN and NATO conditions for a heavy-weapons withdrawal,
NATO undertook its most intense air and artillery campaign to date,
using the new authority and improved procedures agreed to in London. The
15-day allied campaign made clear to the Bosnian Serbs that the
international community had no tolerance for violations of UN
resolutions. Partly as a result of the strikes, Bosnian Serbs showed
greater willingness to participate seriously in peace talks.

-- By September 1995, as a result of the air strikes, changes on the
ground regionally, and progress made by the President's negotiating
team, it appeared once again that a settlement might be possible. A
comprehensive cease-fire agreement was signed on October 5, 1995. NATO
then renewed its planning for peace implementation. In October, the
North Atlantic Council (NAC) approved a concept of operations for
deployment of an implementation force (IFOR) into Bosnia should a peace
settlement be reached.

-- A General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina,
brokered by the United States and its Contact Group partners, was
initialed by the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of
Croatia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, on November 21. The agreement, which
provides for NATO to establish IFOR to ensure compliance with the
military aspects of the peace agreement, became effective upon formal
signing in Paris on December 14.

-- In an extraordinary combined meeting on December 5, NATO's Foreign
and Defense Ministers jointly endorsed OPLAN 10405 ("Joint Endeavor"),
the military plan for IFOR's deployment. NATO military authorities are
now finalizing details, including participation by non-NATO nations and
cost. Some 2,600 "theater enabling forces" already have been deployed by
NATO. After the peace agreement was signed in Paris, the NAC gave its
final approval for the deployment of IFOR's main body of 60,000 troops.
Several days after deployment began, IFOR received
a full transfer of authority from UNPROFOR, the current UN peacekeeping
operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

(###)

___________________________________________________________________

The State Department does not guarantee the authenticity of electronic
documents.  If you require the original version of a document in hard
copy, please contact the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Room 6805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.  Telephone: 202-647-5760.  State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced without consent.
Citation of source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce any
copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.
_____________________________________________________________ (###)
</doc><doc><f 151><ht><phrase>Fact sheets</phrase></ht></f>
<f 101><ht><phrase>Central Europe</phrase></ht></f>
<f 201><ht><phrase>Yugoslavia (former)</phrase>, <phrase>Bosnia-Herzegovina</phrase>, <phrase>Serbia-Montenegro</phrase>,
<phrase>Croatia</phrase></ht></f>
<f 150><ht><phrase>State Department</phrase>, <phrase>United Nations</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase>,
<phrase>Development/Relief Aid</phrase>, <phrase>Democratization</phrase>, <phrase>Refugees/Population/Migration</phrase>,
<phrase>NATO</phrase>, <phrase>Military Affairs</phrase>, <phrase>Regional/Civil Unrest</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase></ht></f>
U.S. Department of State Dispatch Supplement
Volume 6, Number 5, December 1995
"Securing a Peace Agreement for Bosnia "
Published by the Bureau of Public Affairs
ARTICLE 13: pages 28-29

<h4><ti>Fact Sheet: Human Rights Issues in the Balkans </ti></h4>

<h5>Human Rights Abuses  </h5>

-- The war in the former Yugoslavia has involved widespread violations
of human rights and humanitarian law, including mass killings and
murder, systematic rape, torture, and other crimes against humanity.

-- The term "ethnic cleansing" has entered the world's vocabulary to
describe the horrifying range of human rights abuses--from forcible
expulsion to murder--committed in parts of the former Yugoslavia in
order to achieve "ethnic purity."

-- All parties to the conflict in the Balkans have committed human
rights violations, but the great majority have been perpetrated by Serb
forces. Some of the worst incidents include the following.

- In the fall of 1991, Serb forces shelled the Croatian coastal city of
Dubrovnik, an action without military justification.
- Throughout the course of the conflict, Sarajevo and other cities have
been subjected to indiscriminate shelling. Scores of civilians have been
killed or wounded by snipers and cluster and napalm bombs used by
Bosnian Serb forces. Six of these cities were designated safe areas by
the United Nations in May 1993. This did not stop the shelling.
- Beginning in the spring of 1995, entire enclaves, ranging in size from
towns such as Prijedor, Bijeljina, Zvornik, and Jajce, to hamlets such
as Foca and Cerska, were "cleansed" of their Muslim and Croat residents
in a Bosnian Serb attempt to "purify" lands they controlled.
- In November 1991, Krajina Serbs took several hundred wounded Croatian
soldiers from a hospital in the eastern Slavonian town of Vukovar, shot
them in a field, and buried them in a mass grave. Serb authorities
continue to deny international forensic teams access to the site.
- In 1992, the Bosnian Serbs set    up a gulag of prison camps and
detention facilities holding tens of thousands of Muslims and Croats.
During the summer of 1992, international investigators were denied
access to detainees, but those who escaped described repeated
atrocities.
- During the summer of 1995, Bosnian Serb forces overran Srebrenica and
Zepa, committing serious violations of human rights. As many as 6,000
male Muslim detainees were shot and buried in mass graves. The entire
Muslim population of more than 42,000 people was "cleansed" from the
region.
- Evidence is mounting that human rights abuses were committed against
Serb civilians in Croatia in mid-1995, when the Croatian military retook
Serb-occupied western Slavonia and the Krajina region.

<h5>The Response of the International Community  </h5>

-- In August 1995, the UN Commission on Human Rights established a
Special Rapporteur to conduct on-site investigations into human rights
violations and report on his findings. The Special Rapporteur maintains
human rights monitors in Sarajevo, Mostar, Skopje, and Zagreb and has
submitted a series of reports on violations throughout the former
Yugoslavia.

-- In October 1992, the UN Security Council approved an impartial
international investigation to identify persons responsible for human
rights abuses and to discourage more ethnic-based violence. The
resulting Commission of Experts documented thousands of crimes.

-- In the spring of 1993, the Security Council concluded that the
atrocities committed amounted to war crimes and that international
prosecution of individuals responsible for atrocities was integral to
the prospects for long-term peace. As a result, it established a War
Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The Tribunal subsumed the
Commission of Experts and took over the task of amassing data on abuses.

- The War Crimes Tribunal has issued indictments against 53 persons,
including Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and Bosnian Serb General
Ratko Mladic. Proceedings have begun against the first defendant--a
Bosnian Serb official accused of committing atrocities at a prison camp.

-- In August 1995, after the Bosnian Serbs attacked the Sarajevo safe
area and rejected UN and NATO conditions for a heavy-weapons withdrawal,
NATO undertook its most intense air and artillery campaign to date,
using the new authority and improved procedures agreed to in London.

-- Neither Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic, nor any other indicted war
criminal was permitted to participate in the Dayton proximity peace
talks or in any other international peace negotiations. The United
States has consistently opposed and continues to oppose amnesty for
indicted war criminals. As warrants are issued, nations will be obliged
to arrest indictees in their jurisdictions.

<h5>What the United States Has Done </h5>

-- The United States led international efforts to establish and support
the War Crimes Tribunal and has contributed more to the Tribunal than
any other nation--upwards of $12 million. This includes financial
contributions of nearly $9 million and the services of more than 20
prosecutors, investigators, and other experts.

-- The U.S. took the lead in gathering concrete evidence about the
atrocities that took place in and around Srebrenica. Assistant Secretary
for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor John Shattuck has traveled to the
region to interview refugees and secure first-hand information about
human rights violations; and Assistant Secretary for Population,
Refugees, and Migration Phyllis Oakley has traveled there to help
provide the necessary emergency humanitarian assistance to victims.

-- Armed with concrete information, Secretary Christopher presented
U.S.-gathered evidence of human rights atrocities to the participants at
the London Conference in July and pressed for a more forceful military
role in the region. Ambassador Albright also presented evidence to the
UN Security Council.

-- Under the U.S.-brokered cease-fire of October 1995, the parties
agreed to treat civilians and prisoners humanely, to exchange prisoners
of war under UN supervision, to afford all persons freedom of movement,
and to guarantee the right of displaced persons to return home and
reclaim their property.

-- In November 1995, the United States convened the parties in Dayton,
Ohio, and, together with the Contact Group, succeeded in negotiating a
peace agreement.

-- The agreement commits the parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina to
respect the highest level of internationally recognized human rights, to
grant human rights monitors unrestricted access to their territory, to
cooperate with the ICRC in the search for missing persons, and to
release all persons detained in relation to the conflict. It creates a
Human Rights Commission to investigate and to act upon human rights
violations. Refugees and displaced persons will have the right to return
home or to obtain just compensation. The agreement creates a Commission
of Refugees and Displaced Persons to adjudicate claims.

-- The agreement reaffirms that justice is an integral part of the
process for national reconciliation by obligating the parties to
cooperate with the War Crimes Tribunal and promising that those who have
committed crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes will be
brought to justice.

-- Evidence of human rights abuses gathered by the United States
continues to be made available to the War Crimes Tribunal. Bringing an
end to human rights abuses is a primary purpose of the peace process.

(###)

___________________________________________________________________

The State Department does not guarantee the authenticity of electronic
documents.  If you require the original version of a document in hard
copy, please contact the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Room 6805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.  Telephone: 202-647-5760.  State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced without consent.
Citation of source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce any
copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.
_____________________________________________________________ (###)
</doc><doc><f 151><ht><phrase>Fact sheets</phrase></ht></f>
<f 101><ht><phrase>Central Europe</phrase></ht></f>
<f 201><ht><phrase>Yugoslavia (former)</phrase>, <phrase>Bosnia-Herzegovina</phrase>, <phrase>Serbia-Montenegro</phrase>,
<phrase>Croatia</phrase></ht></f>
<f 150><ht><phrase>History</phrase>, <phrase>State Department</phrase>, <phrase>United Nations</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase>,
<phrase>Development/Relief Aid</phrase>, <phrase>Democratization</phrase>, <phrase>Refugees/Population/Migration</phrase>,
<phrase>NATO</phrase>, <phrase>Military Affairs</phrase>, <phrase>Regional/Civil Unrest</phrase>, <phrase>POW/MIA Issues</phrase></ht></f>
U.S. Department of State Dispatch Supplement
Volume 6, Number 5, December 1995
"Securing a Peace Agreement for Bosnia "
Published by the Bureau of Public Affairs
ARTICLE 14: page 30

<h4><ti>Chronology: The Balkan Conflict </ti></h4>

--  Strains within Yugoslavia's federated system emerged after Tito's
death in 1980. Yugoslavia, an ethnically and religiously diverse
federation of six republics and two autonomous provinces, operated under
a collective government after his death.

--  <b>In the spring of 1990</b>, democratic elections following the collapse
of the communist system in Eastern Europe brought nationalist and
independence-minded governments to power in the western-most republics
of Slovenia and Croatia as well as in Serbia.

--  <b>In June 1991</b>, Croatia and Slovenia declared their independence. This
set off a brief conflict between Slovenes and the Yugoslav Army and a
protracted crisis in Croatia between the newly independent government in
Croatia and the Serbian minority in Croatia ("Krajina Serbs"), supported
by the Yugoslav military. By the end of 1991, the Krajina Serbs had
gained control of nearly one-third of the country.

--  <b>In September 1991</b>, in order to stem the fighting, the UN Security
Council imposed an arms embargo against all of the former Yugoslavia.
The Secretary General also launched a mediation effort under former U.S.
Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, which led to a cease-fire agreement in
Croatia in early 1992 and the deployment of the first UN peacekeepers
during the winter of 1992.

--  <b>In January 1992</b>, while the mediation efforts were ongoing, the
European Community (now the European Union), after considerable internal
debate, decided to recognize Croatia's and Slovenia's independence. They
deferred action on recognizing Bosnia-Herzegovina pending a referendum
to determine public support for independence.

--  <b>In March 1992</b>, voters in Bosnia overwhelmingly approved independence
in a vote boycotted by Bosnian Serbs. Almost immediately, the Bosnian
Serbs, backed by the Serbian-controlled Yugoslav army, began forcible
resistance to Bosnia's independence. By the end of spring 1992, Bosnian
Serbs, who had significant military superiority, especially in heavy
weapons, achieved control over more than 60% of Bosnia's territory.

--  <b>In April 1992</b>, the EU recognized Bosnia. The United States, which
had declined to recognize Croatia and Slovenia earlier, recognized
Bosnia and the other two republics at the same time. All three were
admitted to the UN in May. In response to continued Serb aggression, the
UN Security Council imposed economic sanctions against Serbia at the end
of May.

--  <b>During the summer of 1992</b>, as the human rights and humanitarian
crisis escalated, the Security Council voted to send UN peacekeepers to
Bosnia to facilitate delivery of humanitarian relief. To help assure the
safety of humanitarian operations, the UN imposed a "no-fly zone" over
Bosnia in October 1992. In April 1993, NATO began to enforce the no-fly
zone.

--  <b>In December 1992</b>, the United States warned Serbia that the United
States would respond in the event of Serb-inspired violence in Kosovo.

--  <b>In early 1993</b>, UN peacekeepers deployed to The Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). The United States decided to participate
in order to prevent a widening of the conflict. Five hundred fifty U.S.
troops, as well as 550 troops from other nations, remain in the FYROM.

--  <b>In May 1993</b>, the UN declared Sarajevo and five other Muslim enclaves
"safe areas" under UN protection. NATO agreed in June to use air power
to protect UN forces if attacked.

--  <b>In August 1993</b>, NATO declared its readiness to respond with air
strikes, in coordination with the UN, in the event that UN safe areas,
including Sarajevo, came under siege. This decision temporarily ended
the strangulation of Sarajevo.

--  <b>In February 1994</b>, in response to a Bosnian Serb attack killing 68
civilians in a Sarajevo marketplace, NATO issued an ultimatum that if
Bosnian Serb heavy weapons were not withdrawn from UN-monitored
exclusion zones around the capital, Bosnian Serb forces would be subject
to air strikes.

--  <b>In early 1994</b>, with UN-EU diplomatic efforts stalled over
territorial issues, the United States began more active efforts to
encourage a settlement.

--  <b>In March 1994</b>, U.S. mediation produced an agreement between the
Bosnian Government, Bosnian Croats, and the Government of Croatia to
establish a Federation between Muslims and Croats in Bosnia. Fighting
between the two sides ceased and has not resumed.

--  <b>In April 1994</b>, NATO employed its first air strikes against Bosnian
Serb forces to halt a Serb attack on the eastern enclave and UN safe
area of Gorazde.

--  <b>In the spring of 1994</b>, the United States, Russia, Britain, France,
and Germany established a five-nation Contact Group, with the goal of
brokering a settlement between the Federation and Bosnian Serbs.

--  <b>In late 1994</b>, new fighting erupted between the Bosnian Government,
anti-government Muslims in Bihac (support by Krajina Serbs), and Bosnian
Serbs. NATO responded by expanding the range for air strikes into Serb-
controlled Croatia.

--  <b>In December 1994</b>, with the help of former President Jimmy Carter,
the sides agreed to a four-month cessation of hostilities. When the
period expired, fighting resumed, and in May, the Bosnian Serb forces
began renewed attacks on Sarajevo and began threatening Srebrenica.

--  <b>In the spring of 1995</b>, Bosnian Serb forces responded to NATO air
strikes by taking more than 350 UN peacekeepers hostage. Serbia
intervened to help negotiate the release of hostages. On June 8, United
States and allied forces rescued a U.S. pilot, Capt. Scott O'Grady, who
had been shot down over Bosnia on June 2.

--  <b>In July 1995</b>, in response to the fall of the safe areas of
Srebrenica and Zepa, President Clinton insisted that NATO and the UN
make good on their commitment to protect the remaining safe areas. The
allies agreed to U.S. insistence on NATO decisiveness at the London
Conference on July 21 and threatened broad-based air strikes if the safe
areas were attacked again. When the Bosnian Serbs tested this ultimatum,
NATO undertook an intensive month-long bombing campaign.

--  <b>In late July, 1995</b>, President Clinton decided that changes on the ground
and the new resolve displayed by NATO provided the basis for an all-out
diplomatic effort to end the conflict. In early August, he sent his
National Security Adviser, Anthony Lake, to present a U.S. peace
initiative to our NATO allies and the Russians.

--  U.S.-led mediation produced an agreement by the parties to basic
principles of a settlement as well as a cease-fire which went into
effect in October. Proximity peace talks toward settlement began in
Dayton, Ohio, on November 1.

--  <b>On November 21, 1995</b>, the parties agreed to a settlement. The Dayton
Accord was implemented following its formal signature in Paris on
December 14, 1995.

(###)
___________________________________________________________________

The State Department does not guarantee the authenticity of electronic
documents.  If you require the original version of a document in hard
copy, please contact the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Room 6805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.  Telephone: 202-647-5760.  State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced without consent.
Citation of source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce any
copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.
_____________________________________________________________ (###)
</doc><doc><f 151><ht><phrase>Speeches, Testimony, Statements</phrase></ht></f>
<f 101><ht><phrase>North America</phrase>, <phrase>Europe</phrase>, <phrase>East Asia</phrase></ht></f>
<f 201><ht><phrase>Canada</phrase>, <phrase>Japan</phrase></ht></f>
<f 150><ht><phrase>Trade/Economics</phrase></ht></f>
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
U.S. Department of State Dispatch Supplement
<h3>U.S. Department of State Dispatch Supplement
Vol. 6, No. 4,  June 1995 (G-7 Economic Summit)</h3>
"Group of Seven (G-7) 1995 Economic Summit"
Halifax, Nova Scotia
June 15-17, 1995
Published By The Bureau Of Public Affairs

ARTICLE 1: page 2

<h4><ti>The G-7 Summit: Addressing the Forces of Change</ti></h4>
President <f 100>Clinton</f>
Remarks prior to departure for G-7 Summit, Andrews Air Force Base,
Maryland, <date2>Jun 15, 1995</date2>

Good morning. As you know, I am leaving for Halifax for my third annual
meeting with the leaders of the G-7 industrialized nations. This summit
marks another concrete step in our efforts to advance the security and
prosperity of the American people by seizing the opportunities of the
global economy.

At home, we are working hard to put our economic house in order. We are
creating millions of jobs, working for economic growth, and cutting the
deficit--which is already the lowest of all the advanced countries in
the world. With our new budget proposal, we will wipe out the deficit in
10 years, while still making room for the critical investments in
education and training which our future demands. Going into this
meeting, the United States is in a strong position to continue leading
our allies in the fight for long-term global prosperity.

From the beginning of our Administration, we have led the international
effort to expand trade on a free and fair basis. We helped to expand
world markets with NAFTA and GATT, with trade agreements with the Asia-
Pacific countries, and, here, with the nations of the Americas. We are
helping the former communist countries convert to free market economies.
In all these areas, we have turned back the forces of isolation which
tempt us to turn away from the challenges and opportunities of the
world.

In Halifax, together with our partners, we will focus on continuing to
reform the institutions of the international economy--the World Bank,
the International Monetary Fund, and others so that we can have more
stable, reliable growth. For a half-century, they have been a sound
investment and we are committed to maintaining our support for them. But
now we have to give them new guidance in this new economy so that they
can continue to serve our national interests in a changing global
economy.

One of the key issues we will be addressing is to create ways to
identify and prevent financial problems from exploding into crises as
they did in Mexico. We will embrace joint initiatives to contain and
defuse any crisis that does develop, so that the United States is not
the world's lender of last resort. We will continue to explore how
international organizations--which have helped so many countries improve
the lives of their people--can better aid developing nations and expand
the world's market economies.

Finally, together with Russia, we will examine the challenges to our
safety and well-being that no country can resolve alone. We will look at
new ways we can work together to combat the scourges of terrorism,
nuclear smuggling, drug trafficking, and organized crime. Of course, we
will discuss a number of security issues that concern us all--including
Bosnia and Iran's nuclear ambitions.

When I arrive in Halifax today, I will be meeting with Prime Minister
Murayama of Japan. Our relationship is strong and we are cooperating on
a broad variety of issues, including North Korea--which is terribly
important to both of us--the environment, and the problems of terrorism
which have visited both our nations recently. But I also will make it
clear to the Prime Minister that I am determined to carry through on my
effort to open Japan's auto markets. Millions of American exports and
thousands of American jobs depend upon our success. I will say again: It
is in the long-term interest of both the Japanese people and the people
of the United States that this trade effort succeed.

All around the world, free markets, open trade, and new technologies are
bringing countries closer together. Every day they are producing untold
new opportunities for our people. They also lead us into uncharted
territory with new problems. I believe, on balance, that the future is
very bright if we have the discipline to face these issues as they
arise.

As the world's leading industrialized democracies, those of us in the G-
7 have a very special responsibility to address these forces of change.
That is what we will be doing at Halifax.

(###)


___________________________________________________________________

The State Department does not guarantee the authenticity of electronic
documents.  If you require the original version of a document in hard
copy, please contact the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Room 6805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.  Telephone: 202-647-5760.  State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced without consent.
Citation of source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce any
copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.
_____________________________________________________________ (###)
</doc><doc><f 151><ht><phrase>Speeches, Testimony, Statements</phrase></ht></f>
<f 101><ht><phrase>East Asia</phrase></ht></f>
<f 201><ht><phrase>Japan</phrase></ht></f>
<f 150><ht><phrase>State Department</phrase></ht></f>
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 6, SUPPLEMENT NO. 4, JULY 1995
Group of Seven (G-7) 1995 Economic Summit
Published By The Bureau Of Public Affairs

ARTICLE 2: pages 3-4

<h4><ti>The U.S. and Japan Pursue Shared Goals and Common Interests</ti></h4>
President <f 100>Clinton</f>, Japanese Prime Minister Murayama
Opening statements at press conference, Dalhousie University, Halifax,
Nova Scotia, <date2>Jun 15, 1995</date2>

<h5>President Clinton.</h5>
Good afternoon. Before turning to my meeting with Prime Minister
Murayama, let me begin by thanking Prime Minister Chretien and the
people of Halifax for welcoming Hillary and me and our delegation to
Canada. Even on our short boat ride across the harbor we could see why
this city and, indeed, all of Nova Scotia are favorite sights for so
many American tourists. I hope the important business we do here won't
prevent us from enjoying a little of this very beautiful place.

Our business today began with The meeting with Prime Minister Murayama--
the third in the constructive dialogue we began last November. Our
discussion focused on the strength of the U.S.-Japan relationship, and
we are determined to make it stronger still. Never have the ties between
our nations been more important, and never have they been closer.

Our two great democracies are also the world's largest economies.
Together, we make up more than 30% of the world's gross domestic
product. Trade between our people is growing rapidly.

Our security ties have never been closer. Friends and foes alike know
the Japanese-American relationship is the most important force for peace
and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. Every day, our people work
together on the vital challenges of our times--protecting the
environment, responding to natural disasters, combating the deadly trade
in illegal drugs, and fighting the terrorists who have threatened both
our nations from abroad and from within.

No issue is more important to our nations than stopping the spread of
nuclear weapons. Prime Minister Murayama and I, along with our South
Korean allies, have worked tirelessly on our strategy to stop the
development of North Korea's nuclear program. We pledged to push forward
with this week's important agreement to implement that strategy. Japan
has agreed to make a significant contribution to the light-water
reactors that will supply energy to the North Koreans without producing
weapons-grade materials. I thanked the Prime Minister for Japan's
ongoing commitment to the fight against weapons of mass destruction.

The Prime Minister briefed me on plans for the upcoming meeting of the
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. APEC, as all of you know, has
become an essential part of America's strategy for regional prosperity.
Japan and the United States will work together so that November's
meeting in Osaka sustains the momentum toward free and open trade in the
Asia-Pacific region achieved in Seattle and, last year, in Indonesia.

We also discussed our progress and our disagreements on trade. Since the
beginning of my Administration, the United States and Japan have
concluded agreements 15 times--to open markets and increase trade across
a wide variety of products and services.

The latest, reached just this week, offers tax and financial incentives
to Americans who want to establish on-the-ground operations in Japan.
The Prime Minister and I also agreed to extend the 1993 Framework on
Trade Negotiations, and I am optimistic that that will advance both our
interests in free and open trade. Once again, this proves that our
countries can and do work together to solve our disputes and enable
American companies to better compete in the Japanese market.

But we also, as all of you know, have little differences. The Prime
Minister and I discussed the problem of access for U.S.-airline cargo
carriers to the Japanese market, for example. I again expressed to the
Prime Minister my concern that Japan honor rights that our carriers now
have guaranteed under existing aviation agreements.

On the difficult issue of autos and auto parts, we had a frank and open
exchange of our views. We agreed that our negotiators should redouble
their efforts to seek a solution to those differences when they meet in
Geneva next week. But I made it clear that I am determined to carry
through on my effort to open Japan's auto markets. Billions of dollars
in American exports and thousands of American jobs are at stake. They
depend upon our success.

Opening these markets, as I have said repeatedly, will benefit not only
the United States, but Japanese consumers as well. I have instructed our
negotiators to pursue every possible avenue of resolution before the
June 28 deadline, and I remain hopeful that an acceptable, meaningful
agreement can be reached. But if a solution cannot be found by the
deadline, I will impose sanctions, and the United States also will
pursue a case before the World Trade Organization.

At times like these, it is tempting to focus only on the differences
that bring our two nations to the negotiating table. But I ask you again
not to lose sight of the broader truths of our relationship. Only
decades after the end of the terrible war that pitted our people against
each other, the United States and Japan are allies and share a profound
commitment to democracy, security, and prosperity. Our common agenda
embraces everything from the fight to preserve our global environment to
the global fight against AIDS, promoting the cause of women in
developing countries, to working together on natural disasters such as
earthquakes, and dealing with our common concerns after Oklahoma City
and the terrible incident in the Japanese subway with terrorism, and the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

In any relationship as broad and deep as ours, there always will be
differences. But the United States and Japan agree: No one issue, no one
difference will allow us to undermine our alliance or stop us from
pursuing our shared goals and our common interests.

Our two great democracies will never rest in our pursuit of a better, a
safer, and a more prosperous future for all of our people.


<h5>Prime Minister Murayama.</h5>
In my meeting with President Clinton for a couple of hours until a while
ago, I engaged in a candid exchange of views on the present and future
of Japan-U.S. relations and the stance that we will take as we go into
the G-7 meeting. And I think the meeting was very meaningful.

U.S.-Japan relations have grown over the past 50 years--since the end of
the Second World War, and we are connected by a strong bond of
cooperation and collaboration.

President Clinton and I confirmed that the security dialogue is
progressing smoothly. Thanks to the President's cooperation, the issue
of U.S. military bases in Okinawa has seen important progress. The
response to North Korea's nuclear development issue--which seemed to
test our bilateral collaboration--has produced important results, thanks
to the solidarity of our two countries and the Republic of Korea. It is
a matter that we expressed appreciation for. A common agenda--that is to
say our cooperation from global perspectives--is a symbol of creative
partnership between our two countries. We, today, received a joint
report containing new areas of cooperation. The President and I are of
the view that such cooperation should be promoted further.

As was mentioned earlier by the President, we also discussed the auto
issue as well as the civil aviation issue. While the two countries
remain apart on these issues, the President and I see eye-to-eye that we
both will do our utmost to settle the issue as early as possible through
the consultations slated for next week in Geneva.

By the way, since the President has alluded to this matter, I should
like to say that I asked for expeditious removal of the unilateral
measures since they violate the rules and the spirit of the World Trade
Organization. Now, in connection with that, including the civil aviation
issue, we both agree that Japan-U.S relations are a bilateral
relationship of vital importance--so much so that the auto issue and
aviation issue should not be allowed to adversely affect overall Japan-
U.S. relations.

We will welcome President and Mrs. Clinton as state guests in November.
Today's meeting with the President took place at a midpoint between my
visit to Washington, DC, earlier in January, and his visit to Japan in
November. I am determined to further strengthen our bilateral
partnership in the run-up to the President's visit and beyond, into the
future.

Lastly, I proposed to the President to hold a bilateral symposium of
seismologists on earthquakes, in order to enable the people of our two
countries who have experienced the great Hanshin earthquake and the
Northridge earthquake, respectively, and make the most of their
experiences and the lessons. The President has agreed to the proposal.
Thank you.

(###)


___________________________________________________________________

The State Department does not guarantee the authenticity of electronic
documents.  If you require the original version of a document in hard
copy, please contact the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Room 6805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.  Telephone: 202-647-5760.  State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced without consent.
Citation of source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce any
copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.
_____________________________________________________________ (###)
</doc><doc><f 151><ht><phrase>Speeches, Testimony, Statements</phrase></ht></f>
<f 101><ht><phrase>North America</phrase></ht></f>
<f 150><ht><phrase>GATT</phrase>, <phrase>NAFTA</phrase></ht></f>
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 6, SUPPLEMENT NO. 4, JULY 1995
Group of Seven (G-7) 1995 Economic Summit
Published By The Bureau Of Public Affairs

ARTICLE 3: pages 4-5

<h4><ti>U.S. Global Leadership Responsibilities: The G-7 Summit and Beyond</ti></h4>
President <f 100>Clinton</f>
Opening statement at press conference, Dalhousie University, Halifax,
Nova Scotia, <date2>Jun 16, 1995</date2> (Introductory remarks deleted)

From the beginning of our Administration I have worked hard to make the
global economy work for the American people. We live and work in a
global market. Our living standards depend upon our ability to compete
and to keep one step ahead of economic change.

In the past two-and-a-half years we have fought at home for a
comprehensive economic strategy that would create jobs and lift the
incomes of our people, focusing on reducing the deficit  but investing
in our people--in their education and their future. My new budget
proposal continues to reflect these priorities.

At the same time, we have worked to open more markets around the world
to our products in free and fair competition with others, through NAFTA,
GATT, and our work with the Asia-Pacific countries and with the
countries of the Americas. We also have worked hard to encourage the
global trend toward market democracy in the former communist countries.

I am pursuing this strategy, above all, for one reason: to renew the
promise of America in the 21st century. But I also want to preserve the
leadership of America as a force for peace and freedom, for democracy
and prosperity.

This G-7 meeting has moved us a step closer to these goals. We've taken
concrete steps to strengthen the international financial system--
something we promised to do last year in Naples. And let me give you
one--and perhaps the most important--example.

Earlier this year, we in the United States were confronted with a
serious financial crisis in Mexico. It posed a risk to markets
throughout the world, and it certainly threatened our own economic
health, as well as our long-term relationships with Mexico, involving a
number of other issues. We led the effort to stabilize Mexico, and, from
all signs, it seems to be working. President Zedillo and his team have
worked hard to live within the discipline the markets have imposed and
to move Mexico to a brighter and better future.

We learned two important lessons in dealing with the Mexico crisis.
First, the world clearly needs better tools to identify problems such as
this so that they can be prevented; and second, the international system
must have a stronger way of resolving these crises once they do occur.

We were fortunate in the Mexico instance that the United States had
access to a fund which would permit us to make some guarantees and move
to put together an international approach to this problem. But the U.S.
will not be able to be the lender of last resort in other crises of this
kind. So here in Halifax, we have begun to forge the tools to deal with
these kinds of problems in the future.

We agreed to create an early warning system that will sound the alarm
when nations begin to encounter real problems, before a problem with the
severity of the Mexico crisis develops. We call for early and full
disclosure of critical monetary and financial information. We'll
establish tougher reporting standards for nations so that markets will
react more quickly and nations will be pressed to implement sound
policies in a timely manner. This may be the best discipline for
preventing future crises.

When these problems do occur, we must respond decisively. Leaders of the
G-7 have taken crucial steps toward that end. We've called upon the
International Monetary Fund to establish a new mechanism to ensure that
we can act swiftly when one nation's economic crisis threatens the world
economy. We propose to double the funds available for this purpose to
more than $50 billion from those nations with a stake in a stable
international financial system. That will require loans from the United
States which must be authorized by Congress. I know a lot of you are
thinking about that, but they are scored as cost-free to the American
taxpayers because they're viewed as risk-free because they go to the
international institutions.

The G-7 leaders also have agreed that the international financial
institutions--the World Bank, the IMF--and the agencies of the United
Nations must continue on a path of reform. These institutions have
served us well for half a century, and we will continue to support them,
but they must adapt for a new era. We put forward new principles that
will focus their work on addressing vital human needs--alleviating
poverty, supporting private sector development, and promoting
sustainable development and environmental protection along side economic
growth. The resulting economic growth will bolster democracy and
stability in developing nations and, of course, create future markets
for American exports.

The leaders at Halifax also are discussing new security threats that no
nation should face alone. We'll have more to say about that tomorrow.
But let me say that we have agreed that the G-7 must work together far
more energetically and comprehensively to counter the growing dangers
posed by terrorists, international criminals, nuclear smugglers, and
drug traffickers. We must cooperate and work closely to counter
terrorism and criminal activities sponsored by states, groups, and
individuals. These are among the foremost challenges of the post-Cold
War world.

These are issues which affect the lives of the American people in a very
direct way. How we deal with them, whether and how we strengthen the
international financial system and reform its institutions, and how we
fight challenges such as terrorism will in no small way determine our
citizens' future prosperity and security, how they feel about
themselves, and the future their children will enjoy.

To create new, high-wage jobs, to raise incomes, and to expand economic
opportunity, the United States must continue to lead, even as we work
hard on these matters at home. We cannot--I will say again--we cannot
walk away from our global leadership responsibilities. In Halifax we
have taken another solid step along that road. It will make the economy
work better for the American people, and I believe it will help us
prevent future "Mexicos" and deal with those crises in a much more
effective way when they do occur.

(###)


___________________________________________________________________

The State Department does not guarantee the authenticity of electronic
documents.  If you require the original version of a document in hard
copy, please contact the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Room 6805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.  Telephone: 202-647-5760.  State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced without consent.
Citation of source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce any
copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.
_____________________________________________________________ (###)
</doc><doc><f 151><ht><phrase>Speeches, Testimony, Statements</phrase></ht></f>
<f 101><ht><phrase>North America</phrase>, <phrase>Europe</phrase></ht></f>
<f 201><ht><phrase>Canada</phrase>, <phrase>United States</phrase></ht></f>
<f 150><ht><phrase>Trade/Economics</phrase>, <phrase>Development/Relief Aid</phrase>, <phrase>Environment</phrase>, <phrase>Nuclear
Nonproliferation</phrase>, <phrase>Arms Control</phrase></ht></f>
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 6, SUPPLEMENT NO. 4, JULY 1995
Group of Seven (G-7) 1995 Economic Summit
Published By The Bureau Of Public Affairs

ARTICLE 4: pages 5-10

<h4><ti>Halifax Summit Communique</ti></h4>
Text of communique issued at Halifax, Nova Scotia, <date2>Jun 16, 1995</date2>.

<h5>Preamble</h5>

1. We, the Heads of State and Government of seven major industrialized
nations and the President of the European Commission, have met in
Halifax for our 21st annual Summit. We have gathered at a time of change
and opportunity, and have reaffirmed our commitment to working together
and with our partners throughout the world.

<h5>Growth and Employment</h5>

2. The central purpose of our economic policy is to improve the well
being of our people, allowing them to lead full and productive lives.
Creating good quality jobs and reducing unemployment, which remains
unacceptably high in too many of our countries, is thus an urgent
priority for all of us. We are committed to establishing an economic
environment conducive to the accomplishment of this goal.

3. We remain encouraged by the continued strong growth in much of the
world's economy. While there has been some slowing, in most of our
countries the conditions for continued growth appear to be in place and
inflation is well under control. We will pursue appropriate
macroeconomic and structural policies to maintain the momentum of
growth.

4. Yet problems remain. Internal and external imbalances, together with
unhelpful fluctuations in financial and currency markets, could
jeopardize achievement of sustained, non-inflationary growth as well as
the continued expansion of international trade.

5. We remain committed to the medium-term economic strategy that we
earlier agreed upon. Consistent with it, we are determined to make the
best possible use of the current economic expansion by taking steps to
promote durable job creation. This requires determined action to further
reduce public deficits, to maintain a non-inflationary environment and
to increase national savings for the funding of a high level of global
investment. Each country has to keep its own house in order.

6. We endorse the conclusions reached by G-7 Finance Ministers in
Washington and ask them to maintain close cooperation in economic
surveillance and in exchange markets.

7. Good fiscal and monetary policies will not on their own deliver the
full fruits of better economic performance. We must also remove
obstacles to achieving the longer-term potential of our economies to
grow and create secure, well-paying jobs. This will require measures to
upgrade the skills of our labour force, and to promote, where
appropriate, greater flexibility in labour markets and elimination of
unnecessary regulations. At Naples we committed ourselves to a range of
reforms in the areas of training and education, labour market regulation
and adjustment, technological innovation and enhanced competition. As we
pursue these reforms, we welcome the initiation by the OECD of a
detailed review of each member economy's structural and employment
policies.

8. As a follow-up to our discussions, we agree to ask ministers to meet
in France before our next Summit to review the progress made in job
creation and consider how best to increase employment in all of our
countries.

9. We are also committed to ensuring protection for our aging
populations and those in need in our societies. To this end, some of our
countries must take measures to ensure the sustainability of our public
pension programs and systems of social support. Similar attention is
required in some of our countries to ensuring the availability of
private sector pension funds.

10. We welcome the results of the G-7 Information Society conference
held in Brussels in February, including the eight core policy principles
agreed to by Ministers, and encourage implementation of the series of
pilot projects designed to help promote innovation and the spread of new
technologies. We also welcome the involvement of the private sector. We
encourage a dialogue with developing countries and economies in
transition in establishing the Global Information Society, and welcome
the proposal that an information society conference be convened in South
Africa in spring 1996.

<h5>Meeting the Challenges of the 21st Century</h5>

11. International institutions have been central to our pursuit of
stability, prosperity and equity for the past 50 years. Last year, in
Naples, we called for a review of the international institutions to
ensure that they are equipped to deal effectively with the challenges of
the future. Today, in Halifax, we are proposing some concrete steps
toward this goal. All countries have a stake in effective, efficient
institutions. We pledge our full energies to strengthening the
institutions in partnership with their entire membership to enhance the
security and prosperity of the world.

<h5>Strengthening the Global Economy</h5>

12. The world economy has changed beyond all recognition over the last
50 years. The process of globalization, driven by technological change,
has led to increased economic interdependence: this applies to some
policy areas seen previously as purely domestic, and to interactions
between policy areas. The major challenge confronting us is to manage
this increased interdependence while working with the grain of markets,
and recognizing the growing number of important players. This is
especially important in the pursuit of global macroeconomic and
financial stability.

13. Close consultation and effective cooperation on macroeconomic
policies among the G-7 are important elements in promoting sustained
non-inflationary growth, avoiding the emergence of large external and
internal imbalances, and promoting greater exchange market stability.
Our Ministers have adopted a number of changes to the structure of their
consultations over time, in order to strengthen policy cooperation,
including enhanced consultation with the IMF.

14. The growth and integration of global capital markets have created
both enormous opportunities and new risks. We have a shared interest in
ensuring the international community remains able to manage the risks
inherent in the growth of private capital flows, the increased
integration of domestic capital markets, and the accelerating pace of
financial innovation.

15. The developments in Mexico earlier this year and their repercussions
have sharpened our focus on these issues. We welcome the recent more
positive turn of events in Mexico, as well as the positive developments
in a number of emerging economies.

16. The prevention of crisis is the preferred course of action. This is
best achieved through each country pursuing sound fiscal and monetary
policies. But it also requires an improved early warning system, so that
we can act more quickly to prevent or handle financial shocks. Such a
system must include improved and effective surveillance of national
economic policies and financial market developments, and fuller
disclosure of this information to market participants. To this end, we
urge the IMF to:

--  establish benchmarks for the timely publication of key economic and
financial data;

--  establish a procedure for the regular public identification of
countries which comply with these benchmarks;

--  insist on full and timely reporting by member countries of standard
sets of data, provide sharper policy advice to all governments, and
deliver franker messages to countries that appear to be avoiding
necessary actions.

17. If prevention fails, financial market distress requires that
multilateral institutions and major economies be able to respond where
appropriate in a quick and coordinated fashion. Financing mechanisms
must operate on a scale and with the timeliness required to manage
shocks effectively. In this context, we urge the IMF to:

--  establish a new standing procedure--"Emergency Financing Mechanism"-
-which would provide faster access to Fund arrangements with strong
conditionality and larger up front disbursements in crisis situations.

18. To support this procedure, we ask:

--  the G-10 and other countries with the capacity to support the system
to develop financing arrangements with the objective of doubling as soon
as possible the amount currently available under the GAB to respond to
financial emergencies;

19. To ensure that the IMF has sufficient resources to meet its ongoing
responsibilities, we urge continued discussions on a new IMF quota
review.

20. Solid progress on the elements discussed above should significantly
improve our ability to cope with future financial crises. Nevertheless,
these improvements may not be sufficient in all cases. In line with
this, and recognizing the complex legal and other issues posed in debt
crisis situations by the wide variety of sources of international
finance involved, we would encourage further review by G-10 Ministers
and Governors of other procedures that might also usefully be considered
for their orderly resolution.

21. We continue to support the inclusion of all IMF members in the SDR
system. Moreover, we urge the IMF to initiate a broad review of the role
and functions of the SDR in light of changes in the world financial
system.

22. Closer international cooperation in the regulation and supervision
of financial institutions and markets is essential to safeguard the
financial system and prevent an erosion of prudential standards. We
urge:

--  a deepening of cooperation among regulators and supervisory agencies
to ensure an effective and integrated approach, on a global basis, to
developing and enhancing the safeguards, standards, transparency and
systems necessary to monitor and contain risks;

--  continued encouragement to countries to remove capital market
restrictions, coupled with strengthened policy advice from international
financial institutions on the appropriate supervisory structures;

--  finance ministers to commission studies and analysis from the
international organizations responsible for banking and securities
regulations and to report on the adequacy of current arrangements,
together with proposals for improvement where necessary, at the next
Summit.

23. We also recognize that international financial fraud is a growing
problem. We are committed to improving communication between regulators
and law enforcement agencies.

<h5>Promoting Sustainable Development</h5>

24. A higher quality of life for all people is the goal of sustainable
development. Democracy, human rights, transparent and accountable
governance, investment in people and environmental protection are the
foundations of sustainable development. The primary responsibility rests
with each country but bilateral and multilateral international
cooperation is essential to reinforce national efforts. We are committed
to securing substantial flows of funds and to improving the quality of
our assistance.

25. IDA plays an indispensable role in helping to reduce poverty and
integrate the poorest countries into the global economy. We urge all
donor countries to fulfill promptly their commitments to IDA-10 and to
support a significant replenishment through IDA-11. We look forward to
the recommendations of the Development Committee's Task Force on
Multilateral Development Banks.

26. Multilateral institutions play a crucial role by providing
intellectual leadership and policy advice, and by marshalling resources
for countries committed to sustainable development. The United Nations
and the Bretton Woods institutions should build on their respective
strengths. The UN offers a unique forum for consensus building on global
priorities, is an advocate for core values, and responds to development
and humanitarian needs. The Bretton Woods institutions have a particular
role in promoting macro-economic stability, in supporting favourable
environments for sustainable development and in mobilizing and
transferring resources for development. We will work with the
organizations and all their members to ensure relevant multilateral
institutions:

--  make sustainable development a central goal of their policies and
programmes, including by intensifying and deepening the integration of
environmental considerations into all aspects of their programmes;

--  encourage countries to follow sound economic, environmental and
social policies and to create the appropriate legal and structural
framework for sustainable development;

--  encourage countries to follow participatory development strategies
and support governmental reforms that assure transparency and public
accountability, a stable rule of law, and an active civil society;

--  encourage the development of a healthy private sector, expand
guarantees and co-financing arrangements to catalyze private flows, and
increase credit for small and medium-sized enterprises;

--  continue to provide resources for the infrastructure needed for
sustainable development, where these are not available from the private
sector.

27. We agree on the need to actively support the peace process in the
Middle-East. Such support would include the establishment of a new
institution and financing mechanism enhancing regional cooperation. We
therefore urge the Task Force already at work to continue its
deliberations with an aim to arriving at a suitable proposal in time for
the Amman summit next October.

<h5>Reducing Poverty</h5>

28. An overriding priority is to improve the plight of the world's poor.
Persistence of extreme poverty and marginalization of the poorest
countries is simply not compatible with universal aspirations for
prosperity and security. Sub-Saharan Africa faces especially severe
challenges. We will work with others to encourage relevant multilateral
institutions to:

--  focus concessional resources on the poorest countries, especially
those in Sub-Saharan Africa, which have a demonstrated capacity and
commitment to use them effectively, and take trends in military and
other unproductive spending into account in extending assistance;

--  direct a substantially increased proportion of their resources to
basic social programmes and other measures which attack the roots of
poverty.

29. We welcome the Paris Club response to our encouragement last year to
improve the treatment of the debt of the poorest countries and urge the
full and constructive implementation of the Naples terms. We recognize
that some of the poorest countries have substantial multilateral debt
burdens. We will encourage:

--  the Bretton Woods institutions to develop a comprehensive approach
to assist countries with multilateral debt problems, through the
flexible implementation of existing instruments and new mechanisms where
necessary;

--  better use of all existing World Bank and IMF resources and adoption
of appropriate measures in the multilateral development banks to advance
this objective and to continue concessional ESAF lending operations.

30. Open markets throughout the world are also crucial to accelerated
economic growth in the developing countries. Multilateral institutions
should work to assist the integration of the poorest countries into the
world trading system. We encourage the WTO to monitor and review the
Uruguay Round's impact on the least developed countries.

<h5>Safeguarding the Environment</h5>

31. We place top priority on both domestic and international action to
safeguard the environment. Environmental protection triggers the
development and deployment of innovative technologies, which enhance
economic efficiency and growth and help create long term employment. In
their policies, operations and procurement, G-7 governments must show
leadership in improving the environment. This will require the
appropriate mix of economic instruments, innovative accountability
mechanisms, environmental impact assessment and voluntary measures.
Efforts must focus on pollution prevention, the "polluter pays"
principle, internalization of environmental costs, and the integration
of environmental considerations into policy and decision making in all
sectors.

32. We underline the importance of meeting the commitments we made at
the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and subsequently, and the need to review and
strengthen them, where appropriate. Climate change remains of major
global importance. We will work with others to:

--  fulfill our existing obligations under the Climate Change
Convention, and our commitments to meet the agreed ambitious timetable
and objectives to follow up the Berlin Conference of the Parties;

--  implement the medium term work program adopted pursuant to the
Convention on Biological Diversity;

--  conclude successfully the work of the CSD intergovernmental panel on
forests, and promote a successful UN Conference on Straddling Fish
Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks and international consensus at
the next CSD session on action to deal with the problems of the world's
oceans.

33. We encourage a clearer delineation of the mandates of the CSD and
UNEP. CSD should be the global forum for identifying and agreeing upon
long term strategic goals for sustainable development. UNEP should act
as an international environmental voice and catalyst; it should focus on
monitoring, assessment, and the development of international
environmental law.

<h5>Preventing and Responding to Crises</h5>

34. Disasters and other crises complicate the development challenge and
have exposed gaps in our institutional machinery. To help prevent and
mitigate emerging crises, including those with human rights and refugee
dimensions, we will ask:

--  the UN Secretary General to explore means to improve the analysis
and utilization of disaster and conflict-related early warning
information, particularly through the High Commissioners on Human Rights
and Refugees;

--  the Bretton Woods institutions and the UN to establish a new
coordination procedure, supported as necessary by existing resources, to
facilitate a smooth transition from the emergency to the rehabilitation
phase of a crisis, and to cooperate more effectively with donor
countries;

--  the bodies involved in the provision of humanitarian assistance to
cooperate more closely with the Department of Humanitarian Affairs in
its assigned coordination role.

<h5>Reinforcing Coherence, Effectiveness and Efficiency of Institutions</h5>

35. To fulfill their missions effectively into the future, multilateral
institutions must continue to undertake reforms and to improve
coordination and reduce overlap. The international financial
institutions have shown flexibility in responding to the changing needs
of the world economy; there nevertheless remain a number of areas where
improvements are desirable to better prepare the institutions for the
challenges ahead. We will encourage:

--  the World Bank and the regional development banks to decentralize
their operations wherever possible;

--  the IMF and World Bank to concentrate on their respective core
concerns (broadly, macroeconomic policy for the IMF and structural and
sectoral policies for the World Bank);

--  revision of the Ministerial committees of the IMF and World Bank to
promote more effective decision-making;

--  the World Bank Group to integrate more effectively the activities of
the International Finance Corporation and the Multilateral Investment
Guarantee Agency into its country assistance strategies;

--  the multilateral development banks to coordinate their respective
country programmes more effectively with bilateral and other
multilateral donors.

36. So as to allow the United Nations better to meet the objectives in
its Charter, we will encourage broadening and deepening the reform
process already underway, and will work with others to:

--  complete the Agenda for Development, which should set out a fresh
approach to international cooperation and define the particular
contribution expected of UN bodies;

--  develop a more effective internal policy coordination role for the
Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC); encourage deeper cooperation
between UN and specialized agencies both at headquarters and in the
field; consolidate and streamline organizations in the economic and
social fields, such as humanitarian relief and development assistance;
and encourage the adoption of modern management techniques, with a more
transparent and accountable Secretariat;

--  update and focus mandates to avoid duplication; eliminate overlaps
with new organizations, eg. UNCTAD with WTO, and consider the roles of
certain institutions in light of evolving challenges, eg. Regional
Economic Commissions and UNIDO.

We call upon Member States to meet their financial obligations and urge
early agreement on reform of the system of assessment.

37. To increase overall coherence, cooperation and cost effectiveness we
will work with others to encourage:

--  rationalization of data collection, analysis, priority setting, and
reporting activities, and greater complementarity in the provision of
assistance at the country level;

--  improved coordination among international organizations, bilateral
donors and NGOs;

--  all institutions to formulate and implement plans to effect
significant reductions in operating costs over the next few years.

<h5>Follow-up</h5>

38. These are our initial proposals to prepare multilateral institutions
for the challenges of the next century. We intend to promote them
actively, working together with the wider inter- national community in
all appropriate organizations. In particular, in the UN, we commit
ourselves to working with other members to advance these goals. We will
use the 50th anniversary celebrations in October 1995 to build consensus
on these priorities with others. We will take stock at our meeting next
year in France.

<h5>Creating Opportunities Through Open Markets</h5>

39. We recognize that new investment and increased trade are vital to
achieving our growth and employment objectives. In a global market,
opportunities for domestic and foreign producers and suppliers of goods
and services depend as much on domestic policies as on external
barriers. In order to improve market access, we intend to work for the
reduction of remaining internal and external barriers.

40. We will implement the Uruguay Round Agreements fully, and reaffirm
our commitment to resist protectionism in all its forms. We will build
on the Agreements to create new opportunities for growth, employment and
global cooperation. We will work together and with our trading partners
to consolidate the WTO as an effective institution, and are committed to
ensuring  a well-functioning and respected dispute settlement mechanism.
We endorse closer cooperation between the WTO and other international
economic institutions. We recognize the importance of enhancing the
transparency of the WTO.

41. We support accession to the WTO in accordance with the rules that
apply to all of its members and on the basis of meaningful market access
commitments. We are committed to ensuring that our participation in
regional trade initiatives continues to be a positive force for the
multilateral system.

42. The momentum of trade liberalization must be maintained. We are
committed to the successful completion of current negotiations in
services sectors and, in particular, significant liberalization in
financial and telecommunications services. We will proceed with follow-
up work foreseen in the Uruguay Round Final Act. We encourage work in
areas such as technical standards, intellectual property and government
procurement; an immediate priority is the negotiation in the OECD of a
high standard multilateral agreement on investment. We will begin
discussions on investment with our partners in the WTO. We recognize
that initiatives such as regulatory reform have a particularly important
contribution to make to trade liberalization and economic growth by
removing administrative and structural impediments to global
competition.

43. Consistent with the goal of continued trade liberalization, we will
pursue work on:

--  trade and environment to ensure that rules and policies in these
different  areas are compatible;

--  the scope for multilateral action in the fields of trade and
competition policy;

--  trade, employment and labour standards.

44. We will work together with our partners in the WTO and other
appropriate fora to create the basis for an ambitious first WTO
Ministerial Meeting in Singapore in 1996.

<h5>Economies in Transition</h5>

45. We recognize the progress of many countries in transition toward
democratic, market-based societies. Early and determined macroeconomic
stabilization has proven the most effective strategy to allow an early
return to growth. To consolidate these gains, the process of far
reaching structural reform must be pursued vigorously. We will continue
our support for economic reform in the economies in transition, and
their integration into the global trade and financial systems. We
recognize their need for improved market access.

46. We welcome the good start Ukraine has made on its bold program of
economic reform. The recent Stand-By Arrangement with the IMF provided
the basis for substantial financial support by the international
financial institutions and bilateral donors. We encourage Ukraine to
continue its reform efforts in close cooperation with the international
financial institutions. Assuming the continuation of strong economic
reform, an additional $2 billion in commitments could be available from
the international financial institutions by the end of 1996.

47. We are encouraged by Russia's renewed commitments to financial
stabilization and economic reform. Continued political reform is also
necessary. We believe that a stable political, regulatory and legal
environment, and the development of a modern financial sector, together
with the full implementation of the policy measures outlined in the
recently signed IMF Stand-By Arrangement, will promote Russian economic
recovery. We welcome the June 3 Paris Club debt rescheduling agreement
and recognize the relevance of a comprehensive multilateral treatment of
Russia's external public debt. We also note Russia's interest in working
in close cooperation with the Paris Club.

<h5>Nuclear Safety</h5>

48. Each country is responsible for the safety of its nuclear
facilities. We welcome progress to date in improving levels of nuclear
safety in the countries of central and eastern Europe and the Newly
Independent States. We congratulate President Kuchma of Ukraine on his
decision to close the Chernobyl nuclear power plant by the year 2000. We
reaffirm the commitments of support made last year at Naples under the
G-7 Action Plan for Ukraine's Energy Sector. We are pleased to note the
replenishment of the EBRD Nuclear Safety Account and the commitment of
bilateral resources for short-term safety upgrades and preliminary
decommissioning work for the closure of Chernobyl. We invite other
donors to join with the G-7 countries in contributing funds for this
purpose.

49. In order to assist the closure of Chernobyl, we will continue our
efforts to mobilize international support for appropriate energy
production, energy efficiency and nuclear safety projects. Any
assistance for replacement power for Chernobyl will be based on sound
cost-effective and environmental criteria. The World Bank and EBRD
should continue their cooperation with Ukraine in devising a realistic
long-term energy strategy. They should increase their financial
contribution in support of appropriate energy sector reform and energy
conservation measures, and mobilize private sector support for energy
investments.

<h5>Next Summit</h5>

50. We have accepted the invitation of the President of France to meet
in Lyon from June 27th to 29th, 1996.

(###)


___________________________________________________________________

The State Department does not guarantee the authenticity of electronic
documents.  If you require the original version of a document in hard
copy, please contact the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Room 6805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.  Telephone: 202-647-5760.  State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced without consent.
Citation of source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce any
copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.
_____________________________________________________________ (###)
</doc><doc><f 151><ht><phrase>Speeches, Testimony, Statements</phrase></ht></f>
<f 101><ht><phrase>North America</phrase>, <phrase>Europe</phrase></ht></f>
<f 201><ht><phrase>Canada</phrase>, <phrase>Barbados</phrase>, <phrase>Auckland Islands</phrase></ht></f>
<f 150><ht><phrase>United Nations</phrase>, <phrase>Arms Control</phrase>,</ht></f>
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 6, SUPPLEMENT NO. 4, JULY 1995
Group of Seven (G-7) 1995 Economic Summit
Published By The Bureau Of Public Affairs

ARTICLE 5: pages 10-13

<h4><ti>Chairman's Statement</ti></h4>
Text of statement issued at Halifax, Nova Scotia, <date2>Jun 17, 1995</date2>.

1. In this 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War and the
birth of the United Nations, we discussed in a spirit of cooperation
political issues of global importance. Noting with satisfaction what has
been achieved through reconciliation and cooperation, we confirmed our
desire to work together ever more closely in finding solutions.

<h5>Commitment to Multilateral Engagement</h5>

2. We reaffirm our commitment to the UN, whose Charter lays down the
fundamental principles for an international order based on peace and
security, sustainable development, and respect for human rights. We
support measures to strengthen the UN, which is called upon to play an
ever more important role in the post Cold War period, and will work with
other Member States to build, through concrete reforms of the
institutions, a more effective and efficient organization to meet the
challenges of the next half-century. We call upon Member States to meet
their financial obligations and urge early agreement on reform of the
system of assessment.

3. The United Nations must be able to act more quickly and effectively
to address threats to international peace and security. We, for our
part, are determined to coordinate more closely our individual efforts
to assist in the prevention, management and resolution of conflicts. A
high priority should be placed on the early warning of crises, political
mediation and, in accordance with realistic mandates, the rapid
deployment of UN civilian and military personnel, including
peacekeepers, to areas of conflict. We encourage further efforts to
improve operational planning and procedures for peacekeeping missions as
well as to modernize command and control equipment, logistical
arrangements and facilities. We also stress the need for measures to
ensure the security of UN personnel, including the early entry into
force of the recently-adopted UN Convention for the Safety of United
Nations and Associated Personnel. We welcome the growing role of
regional organizations and arrangements in building stability and
security, in the prevention and management of conflicts, and we attach
special importance to reinforcing cooperation between such organizations
and the United Nations.

<h5>Arms Control and Disarmament</h5>

4. We welcome the indefinite extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty and the commitment of States party to the universalisation of the
Treaty as well as their decisions to strengthen the review process and
adopt a set of principles and objectives for non-proliferation and
disarmament. The entry into force of START I is a major landmark in the
process of nuclear arms control, which was greatly helped by the
decision of Ukraine to accede to the NPT. We now look forward to the
early ratification of START II. We support the safe and secure
dismantlement of the nuclear weapons eliminated under START I and we
welcome the work of the United States and Russia on measures that the
fissile material from these weapons is rendered unusable for weapons
purposes. The disposal of weapons-grade plutonium deserves particular
attention and we encourage its further study.

5. We are encouraged by the growing international recognition of the
need to complete without delay universal, comprehensive and verifiable
treaties to ban nuclear weapons tests and to cut off the production of
fissile material for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive
devices. Recognizing the continuing dangers posed worldwide by criminal
diversion and illicit trafficking of nuclear materials, and drawing on
the decisions taken in Naples and the practical work undertaken by our
experts since then, we resolve to work together to strengthen systems of
control, accounting and physical security for nuclear materials; to
expand our cooperation in the area of customs, law enforcement and
intelligence and to strengthen through venues such as the IAEA and
INTERPOL the international community's ability to combat nuclear theft
and smuggling. We emphasize the importance of bringing the Chemical
Weapons Convention into force at the earliest possible date, and call
for rapid progress in developing verification systems for the Biological
and Toxin Weapons Convention.

6. The excessive transfer of conventional arms, in particular to areas
of conflict, is one of our main preoccupations. We are appalled by the
continuing injuries to civilians caused by anti-personnel landmines. We
urge States to become party to the 1980 Conventional Weapons Convention
and to participate in its review conference this fall in an effort to
strengthen multilateral controls over anti-personnel landmines. We urge
all countries to support full implementation of the UN Register of
Conventional Arms, and note that Article 26 of the UN Charter calls for
"the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic
resources". Regional organizations can help promote transparency and
confidence-building measures that reduce excessive stockpiling of
conventional weapons. We shall work with others for effective and
responsible export controls on arms and sensitive dual-use goods and
technologies.

<h5>Promoting New Approaches</h5>

7. New approaches are needed in the UN and elsewhere to deal with
emerging global challenges such as environmental degradation,
unsustainable population growth, mass displacement of victims of
conflict and involuntary migration across borders. Initiatives such as
the UN Secretary General's Agenda for Development that highlight the
linkages between economic, social and political issues could make an
important contribution to international stability. We commit ourselves
to working with other Member States to build on it. We also recognize
the importance of non-governmental organizations in the UN's work on
economic and social development, including human rights and humanitarian
assistance, and believe that greater coordination of their efforts with
those of the UN and other organizations would benefit the world
community. We reiterate our firm belief in the necessity for the
international community to promote efficient means to respond promptly
to humanitarian emergencies, and support the work of the WEU in this
area.

8. Respect for the rights of the individual is at the heart of a
durable, secure and prosperous international order. We will work to
promote good governance and democratic accountability, which are the
surest guarantees of respect for universal human rights and fundamental
freedoms. We condemn all forms of discrimination and intolerance,
including aggressive nationalism and the mistreatment of persons
belonging to minorities. We call upon all States to protect the rights
set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to ratify and
comply fully with international Covenants and other multilateral human
rights instruments. We reaffirm our support for the UN High Commissioner
for Human Rights and his coordinating role on human rights throughout
the UN system. We call for the strengthening of international mechanisms
of accountability for human rights violations, and on governments to
cooperate fully with courts, tribunals and investigative commissions,
including on the effective pursuit of individual cases within the bounds
of international and domestic law.

9. We restate our resolve to defeat all forms of terrorism. Following
recent outrages, we agree to share more intensively our experiences of,
and lessons learned from, major terrorist incidents, and to strengthen
our cooperation in all areas of counter-terrorism, including research
and technology. We call upon all States that assist terrorists to
renounce terrorism and to deny financial support, the use of their
territory or any other means of support to terrorist organizations. We
attach particular importance to measures to impede the ability of
terrorist organizations to raise funds, and urge other governments to
strenuously enforce laws against terrorist activity and join existing
treaties and conventions against terrorism. In pursuit of these shared
aims, we charge our terrorism experts group to report to a ministerial
level meeting on specific, cooperative measures to deter, prevent, and
investigate terrorists acts. These sessions should be held prior to our
next meeting.

10. Transnational criminal organizations are a growing threat to the
security of our nations. They undermine the integrity of financial
systems, breed corruption, and weaken emerging democracies and
developing countries around the world. To counter their criminal
activities effectively, we will work to reinforce existing institutions,
strengthen our cooperation, exchange of information, and assistance to
other nations. Sanctuaries provided by some countries to transnational
criminal organizations and their agents create a major difficulty in the
implementation of justice. We all agree to cooperate more closely
together, and with others, to ensure that they cannot escape justice by
crossing borders. We encourage all governments to adhere to and
implement relevant international conventions and the recommendations of
the Financial Action Task Force. We recognize that ultimate success
requires all Governments to provide for effective measures to prevent
the laundering of proceeds from drug trafficking and other serious
crimes. To implement our commitments in the fight against transnational
organized crime, we have established a group of senior experts with a
temporary mandate to look at existing arrangements for cooperation both
bilateral and multilateral, to identify significant gaps and options for
improved coordination and to propose practical action to fill such gaps.
The group will report back to the Summit in 1996.

<h5>Europe</h5>

11.  After five decades of division, we now have the historic
opportunity to establish in all of Europe democracy, market economy,
stability, peace and prosperity. We strongly support the contribution of
the European Union to stability and cooperation through its Europe
Agreements with Central European countries and the Baltic States as well
as through Partnership Agreements with Russia, Ukraine and other newly
independent States. We encourage States to take full advantage of the
opportunities afforded by the Pact on Stability in Europe and NATO's
Partnership For Peace program for enhancing security and stability in
the whole of Europe. We encourage other multilateral fora and
arrangements to assist in the integration of Europe. We are pleased with
the steps taken at the Budapest Summit last year to strengthen the
capabilities of the OSCE, and we will contribute to the OSCE study into
a security model for Europe for the 21st century.

12. We are deeply concerned by the continuing escalation of hostilities
in Bosnia, especially in the area of Sarajevo. We appeal to all parties
to establish an immediate moratorium on military operations in order to
allow political negotiations, without which no lasting solution is
possible, to resume as quickly as possible on the basis of the Contact
Group proposals which we urge the Bosnian Serbs to accept.

13. We condemn the taking of UN hostages by the Bosnian Serbs, their
deplorable shelling of civilian populations and their obstruction of
UNPROFOR's freedom of movement. We demand the immediate and
unconditional release of the remaining hostages, and hold the Bosnian
Serb leadership accountable for their safety. We call on the Bosnian
government and all other parties to renew the Cessation of Hostilities
Agreement, and to ensure the free passage of humanitarian assistance.

14. We welcome the decision of the UN Security Council to strengthen
UNPROFOR and to provide it with a rapid reaction capacity to enhance its
security and its ability to protect civilians, facilitate the delivery
of humanitarian assistance and promote conditions for a lasting peace.
The Rapid Reaction Force will be under UN command, as stipulated in the
Security Council resolution, and operate in accordance with UNPROFOR's
existing mandate.

15. We call for renewed impetus to be given urgently to the peace
process and, in this connection, we welcome the appointment of Carl
Bildt as EU negotiator, and offer our strong support to him and to UN
negotiator Thorvald Stoltenberg in their efforts to achieve a durable
settlement.

16. We call for early mutual recognition between the republics in the
former Yugoslavia within their existing internationally recognized
borders; recognition between Bosnia and the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia would be an important first step, and we urge President
Milosevic to take it. The Bosnian-Croat Federation is a way to advance
reconciliation, and we continue to support steps to help stabilize the
situation in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

17. We remain concerned about the risk of further fighting in Croatia.
Both the Croatian government and the Croatian Serbs must exercise
restraint. We urge the parties to honour the March 29, 1994 ceasefire
and to cooperate with the United Nations in implementing UNCRO's new
mandate. We call for further development of the Economic Agreement
between the two sides and the opening of political talks to achieve a
settlement respecting the internationally recognized borders of Croatia
while establishing autonomy for the Serb population on the basis of the
principles underlying the Zagreb-4 Plan for Croatia.

<h5>Middle East and Africa</h5>

18. The Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty is an important building block for
peace throughout the region. It is imperative that the momentum for
peace be maintained. We encourage the conclusion of peace treaties
between Israel and Lebanon and Syria. We pledge our firm support for the
Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles. We urge Israel and the
Palestinian Authority to conclude, as agreed between them, the
arrangements for elections in the Palestinian Autonomous Territory and
the redeployment of Israeli Defense Forces. We also recognize the
importance of the economic basis for peace, notably the need for
regional integration. We reiterate our call to the League of Arab States
to end its boycott of Israel.

19. We call upon the Government of Iran to participate constructively in
regional and world affairs, and to desist from supporting radical groups
that seek to destroy the Middle East Peace Process and destabilize the
region. We also call on the Iranian Government to reject terrorism and,
in particular, to withdraw its support from the continuing threats to
the life of Mr. Salman Rushdie and others associated with his work. We
call on all States to avoid any collaboration with Iran which might
contribute to the acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability.

20. We reiterate our resolve to enforce full implementation of each and
every relevant UN Security Council resolution concerning Iraq and Libya
until they are complied with, and recall that such implementation would
entail the reassessment of sanctions. We urge Iraq to reconsider its
rejection of UN Security Council Resolution 986 which would permit the
sale of oil and purchase of humanitarian goods.

21. We support the positive steps of the Algerian Government towards
economic reform, and believe that peace and stability provide the only
durable foundation for success. We call for an end to the violence in
Algeria, and urge all parties that accept non-violent and democratic
principles to pursue political reconciliation through peaceful dialogue
and a genuine electoral process.

22. We applaud the peaceful and democratic transition of power in South
Africa, the successful holding of elections elsewhere in Southern
Africa, and the Angolan peace process. These developments provide good
grounds for optimism about Africa's longer term prospects. We will
continue to support efforts by African leaders to prevent conflict and
enhance the welfare of their populations through democratization,
structural reform, and economic liberalization.

23. We condemn extremists in Burundi and Rwanda and support measures to
hold them accountable for their actions, including through the
International Tribunal for Rwanda. We call for greater international
support for humanitarian assistance for the Rwanda/Burundi region. We
support the convening of a UN and OAU-
sponsored Conference on Stability and Security in the Lakes Region.

<h5>Asia-Pacific</h5>

24. We welcome the emerging dialogue and cooperation in and with the
Asia-Pacific region in various forms including the ASEAN Regional Forum.
We welcome China's growing participation in international and regional
fora dealing with political, economic and security issues. Each of us
will pursue our respective dialogues with China in the interests of a
more stable and prosperous world. We look forward to a smooth transfer
of government in Hong Kong in 1997, with the object of maintaining its
economic prosperity and social stability.

25. We call on North Korea to observe the agreements reached at the NPT
Review and Extension Conference. We believe the Agreed Framework between
the United States and North Korea offers a real prospect for resolving
the North Korea nuclear problem, and we are encouraged by recent
developments in this regard. We call on North Korea to fulfil its
commitment to the regime of IAEA safe- guards and to uphold the terms of
the Agreed Framework. The support of the international community can be
demonstrated inter alia through participation in the Korean Peninsula
Energy Development Organization (KEDO). We also believe that progress in
the South-North dialogue will contribute to peace and security on the
Korean Peninsula.

26. We are concerned about the potential for conflict in Kashmir and
urge all parties to pursue a peaceful settlement. To help lower tension
and build confidence on the subcontinent, as well as to strengthen the
framework of global security, we urge India and Pakistan to support
international arms control norms, accede to the Npt and refrain from
taking further steps towards ballistic missile deployment or any other
measures that might precipitate a regional arms race.

27. We call on the Government of Myanmar to release Aung San Suu Kyi and
other political prisoners, without conditions, and to engage in a
dialogue of reconciliation aimed at the full and early realization of
democracy and national unity.

28. The South China Sea has become increasingly an area of territorial
dispute. We call upon all parties to resolve their differences in a
peaceful manner respecting international norms.

<h5>Americas</h5>

29. We encourage implementation by the States of the Americas of the
Miami Summit Plan of Action to strengthen democratic institutions,
eliminate the threat of terrorism, eradicate poverty and discrimination,
conserve their natural environment, and negotiate the Free Trade Area of
the Americas. We support the Government of Mexico's bold steps towards
political reform and dialogue. We commend the efforts of the Guarantor
Group of the Rio Protocol to help Peru and Ecuador achieve a permanent
peace between them. We support international cooperation in Haiti's
economic and democratic development, and look forward to free and open
legislative elections scheduled for June 25.

(###)

___________________________________________________________________

The State Department does not guarantee the authenticity of electronic
documents.  If you require the original version of a document in hard
copy, please contact the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Room 6805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.  Telephone: 202-647-5760.  State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced without consent.
Citation of source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce any
copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.
_____________________________________________________________ (###)
</doc><doc><f 151><ht><phrase>Fact sheets</phrase></ht></f>
<f 101><ht><phrase>North America</phrase>, <phrase>Europe</phrase></ht></f>
<f 201><ht></ht></f>
<f 150><ht><phrase>Trade/Economics</phrase></ht></f>
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 6, SUPPLEMENT NO. 4, JULY 1995
Group of Seven (G-7) 1995 Economic Summit
Published By The Bureau Of Public Affairs

ARTICLE 6: pages 13-15

<h4><ti>Fact Sheet: Key G-7 Economic and Political Data</ti></h4>
(Japan uses gross national produce (GNP); all others use gross domestic
product (GDP)
<date2>Jul 1, 1995</date2>

<h5>Canada</h5>

GDP (1993):  $552 billion.
GDP growth rate (1993):  2.3%.
Inflation rate (1993): 1.9%.
Unemployment rate (1993):  11.3%.
Foreign assistance (1993): $2.4 billion, 0.5% of GDP.

Area:  10 million sq. km. (3.8 million sq. mi.).
Population:  29 million.
Work force (14 million, 1993):  Community/business/personal service--
5 million.  Trade--2.4 million.  Manufacturing--2 million.  Public
administration--1 million.  Agriculture--0.5 million.
Natural resources:  Petroleum and natural gas, hydroelectric power,
metals and minerals, fish, forests, wildlife.
Agriculture:  Products--wheat, livestock and meat, feed-grains,
oilseeds, dairy products, tobacco, fruits, vegetables.
Industry:  Types--motor vehicles and parts, fish and forest products,
processed and unprocessed minerals.
Merchandise trade (1993):  Exports--$144 billion: motor vehicles and
parts, lumber, wood-pulp and newsprint, crude and fabricated metals,
natural gas, crude petroleum, wheat.  Percent of GDP--20.1.  Major
markets--U.S. 74%, EC 15%, Japan 4%.  Imports--$125 billion: motor
vehicles and parts, industrial machinery, crude petroleum, chemicals,
agricultural machinery.  Percent of GDP--24.6.  Major suppliers--U.S.
72%, EC 8%, Japan 6%.
Government:  Confederation with parliamentary democracy.
Independence:  July 1, 1867.
Constitution:  Amended British North America Act, 1867;  patriated to
Canada in 1982, charter of rights, and unwritten custom.

Currency exchange:  $1US=$1.38 Canadian.
Time conversion:  EST+0 (Ottawa).


<h5>France</h5>

GDP (1993):  $1.3 trillion.
GDP growth rate (1993): -0.9%.
Inflation rate (1993):  2.1%.
Unemployment rate (1993):  11.6%.
Foreign assistance (1993):  $7.9 billion, 0.6% of GDP.

Area:  547,030 sq. km. (218,812 sq. mi.).
Population:  58 million.
Work force (25 million):  Services--47%. Industry and commerce--45%.
Agriculture--8%.
Natural resources:  Coal, iron ore, bauxite, fish, forests.
Agriculture:  Products--beef, dairy products, cereals, sugar beets,
potatoes, wine grapes.
Industry:  Types--steel, machinery, textiles and clothing, chemicals,
food processing, aircraft, electronics, transportation.
Merchandise trade (1993):  Exports--
$195 billion:  chemicals, electronics, automobiles, automobile spare
parts, machinery, aircraft, foodstuffs.  Percent of GDP--15.7.  Imports-
-$188 billion:  crude petroleum, electronics, machinery, chemicals,
automobiles, automobile spare parts.  Percent of GDP--15.1.  Major
partners--Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy, U.S., U.K., Netherlands,
Japan.
Government:  Republic.  Constitution:  September 28, 1958.

Currency exchange: $1US=5.0 francs.
Time conversion:  EST+6 (Paris).


<h5>Germany</h5>
(Unless otherwise indicated, data are for the former West Germany only.)

GDP (1993):  $1.7 trillion.
GDP growth rate (1993):  1.7%.
Inflation rate (1993):  4.1%.
Unemployment rate (1993):  6.1%.
Foreign assistance (1993): $6.9 billion, 0.4% of GDP.

Area:  356,910 sq. km. (142,764 sq. mi.).
Population:  81 million.
Work force:  40 million.
Natural resources:  Iron, hard coal, lignite, potash, natural gas.
Agriculture:  Products--corn, wheat, potatoes, sugar beets, hops, wine,
lumber, fish.
Industry:  Types--iron and steel, coal, chemicals, electrical products,
ships, vehicles, construction.
Merchandise trade (1993):  Exports--$363 billion:  chemicals, motor
vehicles, iron and steel products, manufactured goods, electrical
products. Percent of GDP--21.  Major markets--EC 54%, other European
countries 19%, U.S. 8%, developing countries 7%. Imports--$318 billion:
food, petroleum products, manufactured goods, electrical products,
automobiles, apparel.  Percent of GDP--18.4.  Major suppliers--EC
countries 52%, other European countries 16%, developing countries 10%,
U.S. 7%.
Government:  Federal republic.
Founded:  1949.  On October 3, 1990, the Federal Republic of Germany
(F.R.G.) and the German Democratic Republic unified in accordance with
Article 23 of F.R.G. Basic Law.

Currency exchange:  $1US=1.4DM.
Time conversion:  EST+6 (Bonn).


<h5>Italy</h5>

GDP (1992):  $1.2 trillion.
GDP growth rate (1992):  1%.
Inflation rate (1993):  4.4%.
Unemployment rate (1992 est.):  10.2%.
Foreign assistance (1993):  $3 billion, 0.3% of GDP.

Area:  301,230 sq.km. (120,492 sq. mi.).
Population:  57 million.
Work force (21 million):  Services--58%.  Industry and commerce--32%.
Agriculture--10%.
Natural resources:  Fish, natural gas.
Agriculture:  Products--wheat, rice, grapes, olives, citrus fruits.
Industry:  Types--automobiles, machinery, chemicals, textiles, shoes.
Merchandise trade (1992):  Exports--$178 billion:  machinery and
transport equipment, textiles, foodstuffs, chemicals, footwear.  Percent
of GDP--
15.4.  Imports--$175 billion:  machinery and transport equipment,
foodstuffs, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, wool, cotton, petroleum.
Percent of GDP--15.1.  Major trade partners (1992)--Germany 20%, France
16%, U.S. 7%, U.K. 7%, OPEC 5%, Russia 2%.
Government:  Republic since June 2, 1946.  Constitution:  January 1,
1948.  Kingdom of Italy proclaimed March 17, 1861.

Currency exchange:  $1US=1625 lira.
Time conversion:  EST+6 (Rome).


<h5>Japan</h5>

GNP (1993):  $4.3 trillion.
GNP growth rate (1993):  0.1%.
Inflation rate (1993):  1.2%.
Unemployment rate (1993):  2.5%.
Foreign assistance (1993):  $11.3 billion, 0.3% of GNP.

Area:  377,835 sq. km. (151,134 sq. mi.).
Population:  125 million.
Work force (63 million):  Services--43%.  Trade, manufacturing, mining,
and construction--32%. Agriculture--8%.  Government--7%.
Natural resources:  Negligible mineral resources, fish.
Agriculture:  Products--rice, vegetables, fruits, milk, meat, silk.
Industry:  Types--machinery and equipment, metals and metal products,
textiles, autos, chemicals, electrical and electronic equipment.
Merchandise trade (1993):  Exports--$351 billion: motor vehicles,
machinery and equipment, electrical and electronic products, metals and
metal products.  Percent of GNP--8.2.  Major markets--U.S. 29%, EC 21%,
developing countries 43%.  Imports--$210 billion:  fossil fuels, metal
ore, raw materials, foodstuffs, machinery and equipment.  Percent of
GNP--4.9.  Major suppliers--U.S. 23%, EC 17%, developing countries 48%.
Government:  Parliamentary democracy.  Constitution:  May 3, 1947.

Currency exchange:  $1US=86 yen.
Time conversion:  EST+14 (Tokyo).


<h5>United Kingdom</h5>

GDP (1993):  $1 trillion.
GDP growth rate (1993):  2.1%.
Inflation rate (1993):  1.5%.
Unemployment rate (1993):  10.3%.
Foreign assistance (1993):  $2.9 billion, 0.3% of GDP.

Area:  244,820 sq. km. (97,928 sq. mi.).
Population:  58 million.
Work force (about 28 million in 1991): Services--64%.  Manufacturing and
engineering--26%.  Construction--5%.  Mining and energy--3%.
Agriculture--2%.
Natural resources:  Coal, oil, gas (North Sea).
Agriculture:  Products--cereals, livestock, livestock products, fish.
Industry:  Types--steel, heavy engineering and metal manufacturing,
textiles, motor vehicles and aircraft, construction, electronics,
chemicals.
Merchandise trade (1993):  Exports--$182 billion: machinery and
transport equipment, petroleum, manufactures, chemicals.  Percent of
GDP--19.2.  Major markets--EC, U.S., Sweden, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria,
Switzerland, South Africa.  Imports--$202 billion: machinery and
transport equipment, manufactures, foodstuffs, petroleum, chemicals.
Percent of GDP--21.4.  Major suppliers--EC, U.S., Japan, Norway, Sweden,
Switzerland.
Government:  Constitutional monarchy.  Constitution:  Unwritten;  partly
statutes, partly common law and practice.

Currency exchange: $1US=0.7 pound.
Time conversion:  EST+5 (London).


<h5>United States</h5>
(Figures for U.S. industry are calculated based on workforce categories
of "goods-producing" and "service-producing" industries.)

GDP (1993):  $6.3 trillion.
GDP growth rate (1993):  3.1%.
Inflation rate (1993):  3.0%.
Unemployment rate (1993):  6.7%.
Foreign Assistance (1993):  $9.7 billion, 0.2% of GDP.

Area:  9.3  million sq. km. (3.6 million sq. mi.).
Population:  258 million.
Work force (about 118 million in 1992):  Goods producing--26%.  Service
producing--74%.
Natural resources:  Coal, copper, lead, molybdenum, phosphates, uranium,
bauxite, gold, iron, mercury, nickel, potash, silver, tungsten, zinc,
crude oil, natural gas, timber.
Agriculture:  Products--grain, livestock, livestock products, fish.
Goods-producing industry3:  Types--petroleum, steel, motor vehicles,
aerospace, telecommunications, chemicals, electronics, food processing,
consumer goods, fishing, lumber, mining.
Merchandise trade (1993):  Exports--$457 billion: capital goods,
automobiles, industrial supplies and raw materials, consumer goods,
agricultural products.  Percent of GDP--7.2.  Major markets--EC, Japan,
Canada.  Imports--$589 billion: crude and partly refined petroleum,
machinery, automobiles, consumer goods, industrial raw materials, food
and beverages.  Percent of GDP--9.3.  Major suppliers--EC, Japan,
Canada.
Government:  Federal republic;  strong democratic tradition.
Independence:  July 4, 1776.  Constitution:  September 17, 1787,
effective June 4, 1789.

(###)


___________________________________________________________________

The State Department does not guarantee the authenticity of electronic
documents.  If you require the original version of a document in hard
copy, please contact the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Room 6805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.  Telephone: 202-647-5760.  State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced without consent.
Citation of source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce any
copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.
_____________________________________________________________ (###)
</doc><doc><f 151><ht><phrase>Fact sheets</phrase></ht></f>
<f 101><ht><phrase>North America</phrase>, <phrase>Europe</phrase></ht></f>
<f 201><ht><phrase>Canada</phrase>, <phrase>France</phrase>, <phrase>Fed. Republic of Germany</phrase>, <phrase>Italy</phrase>, <phrase>United
Kingdom</phrase>, <phrase>United States</phrase></ht></f>
<f 150><ht><phrase>Trade/Economics</phrase></ht></f>
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 6, SUPPLEMENT NO. 4, JULY 1995
Group of Seven (G-7) 1995 Economic Summit
Published By The Bureau Of Public Affairs

ARTICLE 7: pages 15-19

<h4><ti>Fact Sheet: Economic Summits, 1988-1995</ti></h4>
<date2>Jul 1, 1995</date2>

Leaders of Group of Seven (G-7) industrial countries--the United States,
Japan, Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, and Canada--plus the
President of the European Commission (now European Union), have
discussed and made decisions on a wide range of international economic
and political issues at economic summit meetings  that have been held
annually since 1975.  The following information provides background on
each of the eight summits since 1988.

<h5>Halifax
Jun 15-17, 1995
</h5>
<h6>Summary</h6>

The Halifax summit reaffirmed the G-7 commitment to promoting free
markets and democratization.  Leaders assessed the stability of global
financial markets and fulfilled their Naples summit pledge to review the
international economic architecture.  The summit reinforced successful
efforts by President Clinton in APEC, NAFTA, the Summit of the Americas,
and the GATT to retool the international economic architecture to meet
the needs of the 21st century.  President Clinton and the other G-7
leaders achieved significant consensus and commitment to action in three
major areas: 1) safeguarding the financial system from future crises; 2)
reforming the UN economic and social organizations; and 3) responding to
new global security challenges.  For the second year, Russian President
Boris Yeltsin participated in the full range of political and security
discussions.

<h6>Economic Accomplishments</h6>

--  Commitment to increase stability of global financial markets by
supporting more rigorous IMF surveillance and "early warning" to
countries at risk, establishing a new IMF emergency financing mechanism,
and considering options for increasing the IMF's ability to borrow to
respond to financial emergencies.

--  Review of international and multilateral institutions, leading to
agreement that:

--Multilateral institutions should focus on sustainable development,
concentrate on the poorest countries, and develop a comprehensive
approach to reducing the multilateral debt of the poorest countries.

--The UN should consolidate and streamline its social and economic
bodies along functional lines, reform the UN Secretariat to meet modern
standards of management and accountability, and review and update
mandates of UN agencies.

--Multilateral financial institutions and the regional development banks
should decentralize and focus on their core concerns.

--All such institutions should develop comprehensive plans to reduce
operating costs.

--  Agreement to meet at the ministerial level to continue work on
growth and employment begun by the 1994 Detroit Jobs Conference.

--  Commitment to consolidate the World Trade Organization and maintain
momentum for trade liberalization through follow-up work to the Uruguay
Round. Agreement to pursue new initiatives in standards, tariffs,
intellectual property, and procurement; to make the OECD Multilateral
Agreement on Investment (MAI) a top priority; and to continue work on
trade and environment and trade and labor standards.

--  Pledge to promote up to $2 billion in loans to Ukraine from
international financial institutions and negotiate comprehensive
multilateral debt rescheduling with Russia.

--  Reaffirmation of Naples summit commitments to Ukraine on nuclear
safety and pledge to continue to mobilize international support for
Ukraine's energy sector in support of plans to close Chernobyl.

<h6>Political Accomplishments</h6>

--  Strong G-7 consensus, announced by the summit host, Canadian Prime
Minister Jean Chretien, to ban transfers of nuclear reactors or
associated activities to Iran, because of "grave concern that such
cooperation could be misused by Iran towards a nuclear weapons program."

--  G-7 and Russian concurrence in support of a wide range of key U.S.
foreign policy initiatives.

--  Agreement to convene a special summit meeting on nuclear safety in
Moscow in 1996.

--  Pledge to hold a ministerial-level meeting on counter-terrorism
before the 1996 Lyon Summit.

--  Creation of senior experts working group to develop specific
proposals for new anti-crime initiatives and to report to the 1996 Lyon
Summit.

--  Endorsement of a new U.S. initiative against nuclear smuggling,
based on stronger systems of control, accounting, and physical security
for nuclear materials and expanded cooperation to combat nuclear theft.

--  Stronger focus on human rights, including citation of specific cases
and support for stronger international mechanisms of accountability for
human rights violations.

--  Reaffirmation of commitment to the United Nations and agreement that
it should act more effectively to address threats to international peace
and stability.

--  Reiteration of commitment to conclude treaties covering non-
proliferation and nuclear weapons test bans.

--  Strong support for extension of the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, entry into force of START I, and early ratification of START II.

--  Endorsement of the Pact on Stability in Europe and NATO's
Partnership for Peace as mechanisms to enhance security in Europe.

--  On the conflict in Bosnia, expression of concern about escalation of
hostilities and condemnation of hostage-taking.

--  On the Middle East, recognition of the economic basis for peace and
support for conclusion of peace treaties between Israel and Lebanon and
Syria.

--  Renewed calls for an end to the Arab League boycott of Israel.

--  Agreement to retain sanctions on Iraq and Libya.

--  Call for Iran to cease support for terrorist groups seeking to
destroy the Middle East Peace Process and destabilize the region.

--  On North Korea, reaffirmation of support for the agreed framework
between the U.S. and North Korea to resolve the nuclear problem.  Noted
the opportunity for the international community to demonstrate support
through participation in the Korean Peninsula Energy Development
Organization (KEDO).


<h5>Naples
July 8-9, 1994
</h5>
<h6>Summary</h6>

The Naples summit reviewed the changes occurring in the world economy
and the globalization of national economies.  Leaders pledged their
adherence to the principles of democracy and open markets, agreed to
look at ways to renew and revitalize the international economic
institutions, and accepted the challenge of integrating the newly
emerging market democracies into the world economic system.  As a signal
of G-7 support for Russian reform, G-7 leaders invited Russian President
Yeltsin to participate in the political discussions.

<h6>Economic Accomplishments</h6>

--  Agreement to use the 1995 Halifax summit to review the international
economic architecture.

--  Renewed commitment to Tokyo summit growth strategy; action plan on
efforts to create jobs; plan for G-7 conference on global information
infrastructure.

-- Pledge to establish the World Trade Organization by January 1, 1995,
continue momentum on trade, including new trade issues:  labor,
environment, and competition rules.

--  Renewed commitment to sustainable development; agreement to speed
implementation of the Rio Climate Treaty.

--  Agreement that Paris Club should work to reduce debt stock and
increase concessionality for the poorest countries and those in special
difficulties and that G-7 should mobilize international financial
institutions to help countries emerging from economic and political
disruption.

--  Action plan providing resources for closure of Chernobyl and for
greater nuclear safety in Central and Eastern Europe and Russia.

--  Pledge to provide up to $4 billion for economic reform in Ukraine;
renewed support for economic reform in Russia.

--  Renewed support for the Financial Action Task Force on money-
laundering.

<h6>Political Accomplishments</h6>

--  Support for a U.S.-led diplomatic approach under which North Korea's
nuclear program would be frozen and international safeguards maintained
while high-level talks to resolve nuclear and other issues continued.

--  Strong support, under the President's leadership, for the Contact
Group's efforts to end the Bosnia conflict.

--  On the Middle East, endorsement of continued financial assistance
for implementing the Declaration of Principles, a key U.S. objective.

--  Endorsement of U.S. policy on Haiti to pressure the military regime
to live up to its obligations to depart and make way for a return to
democracy.

--  Expression, following the President's lead, of great concern about
Iranian behavior, especially regarding terrorism.  This was the first
time Russia joined in condemning terrorism and in a call for states to
deny terrorists access to their territories.

--  Reaffirmation of the view that proliferation is one of the most
serious threats to international peace and security.  In addition to
supporting key treaties and agreements, the group agreed for the first
time to cooperate in the prevention of nuclear smuggling.

--  Expression, for the first time, of the high priority placed on
curbing the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel landmines, halting
their export, and assisting in their clearance worldwide.

--  The President continued emphasizing the need for a future-oriented
foreign policy and the importance of building institutions for the next
century.


<h5>Tokyo
July 7-9, 1993
</h5>
<h6>Summary</h6>

The Tokyo summit noted that, despite remarkable progress toward
democratization and market economies since the previous summit,
considerable challenges remained for the industrialized nations in
achieving economic recovery and job creation, integrating countries in
transition into the world economy, assisting developing countries, and
reconciling global growth and attention to the environment.  Leaders
underscored their determination to enhance international cooperation, in
particular by strengthening multilateral institutions, in an effort to
create a more secure and humane world.  Leaders also agreed to work to
streamline the summit process to make it more responsive to major issues
of common concern.  This was the first economic summit meeting attended
by President Clinton.  Russian President Boris Yeltsin again
participated in meeting with G-7 leaders on the third day of the summit.

<h6>Economic Accomplishments</h6>

--  Commitment by all countries to implement a mutually reinforcing
strategy to encourage global growth and job creation, including prudent
macroeconomic policies to promote non-inflationary, sustainable growth
and structural reforms to improve the efficiency of markets.

--  Endorsement of recent significant progress toward a large market
access package as a major step toward completion of the Uruguay Round of
the GATT multilateral trade negotiations by the end of 1993.

--  Reaffirmation of support for economic reform efforts in Central and
Eastern Europe, the Baltic states, the New Independent States of the
former Soviet Union, and Mongolia.  Creation of a $3-billion special
Privatization and Restructuring Program for Russia and establishment of
a Support Implementation Group in Moscow to improve delivery of
assistance.

--  Determination to publish national action plans by the end of 1993 to
implement objectives outlined at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment
and Development to secure environmentally sustainable development.

--  Emphasis on the urgent need to coordinate safety measures as agreed
in 1992 in Munich, with a view toward establishing a framework for
coordinated action by those countries concerned.

--  Commitment to pursue a comprehensive approach to development
assistance, based on the requirements and performance of individual
countries, and integrating aspects of trade, investment, and debt
strategy, as well as assistance.

<h6>Political Accomplishments</h6>

--  Support for efforts to strengthen the UN's capacity for preventive
diplomacy, as well as its peacekeeping and peacemaking roles.

--  Pledge to oppose terrorism and to devote increased attention to the
problems posed by increasing numbers of displaced persons and refugees.
Recognition of the protection of human rights as the responsibility of
all countries as affirmed by the World Conference on Human Rights.

--  Call for enhanced cooperation to combat the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction, including universal adherence to the nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the
Biological Weapons Convention.  Call for North Korea to change its
decision to withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to
comply with International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on agreement
to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula.

--  Support for universal adherence to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and
its indefinite extension in 1995.

-- Pledge to ensure effectiveness of the UN Register of Conventional
Arms.

--  Pledge to continue strengthening the Missile Technology Control
Regime and to bolster exports.

--  Reaffirmation of commitment to the territorial integrity of Bosnia-
Herzegovina and to a negotiated settlement based on the principles of
the London Conference.  Commitment to assist in the implementation of UN
Security Council Resolution 836 establishing safe havens.

--  Expression of concern about aspects of Iran's behavior.

--  Reiteration of the call to end the Arab League boycott of Israel.

--  Support for Russian reform efforts under President Yeltsin and for
the reform process in Ukraine.

--  Support for recent progress toward non-racial democracy in South
Africa.

--  Support for restoration of legitimate authorities in Haiti and for
UN and OAS efforts in that regard.


<h5>Munich
July 5-7, 1992
</h5>
<h6>Summary</h6>

Leaders at the Munich summit emphasized the necessity of achieving
stronger world economic growth as a prerequisite for solving the
problems of the post-Cold War era.  Concern over lack of progress in the
global trade negotiations, the future of high-risk nuclear reactors
still operating in the former Soviet republics, and the civil war in the
former Yugoslavia dominated the discussions.  Russian President Boris
Yeltsin joined G-7 leaders at the close of the summit to review the pace
of reform efforts in his country.

<h6>Economic Accomplishments</h6>

--  Pledge to work collectively and individually to promote sustainable
world economic growth, encourage investment, and create new employment
opportunities.

--  Support for conclusion of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade
negotiations by the end of 1992.

--  Call for the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union to
continue economic reform policies aimed at building market economies.
Support for financial credits and a debt rescheduling program for Russia
and the creation of consultative groups for Russia and other New
Independent States.

--  Pledge to continue efforts to increase the quality and quantity of
official development assistance in accordance with existing commitments,
with emphasis on the poorest countries.

<h6>Political Accomplishments</h6>

--  Pledge to continue shipments of humanitarian aid to Bosnia-
Herzegovina, combined with support for more vigorous enforcement of UN
Security Council sanctions against Serbia-Montenegro, including the use
of military force if necessary.

--  Agreement on the need to safeguard nuclear materials and to prevent
the transfer or illicit production of nuclear weapons.  Establishment of
a multilateral program to improve the safety and management of Soviet-
design nuclear power plants.

--  Recognition of the progress of the new states of Central and Eastern
Europe in achieving economic and political reform, and a call for
increased investment by the industrialized countries to supplement these
efforts.

--  Support for the role of the United Nations in maintaining
international peace and security and recognition of the need to
strengthen the conflict prevention and crisis management  capabilities
of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

--  Call for all countries to carry forward the momentum of the UN
Conference on Environment and Development by publishing national action
plans by the end of 1993; providing additional technical and financial
assistance to developing countries; and implementing commitments on
climate change, protection of forests and oceans, and preservation of
marine resources.


<h5>London
July 15-17, 1991
</h5>
<h6>Summary</h6>

The London summit emphasized the need to strengthen the international
order following the revolutions in Central and Eastern Europe and the
intervention against Iraq in the Persian Gulf.  Looking ahead to the UN
Conference on Environment and Development in 1992, participants pledged
support for a variety of initiatives designed to integrate environmental
considerations into government policies.  A unique feature of the London
meeting was the special invitation to Mikhail Gorbachev to meet at the
conclusion of the summit with the heads of the G-7 industrialized
countries.  Talks focused on the economic situation in the Soviet Union.

<h6>Economic Accomplishments</h6>

--  Recognition of the successful efforts of the Paris Club to negotiate
debt reduction packages for lower middle-income countries to improve
their potential for economic growth.

--  Commitment to secure stable worldwide energy supplies, remove
barriers to energy trade and investment, encourage high environmental
and safety standards, and promote international cooperation on research
and development in these areas.

--  Agreement on the necessity of enhancing both the quality and
quantity of support for priority development issues, such as alleviating
poverty,  improving health education and training, and providing
additional debt relief for the least-developed countries.

<h6>Political Accomplishments</h6>

--  Commitment to continued support for reform efforts in Central and
Eastern Europe and to the integration of these countries into the
international economic system.

--  Commitment to achieve a framework convention on climate change and a
preliminary agreement on the management, conservation, and sustainable
development of forests prior to the UN Conference on Environment and
Development in
June 1992.

--  Pledge to promote mobilization of financial resources to assist
developing countries with environmental problems, support stronger
international efforts to deal with environmental disasters, and increase
cooperation in environmental science and technology.


<h5>Houston
July 9-11, 1990
</h5>
<h6>Summary</h6>

The Houston summit was held against the backdrop of movement toward
democracy and freer markets in many parts of the world, including
elections in Central and Eastern Europe and Nicaragua, momentum toward
German unification, and political reforms in the Soviet Union.  The
summit leaders agreed on most international economic and political
issues but also agreed that intense discussions were needed on
agricultural subsidies in the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade
negotiations, economic assistance to the Soviet Union, and global
warming before consensus could be reached.

<h6>Economic Accomplishments</h6>

--  Agreement on progressive reductions in internal and external support
and protection of agriculture and on a framework for conducting
agricultural negotiations in order to successfully conclude by December
1990 the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade talks under the auspices of
the GATT.

-- Request to the IMF, the World Bank, the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, and the European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development to undertake, in close coordination with the European
Community, a study of the Soviet economy, to make recommendations, to
establish the criteria under which Western economic assistance could
effectively support Soviet reforms, and to submit a report by the end of
1990.

--  Support for aid to Central and East European nations that are firmly
committed to political and economic reform, including freer markets,
encouragement of foreign private investment in those countries and
improved markets for their exports by means of trade and investment
agreements.

--  Pledge to begin talks, to be completed by 1992, on a global forest
convention to protect the world's forests.

<h6>Political Accomplishments</h6>

--  Promotion of democracy throughout the world by assisting in the
drafting of laws, advising in fostering independent media, establishing
training programs, and expanding exchange programs.

--  Endorsement of the maintenance of an effective international nuclear
non-proliferation system, including adoption of safeguards and nuclear
export control measures, and support for a complete ban on chemical
weapons.


<h5>Paris
July 14-16, 1989
</h5>
<h6>Summary</h6>
S
The Paris summit marked the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the
French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man.  It also was
the first economic summit meeting for President Bush, who had just
returned from trips to Poland and Hungary.  These developments
reinforced for the summit leaders the importance of supporting political
and economic reform in Eastern Europe.  The leaders also expressed
strong concern about environmental and narcotics issues; at least one-
third of the economic declaration dealt with the environment.

<h6>Economic Accomplishments</h6>

--  Agreement on several multilateral trade issues, including a pledge
to make effective use of the GATT  dispute settlement mechanism, to
avoid new restrictive trade measures inconsistent with the GATT, and to
make further substantial progress in the Uruguay Round in order to
complete it by the end of 1990.

--  Commitment to a strengthened debt strategy to rely, on a case-by-
case basis, on such actions as economic reforms in developing countries,
provision of more resources by a financially stronger World Bank and
IMF, continued debt rescheduling by creditor governments, and more
voluntary, market-based debt reductions by commercial banks.

--  Continued cooperation in foreign exchange markets.

--  Support for ending as soon as possible and not later than the end of
the century the production and consumption of chlorofluorocarbons
covered by the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer.

--  Commitment to limit the emissions of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases as well as conclusion of an international framework
convention on global climate change.

--  Support for the preservation of tropical forests and condemnation of
the practice of dumping waste in the oceans.

<h6>Political Accomplishments</h6>

--  Call for a meeting of all interested parties to discuss concerted
assistance to Poland and Hungary and a request that the European
Community coordinate these efforts.

--  Support for effective programs to stop illegal drug production and
trafficking, including assistance for the anti-drug efforts of producing
countries and the United Nations, increased international cooperation to
seize drug proceeds and prevent money laundering, and support for a 1990
international conference on cocaine and drug demand reduction.

--  Continued strong condemnation of international terrorism by states,
including hostage taking and attacks against international civil
aviation.

--  Condemnation of political repression in China and agreement to
suspend the shipment of arms and the extension of loans to China.


<h5>Toronto
June 19-21, 1988
</h5>
<h6>Summary</h6>

This summit, one of the most harmonious of the 1980s, marked the end of
the second seven-year cycle of economic meetings.  The leaders expressed
satisfaction with their accomplishments in bringing down inflation in
the 1980s and laying the basis for sustained strong growth and improved
productivity.  Among still unresolved problems they noted the emergence
of large payments imbalances among major countries, greater exchange
rate volatility, and continuing debt service difficulty in developing
countries.  In response to these developments, the leaders made further
refinements in the multilateral surveillance system to improve the
coordination of their economic policies.  They also committed themselves
to further trade liberalization at the Uruguay Round and offered new
initiatives to relieve the debt burden of the poorest developing
countries.

<h6>Economic Accomplishments</h6>

--  Improvement of the multilateral surveillance system by adding a
commodity price indicator to the existing indicators monitored by the
seven nations and by integrating national structural policies into the
economic coordination process.

--  Support for efforts at the Uruguay Round to achieve trade
liberalization in all areas including trade in services, intellectual
property rights (such as copyrights and trademarks), and trade-related
investment measures; to strengthen the GATT's surveillance and
enforcement mechanism; and to reduce all direct and indirect subsidies
affecting agricultural trade.

--  Support for a  $75-billion general capital increase for the World
Bank to strengthen its capacity to promote adjustment in middle-income
developing countries.

--  Agreement to relieve the debt burdens of the poorest developing
countries, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, by urging creditors to
grant partial debt forgiveness, reduced interest rates, and/or
lengthened debt maturities.

--  Support for the ratification of the Montreal agreement on the ozone
layer and the completion of other ongoing negotiations on emissions and
the transport of hazardous wastes.

<h6>Political Accomplishments</h6>

--  Confirmation of the policy of constructive dialogue and cooperation
between East and West, particularly in the light of greater freedom and
openness in the Soviet Union.

--  Reaffirmation of previous summit agreements to combat terrorism and
support for the policy of no takeoffs for hijacked aircraft once they
have landed.

--  Support for U.S. Government initiatives to improve cooperation
against narcotics trafficking.

(###)


___________________________________________________________________

The State Department does not guarantee the authenticity of electronic
documents.  If you require the original version of a document in hard
copy, please contact the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Room 6805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.  Telephone: 202-647-5760.  State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced without consent.
Citation of source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce any
copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.
_____________________________________________________________ (###)
</doc><doc><f 151><ht><phrase>Fact sheets</phrase></ht></f>
<f 101><ht><phrase>North America</phrase>, <phrase>South America</phrase>, <phrase>East Asia</phrase>, <phrase>Eurasia</phrase></ht></f>
<f 201><ht><phrase>Benin</phrase></ht></f>
<f 150><ht><phrase>GATT</phrase>, <phrase>Trade/Economics</phrase></ht></f>
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 6, SUPPLEMENT NO. 4, JULY 1995
Group of Seven (G-7) 1995 Economic Summit
Published By The Bureau Of Public Affairs
ARTICLE 8: pages 20-21

<h4><ti>Fact Sheet: Uruguay Round Agreement Reforms and U.S. Policy</ti></h4>
<date2>Jul 1, 1995</date2>

On December 15, 1993, 123 countries, accounting for more than 90% of
world trade, concluded a historic agreement to reform international
trade.  The Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations, conducted
under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT),
extended the GATT's rules to new areas of trade and updated its
organization to conform to a more dynamic global trading system.  As of
May 1995, 128 countries are either members or in the process of acceding
to the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The WTO effectively replaced the GATT on January 1, 1995.  By reducing
barriers to global commerce, the WTO agreements  expand U.S. trade
opportunities and increase U.S. economic competitiveness and thus can
help generate higher real wages and living standards for Americans.

Specifically, they include:

--  Lower tariff and non-tariff barriers for manufactured products and
other goods;
--  Rules to protect the intellectual property of entrepreneurs,
entertainment industries, and software producers;
--  New rules on trade in services;
--  Fairer competition and more open markets in agriculture;
--  Full participation by the developing countries in the global trading
system;
--  Effective rules on antidumping, subsidies, and import safeguards;
and
--  A more effective dispute settlement system.

<h5>Reducing Tariff and Non-tariff Barriers to Trade</h5>

The eighth round of negotiations under the GATT began at a meeting of
trade ministers in 1986 in Punta del Este, Uruguay.  Since the
establishment of the GATT in 1948, international trade negotiations had
resulted in tariff reductions of about 85%.  However, significant
barriers remained, especially with regard to agricultural exports, and
areas such as services were unregulated.

The Uruguay Round resulted in significant reform in the GATT process.
It achieved a more than one-third across-the-board reduction in tariffs,
which will be entirely eliminated in some industries.  Just as
significant as these tariff reductions is that many non-tariff barriers-
-such as quotas, discretionary licensing, import bans, or voluntary
export restraints--will be eliminated or reduced.  Agriculture export
subsidies also become subject to constraints.  Under new agriculture
market access provisions, countries are required to provide a minimum
level of import access opportunities for certain products, usually set
at 3% of domestic consumption.  Future multilateral trade negotiations
will be simplified, since countries will no longer be able to use non-
tariff measures to restrict trade.

<h5>Specific Areas of Focus</h5>

<h6>Tariffs</h6>.  Previously existing as well as newly established tariffs will
be "bound."  Once bound, a tariff cannot be increased without
compensation to other countries.  In addition, all countries are
required to begin reducing tariffs in 1995, with specific schedules
established for each member.  For developed countries, tariffs will be
reduced a minimum of 15% per product line and an overall average of 36%
over a six-year implementation period.  Developing countries are
permitted smaller reduction commitments and longer implementation
periods (10 years to cut tariffs by 24%).  Important gains include 50-
100% cuts in tariffs on electronic items (such as semiconductors and
computer parts) and harmonization of tariffs in the chemical sector at
low rates.

<h6>Services</h6>.  The agreement on trade in services establishes new rules in
more than 150 service sectors and subsectors (such as advertising, law,
accounting, information and computer services, environmental services,
engineering, and tourism), thus enabling U.S. firms operating overseas
to be treated as fairly as local firms.

<h6>Intellectual Property.</h6>  The agreement on trade-related intellectual
property rights establishes improved safeguards to protect intellectual
property rights.  Computer programs and databases are protected under
copyright.  Patents for virtually all types of inventions, including
those in pharmaceuticals and chemicals, are protected for up to 20
years.

<h6>Agriculture</h6>.  The agreement on agriculture requires that all members
reduce aggregate support to their domestic agricultural sectors by 20%
from a 1986-88 base period.  (The U.S. already has reduced domestic
support so that further reductions will not be necessary.)  Agricultural
products, which represent 10% of total U.S. merchandise exports, were
the second-largest contributor to the overall U.S. trade balance in
1992.  Since the U.S. is the world's major exporter of agricultural
products, with a share of world trade averaging about 15% in recent
years, increased market access and reduced subsidies for agriculture
will create important opportunities for U.S. producers and exporters.

An agricultural export subsidy agreement specifies reductions in
spending on export subsidies (36% over six years for developed
countries, 24% over 20 years for developing countries) and outlaws the
extension of subsidies to new products not subsidized during a 1986-90
base period.

An agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures establishes a
scientific standard for measures restricting plant and animal product
imports on the basis of health or safety concerns, thereby eliminating
import restrictions based on arbitrary or unsubstantiated health
concerns.

<h6>Environment</h6>.  Although environmental issues were not included in the
original Uruguay Round, the U.S. initiated discussion of the environment
in the late stages of the negotiations.  The new Committee on Trade and
Environment in the WTO will review the relationship of economic and
environmental objectives in trade negotiations.

<h6>Improving Structure and Procedures</h6>

Under the Uruguay Round Agreement, the World Trade Organization replaces
the GATT, with responsibility for enforcing the revised international
trade rules, providing procedures for negotiating additional reductions
of trade barriers, and settling disputes arising in areas covered by the
new trade agreements.  The new dispute settlement process enhances the
ability of the U.S. to combat unfair trading practices by allowing
"cross-retaliation" when a country fails to bring its trade measures
into conformity in response to a dispute settlement decision.

<h5>Benefits to the U.S. Economy</h5>

<h6>Exports</h6>.  Exports of goods and services have been steadily rising as a
share of the U.S. economy's total output.  An increase in U.S. export
opportunities helps stimulate greater capital investment; technological
innovation; higher productivity; job growth; and rising living
standards.

Export growth is important not only for U.S. export producers but also
for U.S. industries which provide the intermediate and capital goods
used by producers of exports as well as the U.S. firms and workers
supporting the export process.  A large and growing share of the U.S.
work force depends on U.S. exports for employment.  By 1990, the jobs of
7.2 million U.S. workers were supported by U.S. merchandise exports, an
increase of 44% from 5 million in 1986.

<h6>Imports</h6>.  The substantial reductions in trade barriers negotiated in the
Uruguay Round will result in lower prices for imported intermediate and
final products and a greater variety of goods for American consumers.

Competition in the U.S. market from increased imports stimulates U.S.
industries to improve their productivity, quality, and technology; this
can benefit both the firms and U.S. consumers who buy their goods at
reduced prices.

<h5>U.S. Trade Policy</h5>

U.S. trade policy aims to raise standards of living in the U.S. and
around the world.  Trade accounts for one-quarter of the U.S. gross
domestic product; for many nations, the figure is much higher.  In a
changing and more interdependent world, the key to prosperity and
improved living standards is engagement rather than withdrawal and
protectionism.  The Administration is committed to harnessing the forces
of change for the benefit of all Americans and the people of all nations
through reducing trade barriers and promoting sustainable development.

When the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) began after World
War II, it dealt only with tariffs.  Later, the U.S. began to address
non-tariff barriers to global trade.  Opening new markets is critical to
fostering global growth and creating jobs both in the United States--
richer countries are able to buy more goods and services from the U.S.--
and abroad.

But sustainable development also is important to such growth, and it has
both environmental and social dimensions.  As President Clinton
cautioned in January 1994:

While we continue to tear down anticompetitive practices and other
barriers to trade, we simply have to ensure that our economic policies
also protect the environment and the well-being of workers.

More nations are recognizing that economic growth must occur at a rate
that the environment can sustain.  The U.S. strongly favored the
establishment of the World Trade Organization's Committee on Trade and
Environment to discuss, inter alia, the environmental aspects of
sustainable development.

Another dimension of sustainable development is that a rise in
productivity should occur in tandem with the growth of middle classes,
the rise in standards of living, and the improvement of internationally
recognized labor standards.  Such labor standards include freedom of
association, freedom to organize and bargain collectively, freedom from
forced or compulsory labor, a minimum age for the employment of
children, and conditions of work.

The U.S. supports improved environmental and labor standards; at the
same time, it will resist efforts to use them as protectionist tools.

(###)


___________________________________________________________________

The State Department does not guarantee the authenticity of electronic
documents.  If you require the original version of a document in hard
copy, please contact the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Room 6805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.  Telephone: 202-647-5760.  State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced without consent.
Citation of source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce any
copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.
_____________________________________________________________ (###)
</doc><doc><f 151><ht><phrase>Fact sheets</phrase></ht></f>
<f 101><ht><phrase>North America</phrase>, <phrase>Europe</phrase>, <phrase>South America</phrase>, <phrase>East Asia</phrase></ht></f>
<f 201><ht><phrase>Benin</phrase></ht></f>
<f 150><ht><phrase>GATT</phrase></ht></f>
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 6, SUPPLEMENT NO. 4, JULY 1995
Group of Seven (G-7) 1995 Economic Summit
Published By The Bureau Of Public Affairs
ARTICLE 9: page 22

<h4><ti>Fact Sheet:  The World Trade Organization</ti></h4>
<date2>Jul 1, 1995</date2>

As a result of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations,
global rules for international trade have been improved and extended to
most trading nations on an equivalent basis.  Responsibility for
enforcement of these rules has been entrusted to the new World Trade
Organization (WTO).  The WTO also will provide procedures for
negotiating additional reductions of trade barriers and for the prompt
and effective settlement of disputes in all the policy areas covered by
the new world trade agreement.

<h5>U.S. Objectives</h5>

The principal trade negotiating objectives of the United States
regarding the improvement of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) and multilateral trade negotiation agreements were:

--  To enhance the status of the GATT;
--  To improve the operation and extend the coverage of the GATT and
such agreements and arrangements to products, sectors, and conditions of
trade not adequately covered; and
--  To expand country participation in particular agreements or
arrangements, where appropriate.

The agreement establishing the WTO facilitates the implementation of
trade agreements in the diverse areas of trade in goods, trade in
services, and the protection of trade-related intellectual property
rights.  The WTO encompasses the former GATT structure and extends it to
new disciplines that have not been adequately covered in the past.  By
bringing together disciplines on government practices affecting trade in
goods and services and the protection of intellectual property rights
under one institutional umbrella, the WTO agreement also facilitates the
"cross-retaliation" mechanism of the integrated dispute settlement
understanding.

In addition, the WTO resolves the "free rider" problem in the world
trading system. WTO benefits only extend to its members who have agreed
to adhere to all of the Uruguay Round agreements and who submit
schedules of market access commitments for industrial goods,
agricultural goods, and services.  This eliminates the shortcomings of
the former GATT system in which, for example, only a handful of
countries voluntarily adhered to disciplines on subsidies under the 1979
Tokyo Round agreement.

The WTO agreement establishes a number of institutional rules (described
below) that are applied to all Uruguay Round agreements.  It establishes
an international organization with a stature commensurate with that of
the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.  The organization is
similar to that of the existing GATT Secretariat.

<h5>Key Provisions</h5>

<h6>Trade and Environment</h6>.  The WTO agreement recognizes the importance of
environmental concerns.  This addresses a key interest among U.S.
environmental and conservation groups, which have often expressed
concern that international trade agreements have failed to take
environmental issues into account.  A WTO committee on trade and
environment aims to ensure the responsiveness of the multilateral
trading system to environmental objectives.

<h6>Decision-making</h6>.  The U.S. has successfully retained the practice of
general decision-making by consensus followed under the GATT since 1947.
Consensus is achieved "if no member, present at the meeting where the
decision is taken, formally objects to the proposed decision."  This
continues to enable the U.S. to prevent a decision that it perceives to
be contrary to its interest.

<h6>Amendments</h6>.  The agreement permits amendments but ensures that an
amendment of the substantive rights and obligations not be binding on
the U.S. without acceptance of the amendment.  In contrast, amendments
to pure procedural provisions of the Uruguay Round agreements will be
binding on all members in order to avoid the destabilizing effect that
would result if different members were subject to different procedural
rules.

<h6>Waivers</h6>.  The agreement allows members to grant waivers of substantive
provisions in the various Uruguay Round agreements, but only in
exceptional circumstances.  In the case of an obligation subject to
phased-in implementation, such as those in the agreement on trade-
related intellectual property issues (TRIPs), which has not yet been
fulfilled by the requesting member, members may grant a waiver only by
consensus.  Also, the waiver provision substantially increases the
threshold for obtaining waivers, from two-thirds of members present to
three-quarters of all members.  Any waivers granted are subject to
specific conditions, including a date on which the waiver will
terminate.

<h6>Interpretations</h6>.  Under the WTO, the reports of dispute settlement
panels do not constitute "authoritative" interpretations of the relevant
agreements.  Only the members themselves--acting through the Ministerial
Conference or General Council--can adopt such an interpretation.  The
agreement also states that interpretations not be used in a manner that
undermine amendment provisions.

<h6>Non-application</h6>.  The agreement does not permit sector non-application.
Thus, for example, India is precluded from not applying the TRIPs
agreement to the U.S.  With respect to WTO members that accede to the
WTO but are not "original members" (generally, are not GATT contracting
parties), a member can invoke "global" non-application.  Thus, with
respect to the People's Republic  of China and possibly other acceding
members, the U.S. can choose not to apply the GATT and the Uruguay Round
agreements to that country as a whole.

<h6>Definitive Application</h6>.  In joining the WTO agreement, members agree to
the definitive application of the obligations of the Uruguay Round
multilateral trade agreements. (Accession to the multilateral trade
agreements, such as the agreement on government procurement, is limited
to those members who affirmatively accept these agreements.)  Annex 1 to
the WTO agreement eliminates the protocol of provisional application and
corresponding provisions in protocols of accession to the GATT that had
the effect of allowing certain existing legislation of contracting
parties that are inconsistent with the GATT.  However, Annex 1 includes
a clause that protects from GATT challenge U.S. maritime laws relating
to cabotage ("Jones Act").

(###)


___________________________________________________________________

The State Department does not guarantee the authenticity of electronic
documents.  If you require the original version of a document in hard
copy, please contact the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Room 6805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.  Telephone: 202-647-5760.  State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced without consent.
Citation of source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce any
copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.
_____________________________________________________________ (###)
</doc><doc><f 151><ht><phrase>Fact sheets</phrase></ht></f>
<f 101><ht><phrase>Subsaharan Africa</phrase>, <phrase>South America</phrase>, <phrase>Central America</phrase></ht></f>
<f 201><ht><phrase>Bolivia</phrase>, <phrase>Argentina</phrase>, <phrase>Mexico</phrase>, <phrase>Philippines</phrase></ht></f>
<f 150><ht><phrase>Development/Relief Aid</phrase></ht></f>
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 6, SUPPLEMENT NO. 4, JULY 1995
Group of Seven (G-7) 1995 Economic Summit
Published By The Bureau Of Public Affairs
ARTICLE 10: pages 23-24

<h4><ti>Fact Sheet: Developing Country Debt</ti></h4>
<date2>Jul 1, 1995</date2>

<h5>Background</h5>

The ability of many developing countries to pay their foreign debt
deteriorated in the 1980s, leading to a debt crisis. As a result of
actions by creditor countries and continued support by international
financial institutions, the situation clearly has improved. By providing
financial support for countries undertaking macroeconomic adjustment,
and, through an improvement in commercial bank relations with major
debtor countries, the risk to the international financial community has
been greatly reduced.

The U.S. has encouraged debtors to undertake economic reforms and
persuaded banks, governments, and international financial institutions
to support such efforts. In 1985, the U.S. introduced an international
debt strategy designed to improve and sustain growth in debtor
countries. Since 1990, it has complemented this strategy with efforts to
reduce bilateral official debt--both alone and in concert with other
governments, most notably through debt reductions in the Paris Club.

<h5>Origins of the Crisis</h5>

Several factors contributed to the debt crisis of the early 1980s.
Inappropriate domestic policies in many debtor countries resulted in
large budget deficits and overvalued exchange rates. Many countries used
substantial borrowing to maintain these policies, financing consumption
and inefficient investment rather than investing in needed infra-
structure or productive enterprises. Many of the same countries relied
on short-term, variable rate loans that made them vulnerable to rising
interest rates. External shocks, such as the 1979 oil price jump, a
sharp increase in international interest rates, a large drop in
commodity prices, and recession in the developed countries compounded
the repayment strain on heavily burdened countries. Finally, commercial
banks overestimated the ability of these economies to generate the
necessary foreign exchange to repay their large commercial debts.

<h5>The Initial Response</h5>

Beginning with the Mexican crisis of August 1982, the U.S. was a leader
in responding to the developing country debt problem of the 1980s. In
1985, to restart growth in the debtor countries, the U.S. proposed an
international debt strategy which encouraged International Monetary Fund
(IMF), World Bank, and commercial bank lending to support economic
reform. In 1989, the plan was strengthened by incorporating voluntary
commercial bank debt and debt service reduction to support economic
reform.

Dramatic progress has been made under the strengthened international
debt strategy. Twenty-one countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil,
Bulgaria, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guyana,
Jordan, Mexico, Niger, Nigeria, the Philippines, Poland, Sao Tome and
Principe, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Zambia) have reached
agreements which feature debt reduction options. These countries
represent the great majority of the total commercial bank debt of the
major debtor nations. Similar negotiations are at various stages with
Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Gabon, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama. Some
countries, such as Argentina, Chile, and Mexico, have made significant
progress toward attracting private foreign capital, as evidenced by
their ability to maintain access to international capital markets
despite the uncertainty created by Mexico's liquidity crisis early in
1995.

<h5>Multilateral Debt Relief</h5>

With the success of the strengthened international debt strategy in
gaining voluntary, market-based reduction of commercial debt, focus has
shifted somewhat from commercial to official bilateral (government-to-
government) debt within the Paris Club, an informal group of official
creditors. Creditor governments have supported country reform efforts by
rescheduling payments--both interest and principal--due on official
bilateral debt. Such reschedulings are provided to countries receiving
IMF support of their comprehensive economic reform programs.

In the fall of 1988, the Paris Club implemented the Toronto economic
summit mandate to provide debt relief to heavily indebted, low-income
Sub-Saharan African countries. "Toronto terms" offered three options for
providing debt relief: debt reduction, concessional interest rates, or
extended maturities. In 1990, these terms were extended to the poorest
and most heavily indebted countries in other regions on a case-by-case
basis.

In addition, in response to the 1990 Houston economic summit mandate,
the Paris Club devised more generous terms for lower-middle income
countries (LMICs)--those not poor enough to qualify for enhanced Toronto
terms but still heavily indebted. Congo, Dominican Republic, El
Salvador, Honduras, Jamaica, Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Peru, and the
Philippines have received reschedulings on these LMIC, or "Houston
terms," which extend the repayment periods but do not provide debt
reduction.

In December 1991, the Paris Club implemented the London economic summit
mandate to provide even more generous terms to the poorest of the poor
countries. Stimulated by a proposal by U.K. Prime Minister John Major in
Trinidad, these "enhanced Toronto terms" introduced options under which
creditors reduce debt service by up to 50% on a net present value basis.
Since December 1991, Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central
African Republic, Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras,
Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Senegal, Sierra Leone,
Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Vietnam, and Zambia have received reschedulings
under enhanced Toronto terms.

In December 1994, the Paris Club took another critical step to support
reform efforts and improve the prospects for economic growth and better
living standards in the poorest countries by agreeing to terms for
further reduction of the debt of the poorest countries. The new terms,
known as the "Naples Terms" because they were recommended at the 1994 G-
7 Economic Summit in Naples, provide, on a case-by-case basis, two-
thirds debt service reduction for the poorest countries. More
significantly, the Paris Club creditors also agreed for the first time
to provide for reduction of the stock of debt for countries with a
sustained record of economic reform (rather than just for payments
coming due in a specific period). The countries that have so far
benefited from Naples terms include Bolivia, Cambodia, Chad, Equatorial
Guinea, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Senegal,
Togo, and Uganda.

<h5>Bilateral Debt Relief</h5>

In June 1994, in recognition of steps Jordan had taken toward peace with
Israel, President Clinton pledged to seek congressional authorization
and funding to forgive all of Jordan's approximately $700 million in
debts to the United States. In September, Congress authorized
cancellation of Jordan's debts and appropriated funds sufficient to
forgive $220 million of the total debt. The Administration is working
with Congress to complete the forgiveness of the remaining debt. The
Administration also has urged the G-7 to join the United States in
addressing Jordan's financial needs in view of the courageous steps
Jordan has taken for peace.

In April 1991, the Paris Club agreed to special debt relief for Poland,
providing 50% phased-in debt reduction on a net present value basis in
support of multi-year economic restructuring agreements with the IMF.
The U.S., citing the need to provide extraordinary assistance to Poland
in its transition from a centrally planned to a free market economy,
approved a 70% reduction in May 1991.

At the end of 1990, the U.S., in recognition of Egypt 's supportive role
during the Gulf crisis, canceled Egypt 's $6.7-billion military debt. In
May 1991, Egypt 's Paris Club creditors followed this action with a
phased-in 50% debt reduction, available within the context of IMF-
supported economic reform programs.

In 1989 and 1990, the U.S. Congress provided authority to forgive,
first, U.S. Agency for International Development economic assistance
and, later, PL-480 loans to Sub-Saharan Africa and other least-developed
countries that are undertaking economic reform. More than $2.7 billion
owed by 27 African, Latin American, and South Asian countries has been
forgiven under these authorities since FY 1990. The U.S. also has
reduced the non-military debt of seven Latin American nations under the
framework of the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, an integrated
program to increase trade, promote capital flows, ease debt burdens, and
protect the environment.

<h5>Conclusion</h5>

The decade of the 1990s is seeing a new focus on the debt problems of
the poorest countries, as private capital flows increasingly replace
official financing for the more credit-worthy developing countries. In
particular, increasing attention is being given to debt owed to
multilateral lending institutions by some of the world's poorest, most
heavily indebted countries. Mexico's liquidity crisis in early 1995
highlighted the increasing integration of global capital markets and the
potential for such crises to spread rapidly.  As a consequence of this
crisis and the lessons learned in organizing an international financial
package for Mexico, greater attention is being given to the need for
transparency and international cooperation in surveilling and regulating
international capital markets.

(###)

___________________________________________________________________

The State Department does not guarantee the authenticity of electronic
documents.  If you require the original version of a document in hard
copy, please contact the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Room 6805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.  Telephone: 202-647-5760.  State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced without consent.
Citation of source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce any
copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.
_____________________________________________________________ (###)
</doc><doc><f 151><ht><phrase>Fact sheets</phrase></ht></f>
<f 101><ht><phrase>Whole World</phrase></ht></f>
<f 201><ht><phrase>Benin</phrase></ht></f>
<f 150><ht><phrase>Environment</phrase></ht></f>
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DISPATCH
VOLUME 6, SUPPLEMENT NO. 4, JULY 1995
Group of Seven (G-7) 1995 Economic Summit
Published By The Bureau Of Public Affairs
ARTICLE 11: pages 25-28

<h4><ti>Fact Sheet: Global Environmental Issues</ti></h4>
<date2>Jul 1, 1995</date2>

The environmental challenges confronting the world today are greater
than at any time in recent history. Threats to the global environment--
such as climate change; stratospheric ozone depletion; and the loss of
biological diversity, forests, and fish stocks--affect all nations
regardless of their level of development. As a result, the environment
is an increasingly important part of the foreign policy agenda. The
United States accords high priority to addressing global environmental
problems and is pursuing a wide-ranging agenda of action to protect the
environment and promote the goal of sustainable development.

<h5>UN Conference on Environment And Development</h5>

The June 1992 UNCED was a landmark event in addressing the global
environment. Unlike other environmental conferences, UNCED focused on
"sustainable development," i.e., economic growth that takes into account
environmental concerns. UNCED resulted in the adoption of three key
documents:

-- Agenda 21--an action program
to guide national and international environmental and development
efforts into the 21st century;

--  The Rio Declaration--a statement of principles regarding the
environment and development;  and

-- A statement of principles for the conservation and sustainable use of
forests worldwide.

Based on UNCED's recommendation, the United Nations has established a
Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) to monitor implementation of
Agenda 21 recommendations. The U.S. strongly sup- ports the CSD as a
primary international body for promoting sustainable development
worldwide. The CSD will  next convene in early 1996 to review progress
on the ocean environment. It meets annually to pursue follow-up to the
Rio Conference; in April 1995, it reviewed forest issues.

The United States works domestically to implement the recommendations
made at the Rio Conference. On June 14, 1993, President Clinton
announced the formation of the President's Council on Sustainable
Development (PSCD), which now is developing policy recommendations for a
national strategy for sustainable development that can be implemented by
the public and private sectors. The PSCD represents a ground-breaking
commitment to explore and develop policies that encourage economic
growth, job creation, and effective use of natural resources.

In addition to the treaties on biodiversity and climate change, UNCED
also endorsed a convention to combat desertification. In October 1995,
the U.S. signed a new UN Convention on Desertification, which promotes
international cooperation on the sustainable use of fragile, dry-land
ecosystems, particularly in Africa. It also addresses one of the root
causes of African poverty and hunger. The convention is being prepared
to be submitted to the Senate for ratification.

<h5>Global Climate Change</h5>

That human activities may cause climate change is a serious
international environmental concern. The United States has led the
effort in response to this threat. Negotiations on a Framework
Convention on Climate Change--which began near Washington DC, in early
1991--culminated in an agreement that received more than 150 signatures
at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de
Janeiro in June 1992;  the convention entered into force March 21, 1994.

The climate change convention establishes a process to deal meaningfully
with this issue. Industrialized countries are developing specific action
plans to limit emissions of greenhouse gases and enhance forests and
other greenhouse gas "sinks."  Other countries are to take similar
actions in the future.  President Clinton announced in April 1993 that
the U.S. intends to return its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels
by the year 2000. In October 1993, the President presented the National
Climate Change Action Plan, containing nearly 50 domestic measures
designed to meet the U.S. commitment.

In September 1994, the United States made its national submission, the
U.S. Climate Change Report, which details U.S. actions to address the
threat of global climate change. It includes the U.S. Initiative on
Joint Implementation (USIJI) which promotes cooperation between
countries on projects that will reduce or sequester greenhouse gas
emissions. The first seven projects for inclusion in the initiative were
announced in February 1995. Partner countries include Costa Rica,
Honduras, Belize, the Czech Republic, and Russia. The United States
expects to announce another round of projects in the near future.

In fiscal years 1994 and 1995, the United States offered $30 million in
financial support and technical assistance to assist developing
countries and countries in transition to market economies in
establishing analytical foundations for addressing the threat of climate
change. Eligible efforts included inventories of greenhouse gas
emissions, vulnerability studies, and analyses of options to address
vulnerabilities and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The United States
is now working with more than 50 countries on such studies.

The First Conference of the Parties to review the climate change
convention was held in Berlin, Germany, March 28-April 7, 1995. The
participants secured a mandate to negotiate "next steps" for the post-
2000 era by 1997 as well as to begin a pilot phase for "joint
implementation" projects. The United States hopes that the USIJI and
similar programs will assist in the development of international
criteria for the partnership projects needed to reduce worldwide
greenhouse gas emissions.

<h5>Protection of the Ozone Layer</h5>

The depletion of the ozone layer continues to be a serious problem. The
United States has led efforts to address this threat, beginning with a
decision in 1978 to ban the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in non-
essential aerosols. The U.S. urged the conclusion of an agreement to
restrict the use of CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances in all
countries.

This effort has led to a succession of landmark international agreements
since 1985 designed to protect the ozone layer, including the 1985
Vienna Convention and the 1987 Montreal Protocol. Countries will
completely phase out the production of CFCs and most other ozone-
depleting substances by the end of 1996. The U.S. has met its
commitments to phase out halons by the end of 1994 and continues toward
meeting phase-out targets for CFCs and allied substances by January 1,
1996.

<h5>Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity</h5>

A central objective of U.S. environmental policy is the preservation and
sustainable use of natural resources, pursued through a combination of
bilateral and multilateral activities.

The United States is party to the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which enables the
122 CITES signatories to monitor and control international trade in wild
species. CITES was crucial in efforts by the U.S. and other countries to
protect the African elephant by banning trade in elephant ivory, and it
is now involved in efforts to protect the rhino and tiger. The Ninth
CITES Conference of Parties was held in Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
November 7-18, 1994.

While CITES has been effective in protecting species that are threatened
as a direct result of international trade, the main cause of species
loss is habitat destruction. The U.S. seeks to address this issue
through a variety of means, such as increased funding for forest
conservation programs, the establishment of protected areas under the
World Heritage Convention and other agreements, and through the Ramsar
Treaty on International Wetlands.

On June 4, 1993, the United States signed the UN Convention on
Biological Diversity, which establishes a framework for countries to
cooperate on protecting the earth's species. The convention presents a
unique opportunity for nations not only to conserve the world's
biological diversity, but also to realize economic benefits from the
conservation and sustainable use of its genetic resources. The treaty is
now before the U.S. Senate for ratification.

The U.S. is promoting sustainable use of the world's forest resources
through the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, which, in April
1995, established an intergovernmental panel to explore more efficient,
better coordinated international programs. The U.S. Government and non-
governmental organizations are cooperating to help preserve threatened
biodiversity-rich forests in countries such as Suriname and Papua New
Guinea, and on a regional basis in Central Africa and the Amazon.

The U.S. also has launched a new international partnership--the
International Coral Reef Initiative--to promote the protection,
sustainable management, and monitoring of coral reefs and related
ecosystems, such as mangroves and sea grasses. U.S. partners in this new
undertaking include Japan, Australia, Jamaica, the United Kingdom,
France, and the Philippines.

<h5>Population and Environment</h5>

During the 1990s, world population growth will increase by 90 to 100
million people annually. Unaddressed, global population will almost
certainly double and could triple before the end of the next century.
The implications of such growth for global economic, political, social,
and environmental security are profound.

The third UN International Conference on Population and Development
convened in Cairo, Egypt September 5-13, 1994. This conference provided
a once-in-a-decade opportunity to marshal resources behind a
comprehensive global effort to stem rapid population growth. The U.S.
worked with its international partners to develop comprehensive
programs, which include addressing the unmet need and demand for family
planning and reproductive health services;  developing strategies for
improving women's health needs and improving child survival; improving
the social, economic, and political status of women; and mobilizing
institutional and financial resources to meet these goals. All these
initiatives influence population growth and are most effective when
pursued together; efforts in this regard will continue.

<h5>Financing Environmental Protection</h5>

The United States supports effective use of resources and institutions
to promote the goals of sustainable development and environmental
protection. It has long been a leader among bilateral donors in
supporting environmental programs abroad and ensuring that environmental
considerations are taken into account in assistance programs. The U.S.
foreign assistance budget emphasizes sustainable development, including
programs for ameliorating natural resource degradation; protecting
water, air, and land from pollution; and making progress toward
environmental conservation, among others.

Multilateral institutions remain essential to efforts to promote
economic reforms and development in a rapidly changing world; they also
are important instruments to promote sustainable development and
environmental protection. The United States helps ensure that the
multilateral development banks take environmental considerations into
account in all their lending programs. The U.S. also strongly supported
creation of the Global Environmental Facility, which helps fund projects
that provide global environmental benefits, such as those related to
climate change and the loss of biodiversity.

<h5>Marine Conservation and Pollution</h5>

The world's oceans are threatened by human activities such as
unsustainable resource use and pollution. The United States long has
played an active role in ocean conservation programs--from its efforts
early in the 1980s to protect whales to a UN-sponsored moratorium in
1992 on the destructive practice of driftnet fishing. The collapse of
several valuable fisheries, concern about the continued sustainability
of fully and over-exploited fisheries, and the development of new
fisheries have brought special attention to international fisheries
matters and point to the need for new mechanisms of international
cooperation.

Overall, the U.S. leads international efforts to better conserve and
manage important living marine resources through global cooperation. It
is a leading proponent of two major international agreements to address
marine pollution: the Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships, which regulates discharges of harmful substances during the
normal operation of ships at sea;  and the London Convention, which bans
the ocean disposal of a number of wastes and lists others that may be
disposed of only with special care.

The United States promotes efforts to address pollution from land-based
sources--the most serious threat to the marine environment. UNCED
delegates adopted a U.S. proposal calling for an intergovernmental
conference--which will be hosted by the United States in Washington, DC,
in October 1995--to consider effective ways to deal with this threat.

As a result of the 1980s focus on the adverse impacts of large-scale
pelagic driftnet fishing, the UN General Assembly, in 1990, adopted a
resolution calling for a global moratorium on the use of large-scale
driftnets on the high seas. The United States attaches great importance
to continued compliance with this resolution and continues to encourage
all nations to take measures to prohibit their nationals and vessels
from undertaking any activity contrary to the terms of the resolution.

Through U.S. leadership and international cooperation, the incidental
take of dolphins in the eastern Pacific Ocean's tuna fishery area has
been reduced to its lowest levels. The United States also is
participating in multilateral negotiations toward concluding a Western
Hemisphere Sea Turtle Protection and Conservation Convention.

Since 1993, the United States has participated in the UN Conference on
Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks--an outcome of
UNCED, which called for a global conference to promote effective
implementation of the provisions of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of
the Sea dealing with fish stocks.

To date, the conference has completed four substantive sessions and
hopes to complete its work in August 1995. More than 80 nations are
participating.

In addition, the United States is engaged in efforts through the UN Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to improve international fishery
conservation and management. The U.S., FAO, and other countries are
preparing an international code of conduct for responsible fishing,
which will provide principles and standards applicable to the
conservation, management, and development of all fisheries. The code
will address such issues as fishing operations, aquaculture, habitat,
fisheries research, and the integration of fisheries into coastal area
management plans.

<h5>The Environment and the G-7</h5>

Environment has been a key issue for the G-7 since the 1989 Paris
Summit. The Halifax Summit reinforced efforts that have been made over
the past few years to implement the Rio Earth Summit's blueprint for
sustainable development--as Agenda 21--and showed support for the
conventions on climate change, biodiversity, and the CSD process on
forests.

<h6>Climate Change</h6>. The United States will encourage all developed countries
to meet their commitments to return greenhouse gas emissions to their
1990 levels by the year 2000 and to consider what measures should be
taken with regard to greenhouse gas emissions in the post-2000 period.

<h6>Biodiversity</h6>. The U.S. works through a wide range of multilateral and
bilateral mechanisms to address arresting the rapid loss of species
worldwide. It is, however, the only G-7 country which has not ratified
the biodiversity convention--one of the major outcomes of the 1992 Earth
Summit.

<h6>Forests</h6>. The U.S. strongly supports efforts by the UN Commission on
Sustainable Development to develop proposals on the sustainable
management and conservation of forests through an "open-ended
intergovernmental panel on forests." This panel will provide proposals
for action on a range of priority areas. It will consider ways to
enhance international forest aid coordination and recommend a clearer
division of forest-related work among UN agencies. It also will examine
factors effecting trade in forest products and assess the need for
additional international agreements, possibly establishing a legally
binding forest convention.

 On April 30 and May 1, 1995, G-7 environment ministers met in Hamilton,
Ontario. EPA Administrator Carol Browner and Under Secretary of State
for Global Affairs Timothy Wirth attended the meeting, together with
environment ministers from other G-7 countries. The meeting focused on
three themes:

-- International institutional arrangements for sustainable development
and environment issues;
-- Environment-economy integration with emphasis on "greening of
government operations;" and
--  Progress on major international environmental issues, including
those related to the conventions on climate change and biodiversity.

 The institutional arrangements theme focused on CSD and UN Environment
Program (UNEP) mandates. It was agreed that the CSD should be the high-
level global forum at which broad policy directions and strategic goals
for sustainable development are set. UNEP was urged to reaffirm its
mandate as the environmental voice of the UN system, focusing on
science, environmental monitoring and assessment, catalyzing regional
responses to common environmental problems, and promoting the
development of international environment law.

Discussions also focused on the role of international financial
institutions (IFIs)--expressing the view that the G-7 should encourage
the World Bank and other IFIs to emphasize the quality, rather than
simply the quantity of loans, and to continue to progress toward
transparency and openness by making information available early in the
project evaluation process.

Environment-economy integration discussions focused on "greening"
government operations. Participants reviewed their domestic policies to
find common challenges related to greening government policy; for
example, removing unsound subsidies, using environmental assessments,
implementing green tax reform, and promoting job creation through
environmental technologies. Participants urged G-7 governments to take
the lead in making their operations and activities more environmentally
sustainable and sound through their procurement practices, energy use,
and building maintenance. The U.S. Government already is moving in this
direction through President Clinton's various executive orders regarding
the use of recycled products, alternative fuel vehicles, energy-
efficient and water-saving equipment, "green" computers, and the
reinventing government initiative.

Finally, the participants reviewed ongoing international efforts to
address issues related to climate change, biodiversity preservation, and
trade in wastes and toxic chemicals. All G-7 countries support action to
address global environmental concerns, although each country emphasizes
different issues.

(###)
___________________________________________________________________

The State Department does not guarantee the authenticity of electronic
documents.  If you require the original version of a document in hard
copy, please contact the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Room 6805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.  Telephone: 202-647-5760.  State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced without consent.
Citation of source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce any
copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.
_____________________________________________________________ (###)

</doc><doc>
<h3>U.S. Department of State Dispatch Supplement
Vol. 6, No. 3,  May 1995</h3>
<f 100><ht>PA</ht></f>
Title:          <h4><ti>The United States Department of State:
                Structure and Organization</ti></h4>
Source:         <f 148><ns>Bureau of Public Affairs, Office
                of Public Communication, U.S. Department of State</ns></f>
Description:    <f 155>Collection of fact sheets on the structure,
                organization, information resources, and services for
                the public of the U.S. Department of State and it</f>
Date:           <date2>May 26, 1995</date2><nsh><pf 102>5/26/95</pf></nsh>
Category:       <f 151><phrase>Fact Sheets</phrase></f>
Region:         <f 101><phrase>North America</phrase></f>
Country:        <f 201><phrase>United States</phrase></f>
Subject:        <f 150><phrase>State Department</phrase>, <phrase>NATO</phrase></f>



THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE: STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION;
INFORMATION RESOURCES AND SERVICES"
PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
ARTICLE 1:

<h5>The U.S. Department of State: Structure and Organization</h5>

Fact sheet dated May 26, 1995, released by the Office of Public
Communication, Bureau of Public Affairs.

The United States maintains diplomatic relations with some 180 countries
and also maintains relations with many international organizations.  It
has more than 250 diplomatic and consular posts around the world:
country mission components--which may include embassies, consulates, or
other posts; and delegations and missions to international
organizations.

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 policies.  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.  Several
related foreign affairs agencies--the Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency (ACDA), the Agency for International Development (USAID), and the
U.S. Information Agency (USIA)--are under the general direction and
overall foreign policy guidance of the Secretary of State.

The Department of State carries out its mission through overseas posts;
its Washington, DC, headquarters; and other offices in the U.S.  Its
employees in the U.S. and abroad include political appointees as well as
career Civil Service and Foreign Service personnel.

In addition to representing U.S. policy and interests at these posts,
the Department of State is the primary provider of foreign affairs
information used by the U.S. Government in policy formulation.
Information received from U.S. posts--including in-depth analyses of the
politics, economic trends, and social forces at work in foreign
countries--is provided to some 60 federal agencies dealing with national
security, intelligence, economic and commercial matters, or science and
technology.

Overview of the State Department's Organization

<h6>Mandate for Change</h6>

Under Vice President Gore's National Performance Review (NPR)
initiative, the State Department in October 1994 began to redefine which
roles it needs to fulfill and which structures are required to support
those roles.  In response to the Vice President's effort to redefine
what the U.S. Government does and who in government does it, the
Department undertook its  Strategic Management Initiative (SMI).

SMI reinforces the direction of steps taken beginning in 1993 to
reorganize the Department to respond to post-Cold War foreign policy
challenges.  These changes included creating a fifth Under Secretary
position to coordinate global affairs issues and forming several new
bureaus through consolidation and realignment.  Overall, the
reorganization served to:

--  Emphasize the Department's full engagement in promoting U.S.
interests abroad, reinforced by Secretary Christopher's concept that it
is "America's desk;"
--  Position the Department to act effectively on key regional
developments and other critical foreign affairs issues;
--  Adapt the Department to the increasing globalization of many foreign
policy matters; and
--  Reflect the growing importance of developing options for
multilateral approaches in the conduct of foreign relations.

The SMI process continues the Department's review of how to streamline
its organization around its core mission, which is to:

--  Ensure national security by building and maintaining alliances and
defusing and preventing crises;
--  Advance the economic interests of the American people by promoting
free trade and assisting American businesses;
--  Promote democratic values and respect for human rights; and
--  Provide protection and services to Americans abroad and control
access to the United States.

SMI's second phase builds on the Vice President's January 1995 decisions
that emphasized the unique and independent role of each of the foreign
affairs agencies under the overall leadership of the Department of
State.  SMI aims to achieve the goals of NPR and enhance the
Department's ability to promote America's interest and maintain
America's leadership in the world.  This initiative builds on the core
strengths of the State Department:  the geographic, economic, and
political expertise of its employees; its management of embassies
abroad; and its skills at reporting and policy formulation and
integration.

Key decisions made by the Secretary of State in SMI's second phase
include:

--  Continuing consolidation of the Department's overseas presence by
closing 20-25 posts in addition to the 17 already closed;
--  Streamlining the policy formulation and implementation process
through making greater use of special teams of officers to handle high-
priority issues;
--  Increasing interagency coordination;
--  Eliminating unnecessary reports and modernizing information
technology;
--  Enhancing customer service; and
--  Exploring the privatization of some functions.

<h6>Current Structure</h6>

The Department of State is headed by the Secretary (S) aided by a Deputy
Secretary (D), five Under Secretaries, and 19 Assistant Secretaries.
The Chief of Staff (S/COS) and Executive Secretariat (S/S) closely
support the Secretary and Deputy Secretary.  Several specialized offices
and bureaus--headed by top aides and key advisers to the Secretary--help
the Department focus on certain critical foreign policy areas and on
important management issues.

The Department's Under Secretaries act as the "corporate board" of key
advisers to the Secretary.  They oversee the activities of most of the
Department's bureaus and offices--which are organized under them to
support their policy planning, coordination, and implementation
activities.  The Under Secretaries are those for Political Affairs (P);
Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs (E); Arms Control and
International Security Affairs (T); Management (M); and Global Affairs
(G).

An Assistant Secretary or the equivalent runs each of the Department's
regional, functional, and management bureaus; most bureaus comprise
several offices headed by directors.

As part of SMI's second phase, more decision-making power at the level
of Assistant Secretaries and below will enhance Under Secretaries' focus
on broad policy oversight of key issues and their role as the
Secretary's guarantors of policy coherence.  Under Secretaries may also,
as a result of SMI Phase Two, head special cross-cutting teams which
handle high-priority issues.

<h6>Units Attached to the Office of the Secretary</h6>

The following units are attached to the Office of the Secretary.

The Operations Center--or "the Watch"--(S/S-O) is part of the Executive
Secretariat.  It is open around the clock to alert and brief Department
officials on overseas news and events and to coordinate the Department's
response to emergency situations.  The Watch also provides selected
communications support to Department officials.

The Policy Planning Staff (S/P) is responsible for developing and
proposing to the Secretary of State strategic political and economic
policies.

The Office of Resources, Plans, and Policy (S/RPP) is responsible for
coordinating policy formulation with resource planning activities.  The
office develops for the Secretary's decision recommendations on
international affairs resource issues, allocates funds in accordance
with the Secretary's decisions, and conducts periodic program reviews.

The Office of the Chief of Protocol (S/CPR) advises the President, Vice
President, Secretary of State, and others on matters of national and
international protocol; supports ceremonial events and functions in the
U.S. and abroad; manages Blair House--the President's guest house; and
is responsible for accreditation activities.

Also attached to the Office of the Secretary are a number of offices
headed by ambassadors-at-large, special advisers, and senior
coordinators for such foreign policy areas and issues as the Middle East
Peace Process, Russia and the other New Independent States of the former
Soviet Union, Haiti, North Korea, and counter-terrorism.  Other offices
attached to the Office of the Secretary deal with personnel issues,
including the Equal Employment Opportunity and Civil Rights Office, the
Civil Service Ombudsman, and the Foreign Service Grievance Board.

<h6>Units Outside the Office of the Secretary</h6>

The following offices and bureaus, while not attached to the Office of
the Secretary, report directly to the Secretary.  As part of the
Department's streamlining efforts, certain administrative functions for
some of these units have been consolidated.

The Office of the Permanent Representative to the United Nations
(USUN/W) is headed by the Permanent Representative, a Cabinet member who
represents the United States at the UN.  This office shapes U.S. policy
at the UN, working for multilateral policy formulation and
implementation where possible and seeking to make the UN and its
agencies more effective instruments for advancing U.S. interests and
addressing global needs.

The Bureau of Public Affairs' (PA) interaction with the American public
is key to the Secretary's America's Desk concept--the Department's
commitment to relating foreign policy goals to the American people and
keeping the public involved in the foreign policy process.

The bureau does this in a variety of ways:

--  Conducting daily press briefings and arranging interviews for the
Secretary and other Department principals with television, radio, and
print media;
--  Drafting speeches and testimonies for the Secretary of State;
--  Releasing material on current and historical U.S. foreign policy in
hard copy and electronically;
--  Promoting Department relations with state and local elected
officials;
--  Holding briefing programs in the Department and throughout the
Washington metropolitan area;
--  Conducting regional town meetings;
--  Sending speakers around the country; and
--  Answering the public's phone calls and mail to the Secretary and
Deputy Secretary.

The Bureau of Legislative Affairs (H) serves as liaison between the
State Department and the Congress.  The bureau performs a critical role
in advancing the President's and the Department's legislative agenda in
the area of foreign policy.

The Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), drawing on all-source
intelligence, provides value-added independent analysis of events to
Department policymakers; ensures that intelligence activities support
foreign policy and national security purposes; and coordinates issues
involving intelligence, security, and counterintelligence.  INR's
primary mission is to harness intelligence to serve U.S. diplomacy.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is an independent office that
audits, inspects, and investigates the activities of all elements of the
Department.  The Inspector General reports directly to the Secretary and
the Congress on the results of this work and makes recommendations to
promote economy and efficiency and to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in
Department programs and operations.

The Office of the Legal Adviser (L) counsels the Secretary and
Department on legal considerations regarding foreign policy issues and
the management of the Department.

<h6>Under Secretaries and Their Group Components</h6>

Most of the Department's bureaus and offices are organized in groups to
support policy planning, coordination, and execution by the five Under
Secretaries.  As part of the Department's streamlining efforts, certain
administrative functions have been consolidated in some groups.

Under Secretary for Political Affairs (P) Group

The Under Secretary for Political Affairs is the Department's crisis
manager and also is responsible for integrating political, economic,
global, and security issues into the United States' bilateral
relationships.

The geographic bureaus coordinate the conduct of U.S. foreign relations
in six world regions.  They are:

--The Bureau of African Affairs (AF);
--The Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs (EAP);
--The Bureau of European and Canadian Affairs (EUR);
--The Bureau of Inter-American Affairs (for Latin America and the
Caribbean--ARA);
--The Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA); and
--The Bureau of South Asian Affairs (SA).

The Assistant Secretaries of these bureaus advise the Secretary and
guide the operation of the U.S. diplomatic establishments within their
regional jurisdiction.  They are assisted by Deputy Assistant
Secretaries, office directors, post management officers, and country
desk officers to ensure interdepartmental coordination.  These officials
work closely with U.S. embassies and consulates overseas and with
foreign embassies in Washington, DC.

The Bureau of International Organization Affairs (IO) builds the
coalitions necessary to advance U.S. policies in the United Nations and
UN specialized and technical agencies.  Its concerns include such issues
as refugees, human rights, food production, air safety, health,
terrorism, and the environment.  A focus for IO is the UN Security
Council and the maintenance of international peace and security.  As
part of its mandate, the bureau has an office for managing U.S.
participation in multilateral peace-keeping activities.  The bureau
works closely with the U.S. Mission to the UN in New York and its
Washington, DC, office to shape U.S. policy at the UN and to make it a
more effective instrument for advancing U.S. interests.

Under Secretary for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs (E)
Group

Economics and trade are assuming greater importance in U.S. foreign
policy.  There is increasing demand for the "E" Group's services as more
and more countries--including emerging democracies--move to open their
markets to international trade and investment.  An Office of the
Coordinator for Business Affairs (E/CBA) has been established as part of
the Department's emphasis on being America's Desk.  This office is
located in the Office of the Under Secretary and it:

--  Coordinates State Department advocacy on behalf of U.S. businesses;
--  Provides problem-solving assistance to U.S. companies in opening
markets, leveling playing fields, and resolving trade and investment
disputes;
--  Ensures that appropriate U.S. business interests are taken into
account in the foreign policy process;
--  Develops and implements internal policies, procedures, and training
to improve the Department's support for U.S. businesses; and
--  Coordinates support with the Commerce Department's U.S. and Foreign
Commercial Service for posts where the State Department is directly
responsible for trade promotion and commercial services.

The Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs (EB) deals with issues of
trade, international finance and development, energy, commodities,
transportation, economic sanctions, and telecommunications policy.  It
also promotes U.S. business opportunities overseas.

Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs (T)
Group

The Bureau of Political-Military Affairs (PM) advises the Secretary and
other Department principals on security and defense issues worldwide,
including arms control negotiations; non-proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction and the means to deliver them; regional security
arrangements; programs for selected foreign security assistance;
conventional arms sales; peaceful uses of nuclear energy and nuclear
reactor safety; dual use and technology transfers; and international
space issues involving military systems and controlled technologies.
The bureau also is responsible for licensing and regulating commercial
exports of military equipment and services.

Under Secretary for Management (M) Group

In addition to overseeing the State Department's traditional management
issues, the Under Secretary for Management is responsible for the
Department's recent management improvement initiatives, including the
SMI process.  The Office of Management Policy and Planning (M/P),
reporting directly to the Under Secretary, serves as the focal point for
these initiatives.  It provides dedicated policy, planning, and
analytical support to the Under Secretary on management issues in the
three broad areas of M responsibility--human resources, financial
management and operations, and support services--and supports
Department-wide strategic planning activities as well as the
implementation of initiatives arising from the National Performance
Review.  It also performs the functions associated with National
Security Decision Directive 38 and chiefs of mission authority,
implements the Government Performance and Results Act, and provides
other staff support for the Under Secretary.

The Office of Foreign Missions (M/OFM) is responsible for oversight of
foreign missions in the United States.  It employs reciprocity to ensure
equitable treatment for U.S. diplomatic and consular missions abroad and
regulates selected activities of foreign missions in the United States
to protect foreign policy and national security interests and to protect
the public from abuses of diplomatic privileges and immunities by
foreign mission members.  It has regional offices in Chicago, San
Francisco, New York, and Los Angeles.

The Foreign Service Institute (M/FSI) is the federal government's
primary foreign affairs training institution.  In addition to Department
of State and foreign affairs community personnel, the Institute provides
professional and job-related training to the employees of more than 40
other government agencies in more than 300 courses, including some 60
foreign languages, at its National Foreign Affairs Training Center.

The Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Personnel
(M/DGP) oversees the medical services office; the family liaison office;
and the Bureau of Personnel (PER), which determines employment
requirements and administers recruitment, evaluation, assignment, career
development, and retirement policies and programs for the Department's
employees.

The Bureau of Administration (A) provides administrative support for the
Department and overseas posts.  Its responsibilities include both
domestic and foreign building operations; acquisition management; supply
and transportation; travel support for the White House; overseas schools
assistance; establishing allowance rates; and providing translation,
safety, and occupational health services.

Other services include maintaining the Department's library, overseeing
the printing of Department publications, and responding to requests
under privacy acts and the Freedom of Information Act.  The bureau also
provides domestic and worldwide information services for the Department,
which includes managing a secure global communications network and
maintaining the Department's central automated data processing system.

The Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA) assists American citizens traveling
or living abroad and issues visas to foreign nationals who wish to visit
or reside in the United States.  The 13 passport agencies and one
processing center--in the United States--and the U.S. posts overseas
issue about 4 million passports each year.  Annually, the Office of
Overseas Citizens Services in the State Department monitors the cases of
an estimated 2,500 Americans arrested in other countries, responds to
21,000 welfare and whereabouts inquiries, repatriates about 1,000 U.S.
citizens, assists about 3,000 returnees with family/friend prepaid trust
funds, and deals with crises--such as hostage-taking and natural
disasters.

The Bureau of Diplomatic Security's (DS) regional security officers and
engineers protect U.S. personnel and missions overseas, advising U.S.
ambassadors on all security matters and establishing and maintaining an
effective security program against terrorist, espionage, and criminal
threats at U.S. diplomatic facilities.  In the U.S., the bureau's
special agents investigate passport and visa fraud, conduct personnel
security investigations, issue security clearances, and provide
protection for the Secretary of State and many visiting foreign
dignitaries .

The bureau helps foreign embassies and consulates in the U.S. protect
their diplomats and facilities, manages the Counter-terrorism Rewards
Program, and trains foreign civilian police under the Anti-Terrorism
Assistance Program.  It also chairs the Overseas Security Advisory
Council, a joint venture between the Department and the U.S. private
sector to exchange timely information on security problems with U.S.
businesses.

The Bureau of Finance and Management Policy (FMP) oversees the
Department's worldwide financial and asset management activities.  This
includes establishing, maintaining, and enhancing management control
policies, standards, and compliance guidelines as well as developing and
operating an integrated system for accounting and financial management.
The bureau develops annual budget requests to the Office of Management
and Budget and Congress; monitors financial execution of the budget; and
reviews, on a biennial basis, the fees, royalties, rents, and other
charges imposed by the Department for goods and services it provides.

In addition to administering the Department's financial accounting and
disbursement program, the bureau performs payroll services--such as
foreign currency management and accounting, payroll, and fiscal records
monitoring--and provides pension services for Foreign Service employees.

Under Secretary for Global Affairs (G) Group

The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) oversees
initiatives and policies to promote and strengthen democratic
institutions, civil society, and respect for human and worker rights.
The bureau ensures that human rights and labor conditions in foreign
countries are taken into account in the U.S. policy-making process and
submits an annual report to the Congress extensively reviewing human
rights practices in each country.

The Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL)
works with foreign governments to increase awareness of the importance
of global narcotics control.  It coordinates efforts with other
governments and international organizations to halt the flow of illegal
drugs into the United States by providing assistance to foreign
governments to:  eradicate narcotics crops, destroy illicit
laboratories, train interdiction personnel, and develop education
programs to counter drug abuse by their populations.

The bureau also has an international criminal justice office, dedicated
to development and coordination of U.S. policy on:  combating
international organized crime's involvement in financial crime and
illicit drug trafficking, strengthening judicial institutions and
assisting foreign law enforcement agencies, and coordination with the
UN.

The Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific
Affairs (OES) melds an emphasis on environmental issues and science and
technology with traditional diplomacy.  The bureau and the environment,
science, and technology officers at embassies overseas deal with such
global issues as trade and environment; biodiversity; global climate
change; environmental pollution; oceans policy, fisheries, and marine
conservation; international civil and commercial space cooperation;
technology; and health.

The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) is responsible
for coordinating the Department's policy on global population, refugees,
and migration issues and for managing Migration and Refugee Assistance
appropriations.  As part of its work, the bureau is at the center of a
cooperative effort among the State Department, other U.S. Government
agencies, private voluntary organizations, and international agencies
to:  implement a more comprehensive international population policy,
including broadening of population assistance programs to cover a wider
range of reproductive health services; provide assistance to refugees in
first-asylum countries and admit refugees to the United States for
permanent resettlement; and develop bilateral and multilateral
approaches to international migration issues.


[box]

<h6>The Conduct of U.S. Foreign Relations</h6>

Executive Branch

The conduct of U.S. foreign relations is centered in the executive
branch and flows from the constitutional responsibilities of the
President.  The President has the authority to conclude treaties and
appoint diplomatic and consular officials--with the advice and consent
of the Senate; to receive foreign emissaries; and to exercise other
authority provided by legislation.

To assist the President in these duties, Congress created the Department
of State in 1789; this replaced the Department of Foreign Affairs,
established in 1781.  As head of the 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.

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 was created
in 1947--consolidating the functions previously carried out by the War
Department and the individual services--and assumed duties for military
aid and cooperation.

The 1947 National Security Act created the National Security Council
(NSC), which assists the President on foreign policy and coordinates the
work of the many agencies involved in foreign relations.  Chaired by the
President, the NSC includes the Vice President and the Secretaries of
State and Defense as regular members.  Presidents have shaped NSC
functions and made use of the position of Special Assistant to the
President for National Security Affairs, established in 1951, to suit
their administrative preferences.

During the Cold War, new foreign affairs agencies were placed under the
general direction of the Secretary of State:  the United States
Information Agency (1953), the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
(1961), and the Agency for International Development (1961).  They
remain under the Secretary's overall foreign policy guidance.

Congress

Congress, too, has constitutional responsibilities for U.S. foreign
policy.  As noted, the Senate must provide its advice and consent to
treaties and to diplomatic and consular 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 rests in part on
legislative control over the federal budget.  Congress:

--  Appropriates the money needed to run the agencies which handle
foreign affairs;
--  Provides funds to finance U.S. foreign assistance programs carried
out by executive agencies; and
--  Legislates in such areas as immigration, foreign trade, and
international monetary arrangements.

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; the Appropriations Committees of both Houses;
and relevant subcommittees.  The Secretary of State and other
Administration officials consult with, testify before, and brief these
bodies on foreign policy developments.  Members of Congress make trips
abroad to inspect U.S. programs and also may serve as delegates to the
United Nations and international conferences and commissions.

U.S. Missions

To support its relations with other countries and international
organizations, the United States maintains diplomatic and consular posts
around the world.  Under the President's direction, the Secretary of
State is responsible for the overall coordination and supervision of
U.S. Government activities 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.

Most missions have personnel assigned from other executive branch
agencies in addition to those from the Department of State; in some
cases, State Department employees may account for less than one-half of
the mission staff.  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; they also are employed at post by other agencies.

 Other executive branch agencies represented may include the Departments
of Commerce, Agriculture, Defense, and Justice (the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation); the U.S. Agency for International
Development; and the U.S. Information Agency.  Other U.S. Government
agencies also make vital contributions to the success of U.S. foreign
relations and in promoting U.S. interests.

Country Missions

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. also may 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, which may be headed by a
Principal Officer rather than a Chief of Mission.

The Chief of Mission--with the title of Ambassador, Minister, or Charge
d'Affaires--and the Deputy Chief of Mission are responsible for and head
the mission's "country team" of U.S. Government personnel.

Consular Affairs.  Whether in a U.S. embassy or a consulate, consular
officers at post are the State Department employees that American
citizens overseas are most likely to meet.  Consular officers extend to
U.S. citizens and their property abroad the protection of the U.S.
Government.  They are involved in protecting and assisting millions of
Americans living and traveling abroad.

Consular officers help transfer personal funds to those in financial
difficulty, search for missing Americans, issue Consular Information
Sheets and Travel Warnings, visit Americans in prison, maintain lists of
local attorneys, act as liaison with police and other officials, assist
hospitalized Americans, re-issue lost or stolen passports, and assist
next of kin in the United States when relatives die abroad.

They also perform non-emergency services--dispensing information on
absentee voting, international parental kidnaping and child custody,
selective service registration, and acquisition and loss of U.S.
citizenship; providing U.S. tax forms; notarizing documents; issuing
passports; and processing estate and property claims.  U.S. consular
officers also issue about 6 million visas annually to foreign nationals
who wish to visit the United States and almost 500,000 immigrant visas
to those who wish to reside here permanently.

Commercial, Economic, and Financial Affairs.  Commercial officers advise
U.S. businesses on local trade and tariff laws, government procurement
procedures, and business practices; identify potential importers,
agents, distributors, and joint venture partners; and assist with
resolution of trade and investment disputes.  At larger posts, trade
specialists of the Commerce Department's U.S. and Foreign Commercial
Service perform these functions.  At smaller posts, commercial interests
are represented by economic/commercial officers from the Department of
State.  Commerce Department officers for tourism promote the U.S. travel
and tourism industry.

Economic officers advise U.S. businesses on the local investment climate
and economic trends; negotiate trade and investment agreements to open
markets and level the playing field; analyze and report on macroeconomic
trends and trade policies and their potential impact on U.S. interests;
and promote adoption of economic policies by foreign countries which
further U.S. interests.

Resource officers counsel U.S. businesses on issues of natural
resources--including minerals, oil, and gas and energy--and analyze and
report on local natural resource trends and trade policies and their
potential impact on U.S. interests.

Financial attaches analyze and report on major financial developments as
well as the host country's macro-economic condition.

Agricultural and Scientific Matters.  Agricultural officers promote the
export of U.S. agricultural products and report on agricultural
production and market developments in their area.  Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service officers are responsible for animal and plant
health issues that affect U.S. trade and the protection of U.S.
agriculture from foreign pests and diseases.  They expedite U.S. exports
affected by technical sanitary and phytosanitary regulations.

Environment, science, and technology (EST) officers analyze and report
on EST developments and their potential impact on U.S. policies and
programs.

Political, Labor, and Defense Assistance Issues.  Political officers
analyze political developments and their potential impact on U.S.
interests; promote adoption by the host country of foreign policy
decisions which support U.S. interests; and advise U.S. business
executives on the local political climate.

Labor officers promote labor policies in countries to support U.S.
interests and provide information on local labor laws and practices,
including wages, non-wage costs, social security regulations, the
political activities of local labor organizations, and labor attitudes
toward American investments.

Many posts have defense attaches from the Department of Defense.
Security assistance officers are responsible for Defense Cooperation in
Armaments and foreign military sales and function as the primary in-
country point of contact for U.S. defense industry and businesses.

Administrative Support and Security Functions.  Administrative officers
are responsible for normal business operations of the post, including
overall management of:  personnel; budget and fiscal matters; real and
expendable property; motor pools; and acquisitions.

Information management officers are responsible for the post's
unclassified information systems, database management, programming, and
operational needs.  They also are responsible for the
telecommunications, telephone, radio, diplomatic pouches, and records
management programs within the diplomatic mission and maintain close
contact with the host government's communications authorities on
operational matters.

Regional security officers are responsible for providing physical,
procedural, and personnel security services to U.S. diplomatic
facilities and personnel; they also provide local in-country security
briefings and threat assessments to business executives.

Public Affairs.  U.S. Information Service (USIS) officers of the U.S.
Information Agency serve as the public affairs officers, information
officers, and cultural affairs officers of U.S. missions overseas.  They
are the public affairs advisers for the U.S. ambassador and all elements
of the country team, serving as press spokespersons and as
administrators of such official U.S. exchange programs as those for
Fulbright scholars, Humphrey and Muskie fellows, and foreign
participants in International Visitor consultations in the United
States.  USIS officers also direct the overseas U.S. Speakers program
and international electronic linkages such as the Worldnet TV satellite
teleconferencing network at more than 200 posts.

Legal and Immigration Matters and USAID Programs.  Legal attaches serve
as Department of Justice representatives on criminal matters.

Immigration and Naturalization Service officers are responsible for
administering the laws regulating the admission of foreign-born persons
(aliens) to the United States and for administering various immigration
benefits.

USAID mission directors are responsible for USAID programs, including
dollar and local currency loans, grants, and technical development
assistance.

Chiefs of Mission--Authorities And Responsibilities

Authorities and responsibilities of Chiefs of Mission at post include:

--  Following, articulating, and speaking with one voice to others on
U.S. policy--and ensuring mission staff do likewise--while also
providing to the President and Secretary of State expert guidance and
frank counsel and seeking the same from mission staff;
--  Directing, coordinating, and supervising all executive branch
offices and personnel, except for personnel under the command of a U.S.
area military commander, under another chief of mission, or on the staff
of an international organization;
--  Cooperating with U.S. legislative and judicial branch personnel so
that U.S. foreign policy goals are advanced, security is maintained, and
executive, legislative, and judicial responsibilities are carried out;
--  Reviewing all communications to or from mission elements, however
transmitted, except those specifically exempted by law or executive
decision;
--  Taking direct responsibility for the security of the mission--
including security from terrorism--and protecting all U.S. Government
personnel on official duty (other than those personnel under the command
of a U.S. area military commander) and their accompanying dependents;
--  Viewing budgetary stringency as an incentive to innovate and to
exercise careful stewardship of mission resources, including carrying
out regular reviews of programs, personnel, and funding levels and
cooperating with other departments and agencies in downsizing efforts;
--  Using given Chief-of-Mission authorities to reshape the mission in
ways that directly serve American interests and values and ensuring that
all executive branch agencies attached to the mission do likewise by
obtaining Chief-of-Mission approval to change the size, composition, or
mandate of their staffs within the mission;
--  Serving the people of the U.S. with professional excellence, the
highest standards of ethical conduct, and diplomatic discretion and
ensuring that mission staff adhere to the same strict standards and
maintain a shared commitment to equal opportunity and against
discrimination and harassment.

<h6>U.S. Representation at International Organizations</h6>

U.S. representation at international organizations reflects the growing
importance of seeking multilateral approaches in the conduct of U.S.
foreign relations.  In addition to its country missions, the U.S. has
several delegations to international organizations, most of which are
located outside the United States.  Some of these delegations are
designated as "U.S. missions"; others are called delegations, such as
those to the Conference on Disarmament or to the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe.

U.S. missions to international organizations are:

--  U.S. Mission to the United Nations (New York);
--  U.S. Mission to the Organization of American States (Washington);
--  U.S. Mission to International Organizations in Vienna (Vienna);
--  U.S. Mission to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Brussels);
--  U.S. Mission to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (Paris);
--  U.S. Mission to the European Office of the UN and Other
International Organizations (Geneva);
--  U.S. Mission to the European Union (Brussels);
--  U.S. Mission to the International Civil Aviation Organization
(Montreal);
--  U.S. Mission to the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture
(Rome); and
--  U.S. Observer Mission to the United Nations Educational, Scientific,
and Cultural Organization (Paris).


[box]


<h6>President's Letter to Chiefs of Mission</h6>

Excerpts from the text of President Clinton's Letter of Instruction to
Chiefs of Mission, September 16, 1994.

. . . We are at a moment of unique historic opportunity for the United
States and the world.  With the end of the Cold War, we are entering an
era so new that it has yet to acquire a name.  Our task as a Nation, and
yours as Chief of the United States Mission, is to ensure that this new
era is one conducive to American prosperity, to American security, and
to the values America seeks to exemplify.  To accomplish this task I
need your full support for the three goals of my foreign policy that aim
to keep our Nation strong at home and abroad:  renewing and adapting
America's security alliances and structures; rebuilding and revitalizing
the American economy; and promoting democracy, human rights, and
sustainable development.

You should give special attention in the security realm to halting arms
proliferation, preventing, resolving, and containing conflict, and to
countering terrorism and international crime; and in the economic arena,
to opening and expanding markets for America's exports.  No country can
be exempt from upholding the basic principles in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights; all should understand that shared
democratic values are the most reliable foundation for good relations
with the United States.  Finally, I will need your help as my
Administration seeks to promote international cooperation to address
global problems including the environment and population, narcotics
production and trafficking, refugees, migration, and humanitarian
assistance.

Achieving these goals will demand a dynamic diplomacy that harnesses
change in the service of our national interests and values.  It will
require us to meet threats to our security and practice preventive
diplomacy, to anticipate threats to our interests and to peace in the
world before they become crises and drain our human and material
resources in wasteful ways.  I have asked you to represent the United
States . . .  because I am confident that you possess the skills,
dedication, and experience necessary to meet the many challenges that
this new and complex era presents. . . .

I charge you to exercise your authority with wisdom, justice, and
imagination.  Dramatic change abroad and austerity here at home have put
a premium on leadership and teamwork. . . .

Always keep in mind that . . . you and your Mission symbolize the United
States of America and its values.  Never forget the solemn duty that we,
as public servants, owe to the citizens of America:  the active
protection and promotion of their well-being, safety, and ideals.  There
is no better definition of American national interest and no loftier
object for our efforts.


<h6>Related Foreign Affairs Agencies</h6>

As noted, there are several related foreign affairs agencies which,
while independent, come under the general direction and overall foreign
policy guidance of the Secretary of State.  All are headquartered in
Washington, DC.

The Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

ACDA's mandate deals with arms control, non-proliferation, and
disarmament policies, advancing the U.S. foreign policy objective of
shaping a more secure world.  ACDA's director reports directly to the
President, the National Security Adviser, and the Secretary of State on
arms control and non-proliferation matters.  The agency's concerns
include conventional, nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as well
as the means for delivering them.  It manages U.S. participation in
negotiations on arms control, non-proliferation, and disarmament;
engages in international negotiations on nuclear safety; evaluates U.S.
ability to verify agreements, assesses compliance with existing
agreements; monitors arms transfers worldwide; conducts research; and
coordinates and disseminates information to the public.

ACDA has led all of the U.S. delegations to what is now known as the
Conference on Disarmament--the principal forum for negotiating
multilateral arms control agreements such as a comprehensive test ban
treaty and a fissile material cutoff.  Since ACDA's creation in 1961,
some of the agreements negotiated in that forum include the Limited Test
Ban Treaty, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Seabed Arms
Control Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons
Convention, the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, the Open
Skies Treaty, and the Environmental Modification Convention.  In
addition, ACDA led or actively participated in all major U.S.-Soviet
arms negotiations beginning in 1961, such as the Threshold Test Ban
Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Strategic Arms Limitation
Talks, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, talks on defense and space
issues, and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

The U.S. Agency for International Development

USAID administers U.S. economic and humanitarian assistance designed to
promote sustainable development in countries in Africa, Asia, the Near
East, Latin America and the Caribbean, Central and Eastern Europe, and
the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union.

USAID works to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives of shaping a
freer, more secure, and more prosperous world by focusing its programs
in four interrelated areas:  improving health and population conditions,
protecting the environment, promoting economic growth, and supporting
democracy.  In addition to providing humanitarian assistance, USAID
promotes democratic values and international cooperation and helps
establish economic conditions that expand markets for U.S. goods and
services in developing countries.

USAID funds technical assistance and commodity assistance, trains
thousands of foreign students each year at American colleges, and
supports development research.  USAID also enlists the collaboration of
the American for-profit private sector, non-governmental and private
organizations, and universities in its programs.

USAID assistance programs are administered through overseas missions
that work in close coordination with U.S. embassies.

The U.S. Information Agency

USIA's mission is to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics
in promotion of the national interest and to broaden the dialogue
between Americans and U.S. institutions and their counterparts abroad.

With the spread of democracy and popular politics and the revolution in
communications and information worldwide, the organization and policy
emphases of the agency have changed significantly, but the core purposes
have remained constant:

--  To explain and advocate U.S. policies in terms that are credible and
meaningful in foreign cultures;
--  To provide information about the United States and its people,
values, and institutions;
--  To build lasting relationships and understanding between Americans
and U.S. institutions and their counterparts overseas through the
exchange of people and ideas; and
--  To advise the President and other policymakers on foreign attitudes
and their implications for U.S. policies.

USIA's programs include the Voice of America; Radio and TV Marti;
Worldnet TV; the Fulbright scholarship program; the U.S. Speakers
program; the International Visitors program; the Wireless File newswire,
transmitted daily in five languages to USIS press officers overseas;
Foreign Press Centers in Washington, New York, and Los Angeles; and an
overseas network of professionally staffed, computer-linked information
resource and cultural centers.

USIA has U.S. and foreign national professionals in more than 200 U.S.
embassies and consulates in more than 140 countries.

(###)
ARTICLE 2:

<h5>U.S. Department of State Information Resources And Services</h5>
Fact sheet dated May 16, 1995, released by the Office of Public
Communication, Bureau of Public Affairs.

The Department of State is the lead U.S. foreign affairs agency. It
advances U.S. objectives and interests through formulating,
representing, and implementing the President's foreign policies.
Information received from more than 250 U.S. diplomatic and consular
posts around the world--including in-depth analyses of the politics,
economic trends, and social forces at work in foreign countries--is
provided to more than 60 federal agencies dealing with national
security, intelligence, economic and commercial matters, and science and
technology.

The Department also provides an array of critical information resources
and services of benefit to the American public at home and abroad, from
assisting citizens in crisis overseas and maintaining national security
alliances and defusing crises to promoting free trade and assisting
American business, publishing crucial information on the Internet and in
publications, and providing diverse opportunities for liaison with the
American people.

<h6>Information Resources:  Print and CD-ROM</h6>

The Bureau of Public Affairs is the Department's gateway for official
foreign policy information in print, on the Internet and other
electronic services (see box), and on CD-ROM.  The following major
series are included:

U.S. Department of State Dispatch. Dispatch is the official record of
U.S. foreign policy. Published weekly by the Office of Public
Communication, Bureau of Public Affairs, Dispatch includes major
speeches, statements, and congressional testimony by the President,
Secretary of State, and senior U.S. officials, plus fact sheets, country
profiles, treaty actions, and more. One-year subscriptions (includes all
supplemental issues and six-month indexes): $91 domestic third-class
postage; $144 domestic first-class; and $113.75 foreign. To order,
contact: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954; telephone: (202) 512-1800;
fax: (202) 512-2250.

Dispatch also is available from the National Technical Information
Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161-2171. One-year
subscriptions:  $175 first-class postage; $430 overnight delivery; $350
for addresses outside the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Microfiche is
offered as a six-month collection with index. To order, call (703) 487-
4630.

Background Notes. Background Notes, also published by the Office of
Public Communication, are concise reports describing about 200 countries
and selected international organizations. One-year subscriptions (about
40 Notes): $34 ($42.50 foreign). Individual copies: $1 ($1.25 foreign).
Complete set in stock: $69 ($86 foreign). To order, contact the
Superintendent of Documents at the address above.

U.S. Foreign Affairs on CD-ROM (USFAC). USFAC is a compact, fully
searchable foreign policy library offering more than 4,000 key documents
from 1990 to the present. USFAC archives information provided on DOSFAN
on the Internet, adding  about 300 new documents each quarter. Published
by the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public Affairs, USFAC
enables fast search and retrieval; includes portable document files
which provide "as-printed" access to Dispatch and Background Notes; and
is compatible with MSDOS 3.0 (or better) and Macintosh System 7. One-
year subscriptions (four discs): $80 ($100 foreign). To order, call the
Superintendent of Documents at (202) 512-1800 or  fax at (202) 512-2250.

Foreign Relations Series. Foreign Relations of the United States is the
official documentary record of U.S. foreign affairs. First published in
1861, the series preserves American foreign policy history in more than
350 individual volumes.

The Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs, publishes Foreign
Relations. Each volume documents the major foreign policy decisions and
diplomatic activity of the U.S. Government and contains declassified
records from the White House, the Department of State, and other foreign
affairs agencies. Volumes chronicling the Kennedy and Johnson
Administrations are now being researched and released.

Foreign Relations is available from the Superintendent of Documents,
U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh PA 15250-
7954. To order, call (202) 512-1800. For more information on Foreign
Relations--including microfiche supplements and future volumes in
electronic form--contact the Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public
Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520; telephone:
(202) 663-1123; fax: (202)
663-1289.

<h6>Consular Information Program and Travel Services</h6>

The Bureau of Consular Affairs assists American citizens traveling or
living abroad and issues visas to foreign nationals who wish to visit or
reside in the United States.

Overseas Citizens Services (OCS)

The Office of Overseas Citizens Services (OCS) is responsible for the
welfare and whereabouts of U.S. citizens traveling and residing abroad.
Hours of operation are from 8:15 a.m. to 10 p.m., Monday-Friday; 9 a.m.
to 3 p.m. on Saturdays.  For after-hour emergencies, Sundays, and
holidays, call (202) 647-4000 and request the OCS duty officer.  The 24-
hour Travelers' Hotline, for Consular Information Sheets and Travel
Warnings (see box), is (202) 647-5225. The Consular Affairs Bulletin
Board (CABB) and automated fax systems provide rapid access to current
travel information (see box).

To improve services to Americans, OCS recently reorganized:

American Citizen Services and Crisis Management (ACS). ACS is the point
of contact for overseas emergency services, including welfare, safety
and whereabouts inquiries, arrests, death cases, financial or medical
emergencies, and international crisis/disaster assistance. ACS mirrors
services provided at U.S. embassies and consulates overseas; officers in
six geographic divisions assist in all matters involving protective
services for U.S. citizens abroad. In addition, ACS provides information
on marriages of U.S. citizens abroad, absentee voting, dual nationality,
and other consular information. Emergency assistance and recorded
information on all services is available at (202) 647-5225.

Children's Issues. Created to assist families in crisis and provide
information to Americans on international adoption in more than 60
countries, the Office of Children's Issues also serves as the U.S.
central authority on The Hague Convention on International Parental
Child Abduction. The treaty provides for the return of children to their
habitual place of residence if wrongfully removed. In 1994, the office
was involved with more than 1,200 active international child custody
cases. Recorded information on certain countries is available; call
(202) 736-7000. For more information, contact the Children's Issues
Office, Room 4811, Overseas Citizens Services, Bureau of Consular
Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520-4818; telephone:
(202) 647-2688.

Policy Review and Interagency Liaison (PRI). PRI provides guidance on
the administration and enforcement of U.S. citizenship laws and the
documentation of Americans traveling and residing abroad. The office
also has responsibility for the federal benefits program, under which
more than a half-million American citizens receive monthly federal
benefits payments outside the United States.  For more information, call
(202) 647-5225.

Passport and Visa Services

About 4 million U.S. passports are issued each year to American citizens
at 13 passport agencies and one processing center in the United States,
and more than 250 diplomatic and consular posts around the world. U.S.
passports are issued at passport agencies located in Boston, MA;
Chicago, IL; Honolulu, HI; Houston, TX;  Los Angeles, CA;  Miami, FL;
New Orleans, LA; New York, NY; Philadelphia, PA; San Francisco, CA;
Seattle, WA; Stamford, CT; Washington, DC; and by mail from the National
Passport Center in Portsmouth, NH. Passport applications are accepted at
more than 3,500 authorized post offices and clerks of courts across the
country.  Check your local telephone book listing under: "United States
Government, Department of State, Passport Agency."  For recorded
information regarding passports, call (202) 647-0518.

Official reports documenting the birth and death of American citizens
overseas also are available. Completion of an official form and a $10
fee are required; call (202) 647-0518 for information.

Visa Services. For information on issuing immigrant and non-immigrant
U.S. visas to foreign nationals, contact:  Public Inquiries, VO/P,
Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20522-0013; telephone: (202) 663-1225.

Visa Lottery Information. Specific details regarding the annual U.S.
visa lottery are available from the Lottery Hotline at (202) 663-1600.
To inquire about monthly priority dates, call (202) 663-1541.

Visa Petitions. To check on the status of approved immigrant visa
petitions as well as visa lottery applications, contact the National
Visa Center, 32 Rochester Avenue, Portsmouth, NH 03801, or call 603-334-
0700.


[box]

<h6>Internet, On-Line, and Fax Information Resources</h6>

On Internet:  Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN)

DOSFAN provides immediate, global access to official U.S. foreign policy
information on the Internet. Of interest to international businesses,
journalists, researchers, students, and the general public, DOSFAN is
accessible by:

Gopher:  dosfan.lib.uic.edu
URL:  gopher://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/
WWW:  http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/dosfan.html

Content. DOSFAN provides insight into U.S. foreign policy decision-
making. Updated daily, DOSFAN includes country- and issue-specific
information on sociopolitical situations, economic trends, democracy,
human rights, culture, development assistance, environment, terrorism,
and more. Speeches, statements, and testimony by the President,
Secretary of State, and other senior officials are featured as well as
Dispatch, Background Notes, and other official publications;
congressional reports; transcripts of daily press briefings; and much
more.

Contact. DOSFAN is a cooperative effort between the Office of Public
Communication, Bureau of Public Affairs, and the University of Illinois
at Chicago. For more information on accessing DOSFAN, contact Project
Coordinator John Shuler by e-mail at john.a.shuler@uic.edu or call (312)
996-2738.

Other Electronic Resources.  The Federal Bulletin Board Service (BBS)--
available by modem at (202)   512-1387--is a U.S. Government Printing
Office electronic bulletin board which carries a complete collection of
official, timely U.S. foreign policy information. For information and
prices, call (202) 512-1530.

Bureau of Public Affairs' Fax-on-Demand

This automated 24-hour fax service provides rapid access to general
State Department information--speeches, briefings, testimony, fact
sheets, special reports, and more. Fax-on-Demand is accessible by any
fax machine equipped with a touchtone telephone. To access, dial (202)
736-7720 from the telephone handset attached to the fax machine and
follow the recorded prompts to request retrieval of any document by its
three-digit identification number. For more information, call the Public
Information Division, Bureau of Public Affairs at (202) 647-6575.

Consular Affairs Bulletin Board (CABB) and Fax

Consular Information Sheets, Travel Warnings, and other travel-related
publications are provided free on   the CABB by the Department of
State's Bureau of Consular Affairs. The CABB  also carries international
security information from the Overseas Security Advisory Council and the
Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security. Access is free of charge to
anyone with a personal computer, modem, telecommunications software, and
telephone line. The number to call is (202) 647-9225. In addition, an
automated fax line speeds up access to important travel information;
call (202) 647-3000 from the handset of your fax and follow the prompts.
For further information, contact the Bureau of Consular Affairs at (202)
647-1488.


<h6>Liaison With the Public</h6>

The Office of Public Liaison, Bureau of Public Affairs, promotes foreign
policy dialogue between Department officials and the American people
through a variety of programing and liaison activities. It serves as the
point of coordination for speaking engagements, briefings, and
conference programs in the Department and around the country, and also
handles public mail and telephone inquiries.

If you are interested in any of the following services, contact the
numbers listed or write the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Public
Affairs, Office of Public Liaison, 2201 C Street, Washington, DC 20520-
6810.

Washington Programs. Large groups of opinion leaders from business,
education, ethnic, environmental, and other non-governmental entities
can request assistance in organizing a foreign policy conference at the
Department or in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. Seminars and
special briefings also can be arranged for smaller groups to meet with
Department officials for informal discussions on topics of particular
interest. For more information, call (202) 647-5171.

Regional Programs. The State Department provides speakers to
organizations throughout the United States. Regional foreign policy town
meetings are co-sponsored by the Department and local organizations.
Senior officials participate in these meetings, which are designed to
encourage the free exchange of information and opinion. Media
interviews, informal discussions with business and community leaders,
and visits to academic institutions are among other events which may be
scheduled while the speaker is in the area. For more information, call
(202) 647-8411.

Comments and Information. The Department welcomes the comments of
concerned citizens. To express opinions on foreign affairs issues, write
to the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Public Affairs, Public
Information Division, 2201 C Street, Washington, DC 20520-6810. By
telephone, call (202) 647-6575 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. (EST).
The Public Information Division also disseminates foreign policy
material through its Fax-on-Demand system (see box) and through direct
mailing. If you want such information, please call or write to the
office.


[box]

<h6>Support for U.S. Firms Doing Business Abroad</h6>

Coordinating Business Affairs

The Office of the Coordinator of Business Affairs (CBA) plays a major
role in coordinating trade and investment matters to support U.S. firms
doing business overseas.

The Coordinator is an adviser to the Secretary of State and senior
Department officials and coordinates and facilitates the Department's
outreach to, and interaction with, the U.S. business community.

Established as part of Secretary Christopher's "America's Desk"
initiative,   the CBA ensures that appropriate U.S. business interests
are taken into account  in the foreign policy process. It coordinates
State Department advocacy on behalf of American businesses and offers
them problem-solving assistance in opening markets, leveling playing
fields, and resolving trade and investment disputes.

The office develops and implements internal policies, procedures, and
training to enhance the Department's ongoing support for American
businesses. It coordinates with the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service
of the Department of Commerce to support posts where the State
Department has primary responsibility for trade promotion and commercial
services.

For more information about the Department of State's business services,
call the Coordinator for Business Affairs at (202) 647-1625 or fax CBA
at (202) 647-3953.

International Business On-Line

International business information is featured on the Department of
State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) on the Internet. Access is by
Internet gopher: dosfan.lib.uic.edu (see box). The Department of State
also contributes timely foreign economic analyses, publications, and
major reports to the Department of Commerce's National Trade Data Bank
(NTDB), available on CD-ROM and Internet (gopher.stat-usa.gov). For
information, call (202) 482-1986.


<h6>Liaison With State and Local Government</h6>

The Office of Intergovernmental Affairs (IGA), Bureau of Public Affairs,
provides key international services to state, county, and city
officials, such as briefings and information on foreign affairs issues,
international markets, student exchange programs, and sister-city
relationships. IGA also prepares legislators and city and county
representatives for official trips abroad and for welcoming visiting
foreign dignitaries or potential investors to the United States. The
office coordinates meetings with Department experts, arranges special
foreign affairs and direct-line telephone briefings, and contacts U.S.
embassies to facilitate travel. For further information, contact the
Coordinator for Intergovernmental Affairs, Bureau of Public Affairs,
U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520-6810; telephone: (202)
647-7416; fax: (202) 647-5939.

<h6>Liaison With the Media</h6>

Several hundred journalists representing media organizations worldwide
regularly cover the U.S. Department of State. Over 50 news-gathering
agencies have facilities in the State Department building and attend the
daily press briefings. A key component of the Bureau of Public Affairs,
the Press Office coordinates the Department's daily press briefings and
provides diverse information on U.S. foreign policy for news
organizations and correspondents. For more information, journalists
should contact the Press Office--telephone: (202) 647-2492; fax: (202)
647-0244. The Bureau of Public Affairs' Fax-on-Demand service is an
excellent resource for journalists; to access, call (202) 736-7720 from
the handset of the fax machine (see box).


[box]

<h6>Traveling Abroad? </h6> U.S. Department of State Resources Help Make Your
International Trip a Success

Travel Warnings and Consular Information Sheets

Travel Warnings are issued when the Department of State recommends that
Americans 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 U.S. embassies and consulates in the country.

Free copies of this information are available from the U.S. Department
of State's Bureau of Consular Affairs by calling (202) 647-5225, or by
auto fax at (202) 647-3000. Travel Warnings and Consular Information
Sheets also are available on the Consular Affairs Bulletin Board (CABB)
via computer modem at (202) 647-9225.

<h6>Other Publications</h6>

Concise pamphlets packed with practical travel tips are available for
$1.00-1.25 each from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954; telephone:
202-512-1800; fax: (202) 512-2250. Publications also are available on
the CABB (see above), and on the Department of State Foreign Affairs
Network (DOSFAN) on the Internet (dosfan.lib.uic.edu). They  include:

--  A Safe Trip Abroad--ways to avoid crime and minimize terrorism
threats to you, plus general safety tips;
--  Tips for Americans Residing Abroad--details on voting, tax
regulations, dual citizenship, and other subjects for Americans living
in foreign countries;
--  Travel Tips for Older Americans--health, safety, and travel news
from the senior citizen perspective;
--  Your Trip Abroad--how to obtain a passport, health considerations,
and more;
--  Tips for Travelers--safe travel tips to the Caribbean, Central and
South America, China, Russia, the Middle East and North Africa, South
Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa.
--  Passports: Applying for Them the Easy Way and Foreign Entry
Requirements are available for 50  each from the Consumer Information
Center, Pueblo, CO 81009.


<h6>Additional Resources </h6>

Additional Department of State publications direct American business and
the public to key services and/or resources. Most of these are available
in federal depository libraries throughout the country and are for sale
from the Superintendent of Documents (see address on p. 10). Many also
are available on the Department of State Foreign Affairs Network
(DOSFAN) on the Internet and in U.S. Foreign Policy on CD-ROM (USFAC).

--  Key Officers of Foreign Service Posts--Guide for Business
Representatives, published twice a year, lists key officers at foreign
service posts who provide assistance to American business
representatives and citizens around the world. All embassies, missions,
consulates general, and consulates are listed with names, telephone, and
fax numbers for key officers at the Departments of State and Commerce
and other U.S. agencies overseas.
--  Diplomatic List, published quarterly, lists names and addresses of
official foreign diplomatic representatives in Washington, DC.
--  Foreign Consular Offices in the United States, published twice a
year, includes names and addresses of foreign consulates in the U.S.
--  Treaties and Other International Acts, issued irregularly, contains
the complete official texts of agreements entered into by the United
States with other nations.
--  U.S. Department of State Telephone Directory contains key contact
points and other information for the Department of State as well as the
U.S. Agency for International Development, the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation, the Trade and Development Agency, and the U.S.
Information Agency. It also contains the full text of Key Officers of
Foreign Service Posts-- Guide for Business Representatives.

<h6>Other Services</h6>

Locator Service.  To obtain the office telephone numbers of Department
of State personnel, call (202) 647-4000.

Tour Office. Reservations for tours of the Department of State's 8th-
floor diplomatic reception rooms can be made. To arrange a tour, call
(202) 647-3241, or fax (202) 736-4232.

Employment. The Department of State employs both Civil and Foreign
Service officers.

For information about careers in the Foreign Service, contact the Office
of Recruitment, Examination, and Employment, U.S. Department of State,
P.O. Box 9317, Rosslyn Station, Arlington, VA  22219-0317.  Recorded
information is available; call (703) 875-7490, or fax (703) 812-2265.

For information on Civil Service careers at the Department of State,
contact the Office of Civil Service Personnel Management, P.O. Box
18657, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20036-8657. Recorded
information about Civil Service employment is available; call (202) 647-
7284.

Freedom of Information.  Requests for Department of State records must
be made in writing. There is a fee for copying documents. For more
information, contact the Director, Office of Freedom of Information,
Privacy, and Classification Review, Bureau of Administration, U.S.
Department of State, Washington, DC, 20520-1512; telephone: (202) 647-
6070; fax: (202) 736-7304.

Document Authentication. Certification, with the seal of the Department
of State, is provided for certain documents used in foreign countries
(e.g., certificates of incorporation and powers of attorney for
Americans doing business abroad; educational papers such as degrees and
transcripts of foreign students returning to their own countries; and
papers carrying seals of other federal agencies or the seals of the 50
states). Walk-in service:  8 a.m. to noon, Monday-Friday; limit of 15
documents per person per day. Call (202) 647-5002 for recorded
information. Inquiries may be faxed to: (202) 647-2370.  The mailing
address is Authentication Office, 2400 M Street NW, Room 101, U.S.
Department of State, Washington, DC 20520.  (

###)



Inside Back Cover:

Need Information From NATO About NATO?  These Sources Are Available:

<h5>NATO Information On-Line</h5>

North Atlantic Treaty Organization official documents and publications--
communiques, press releases, fact sheets, speeches, and newsletters--are
available electronically on the Internet through the NATO Integrated
Data Service (NIDS). The service also includes documentation from other
NATO agencies and the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE).
Information is available on the Internet either by daily automatic
electronic mail distributions or through World Wide Web or "gopher"
searches, as follows:

--  For e-mail NATO general information: send the message SUB NATODATA
(followed by your first and last name) to:  LISTSERV@CC1.KULEUVEN.AC.BE
--  For e-mail NATO scientific and environmental information: send the
message SUB NATOSCI (followed by your first and last name) to:
LISTSERV@CC1.KULEUVEN.AC.BE
--  For NATO documents on the Internet gopher:
URL://GOPHER.NATO.INT:70/1
--  For NATO documents through the World Wide Web:  HTPP://WWW.NATO.INT/

Internet connections are widely available commercially, at low cost, on
subscription. All data provided by NATO through the NIDS is free of
charge. For further information, contact the NATO Integrated Data
Service, NATO Headquarters, 1110 Brussels, Belgium. Tel: (Int'l-32-2)
728-4599.  Fax: (Int'l-32-2) 728-4579. E-mail:  NATODOC@ hq.nato.int.

NATO Publications

NATO Review. Published under the authority of the Secretary General,
NATO Review is a colorful and informative magazine which contributes to
the constructive discussion of Atlantic problems. Articles provide
insight into the changing nature of the NATO alliance and do not
necessarily represent official opinion or policy of member governments
or NATO.

NATO Review is published six times a year in English and is also
available in:  French--Revue de l'Otan; German--NATO Brief; Italian--
Notizie NATO; Danish--NATO Nyt; Dutch--NATO Kroniek; and Spanish--
Revista de la OTAN.  Quarterly editions are published in:  Norwegian--
NATO Nytt; Greek--Deltio NATO; Portuguese--Noticias da OTAN; and
Turkish--NATO Dergisi.

NATO Review is free of charge for persons or institutions who inform the
public about NATO affairs or who have a professional interest in NATO
information, including libraries, research institutions, educational
institutions--including school librarians and teachers--and journalists.

NATO Handbook. A pocket-sized booklet covering all aspects of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO Handbook is published as needed. It
is not a formal NATO document and does not, therefore, necessarily
represent the official opinion or position of member governments on all
policy issues involved. NATO Handbook is free of charge to qualified
applicants of NATO Review (see above).

How to Order

Readers in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom may obtain
copies of NATO Review and NATO Handbook from the addresses below.
Requests should indicate how the magazine will be used to inform the
public about NATO. Readers in other countries who want copies of the
English-language or other editions of NATO Review, as well as other NATO
publications, should contact the NATO Office of Information and Press by
e-mail at NATODOC@HQ.NATO.INT or at the following:

United States--NATO Review, U.S. Mission to NATO, PSC-81, Box 200, APO-
AE 09724
Canada--Domestic Communications Division, Department of External
Affairs, 125 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, Ontario  K1A OG2
United Kingdom--Assistant Chief, Public Relations Central, Ministry of
Defence, Room 0384 Main Building, London SW1A 2HB
Other Countries--NATO Office of Information and Press, 1110 Brussels,
Belgium, Fax: (Int'l-32-2) 728-4579.

(###)___________________________________________________________________

The State Department does not guarantee the authenticity of electronic
documents.  If you require the original version of a document in hard
copy, please contact the Office of Public Communication, Bureau of
Public Affairs, Room 6805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC
20520.  Telephone: 202-647-5760.  State Department information is not
copyrighted unless indicated and can be reproduced without consent.
Citation of source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce any
copyrighted material (including photos or graphics) must be obtained
from the original source.
_____________________________________________________________ (###)
</doc><doc>
<h3>U.S. Department of State Dispatch Supplement
Vol. 6, No. 2,  May 1995</h3>
<f 100><ht>Clinton</ht></f>
Title:          <h4><ti>Summit of the Americas</ti></h4>
Source:         <f 148><ns>Bureau of Public Affairs, Office
                of Public Communication, U.S. Department of State</ns></f>
Description:    <f 155>A collection of documents related to the Summit of the
                Americas; CONCAUSA Declaration and Action Plan; Expanding the
                North American Free Trade Agreement, plus fact sheets on the
                Summit, the Organization of American States, and the Inter-
                American Development Bank</f>
Date:           May 15, 1995
Category:       <f 151><phrase>Reports</phrase></f>
Region:         <f 101><phrase>Whole World</phrase></f>
Country:        <f 201><phrase>United States</phrase>, <phrase>Antigua and Barbuda</phrase>,
                <phrase>Argentina</phrase>, <phrase>Bahamas</phrase>, <phrase>Barbados</phrase>, <phrase>Belize</phrase>, <phrase>Bolivia</phrase>, <phrase>Brazil</phrase>, <phrase>Canada</phrase>,
                <phrase>Chile</phrase>, <phrase>Colombia</phrase>, <phrase>Costa Rica</phrase>, <phrase>Cuba</phrase>, <phrase>Dominica</phrase>,
                <phrase>Dominican Republic</phrase>, <phrase>Ecuador</phrase>, <phrase>El Salvador</phrase>, <phrase>Grenada</phrase>,
                <phrase>Guatemala</phrase>, <phrase>Guyana</phrase>, <phrase>Haiti</phrase>, <phrase>Honduras</phrase>, <phrase>Jamaica</phrase>, <phrase>Mexico</phrase>,
                <phrase>Nicaragua</phrase>, <phrase>Panama</phrase>, <phrase>Paraguay</phrase>, <phrase>Peru</phrase>, <phrase>St. Kitts and Nevis</phrase>,
                <phrase>St. Lucia</phrase>, <phrase>St. Vincent and the Grenadines</phrase>, <phrase>Suriname</phrase>,
                <phrase>Trinidad and Tobago</phrase>, <phrase>United States</phrase>, <phrase>Uruguay</phrase>, <phrase>Venezuela</phrase></f>
Subject:        <f 150><phrase>Resource Management</phrase>, <phrase>Environment</phrase>,
                <phrase>Terrorism</phrase>, <phrase>Narcotics</phrase>, <phrase>Human Rights</phrase>,
                <phrase>Science/Technology</phrase>, <phrase>Democratization</phrase>, <phrase>International Law</phrase>,
                <phrase>OAS</phrase>, <phrase>NAFTA</phrase>, <phrase>Trade/Economics</phrase></f>



ARTICLE 1: Page 1
<h5>A New Era of Promise in the Americas</h5>
President <f 100>Clinton</f>
Remarks at final plenary session of the Summit of the Americas, Miami,
Florida, <date2>Dec 11, 1994</date2><nsh><pf 102>12/11/94</pf></nsh>


First, let me thank all those who have spoken before:  I thank the Prime
Minister and the Presidents, distinguished President of the Inter-
American Development Bank, Secretary General of the Organization of
American States.  I thank especially President Aristide for his moving
remarks.  And I thank all of you present here who have supported the
multinational effort to restore democracy to Haiti.

We come here to begin a new era--an era of real promise.  When Vice
President Gore and I asked the American people to give us a chance to
serve, we relied upon two phrases that we said over and over again:  One
was "put people first."  The other was "don't stop thinking about
tomorrow."  In this meeting--for these days--we have put our people
first, and we have thought about tomorrow.

We are bound together by geography, by history, by culture, but most
important, now by shared values--a ferocious devotion to freedom,
democracy, social justice; a determination to improve the lives of all
our people; a determination to preserve the natural world we have
inherited and that we must pass on.

We have tried to give life to these values at this summit by agreeing to
create a free trade area throughout our hemisphere, to bring together
our nations to improve the quality of life for our people, and to
strengthen and make permanent the march of democracy.  These
achievements have been given concrete expression by our commitment to
negotiate with specific steps of free trade agreement for a free trade
area of the Americas by 2005.

This is more than words; this is a commitment to deeds.  Free trade in
our hemisphere has been talked about for years, but because of this
process we've launched this weekend it will now become a reality.  Free
trade will yield dramatic benefits in terms of growth and jobs and
higher incomes.  It will permit us to pursue economic opportunities, and
at the same time, to reaffirm our commitment to promote the rights and
interests of our workers so that all our people have the chance to
benefit from free trade.

I couldn't help thinking, when President Figueres was talking about the
gross national product measuring everything but what is important to us,
that that is true; but that unless we attend to the health of our
economy, the things that are most important to us are more difficult to
achieve.

If you think about how many millions of people in this hemisphere,
including in our country, are working harder today than they were just a
few years ago for lower income; if you think about how many millions of
people have less security in the face of the bewildering changes in the
world we live in, what it means is they have less time for their
families, for raising their children, less time for leisure, less time
for citizenship, less time for learning in a calm and open atmosphere
what the major issues of the day are.  And there is not so much room in
their spirit for the clear head and the generosity it takes to be an
effective citizen in a strong democracy.

So all these things we care about, that we want for our people, require
us to do our best to make sure that they can be victors in this great
cauldron of change that is bringing on the next century.

We also vowed to do our best to make our governments work better; to
protect our democracies by making sure we could do the job we're
supposed to do well, and that we stop doing things we shouldn't be
doing; to protecting human rights; to fighting illicit drugs and
international crime; to rooting out corruption.  And we agreed to pursue
vigorously sustainable development.

In a way, sustainable development is an unfortunate phrase because it
has so little poetry about it.  But the meaning is very profound.  It
means to me that we must pursue short-term goals, consistent with our
enduring values.  It means we must pursue individual opportunity,
consistent with our responsibility to our larger communities.  It means
we must share in the Earth's bounty, without breaking our bonds with
Mother Nature.  It means we must take for ourselves in ways that leave
more for our children.  It means we must expand the circle of those who
are able to live up to their God-given capacities--the women, the
indigenous people, the minorities, the poor children of this hemisphere.

For all these commitments, I thank you, all of you who have come here
representing all these nations.  The agenda we have embraced is
ambitious and worthy.  We have actually committed ourselves to 23
separate and specific initiatives and more than 100 action steps
protecting the diversity of plant and animal species, phasing out lead
in gasoline, reducing infant mortality, improving education and health
care.  Our goal is to create a whole new architecture for the
relationship of the nations and the peoples of the Americas to ensure
that dichos become hechos, that words are turned into deeds.

So, as we come to the end of this historic Summit of the Americas, as we
proclaim the dawn of this new partnership, as we say we have done this
to put our people first and we have kept our eye on tomorrow, let us
remember that the road ahead will be full of challenges and
difficulties, and that beyond all of the specifics of what we have done,
perhaps most enduring is the friendship, the spirit of trust that has
been built here.  There is truly a spirit of Miami.

In future years when the difficulties mount up, when it is difficult to
sustain the hope about which President Aristide spoke so beautifully,
may future leaders remember the spirit of Miami.  O espirito de Miami.
L'esprit de Miami.  El espiritu de Miami.  The spirit of Miami.  Thank
you all, and God bless you.

Now we will sign the Declaration--if they will bring it to us.  [The
Declaration is signed.]

(###)



ARTICLE 2: Pages 2-3

<h5>Summit of the Americas:Mission Accomplished</h5>
President Clinton
December 11, 1994

Opening remarks at a press conference, Miami, Florida, December 11,
1994.

Ladies and gentlemen:  This Summit of the Americas we just concluded
represents a watershed in the history of our hemisphere.  I want to
begin by thanking again the people of Miami and the people of Florida
for working so hard to make this a stunning success, and for treating
these deliberations with such great respect.

I would say a special word of appreciation to the people who
demonstrated in the Orange Bowl in such large numbers in a way that
spoke up for their deepest convictions for freedom and democracy for
Cuba and in a way that was supportive of the other deliberations of this
summit.

From my point of view, the mission of this summit was accomplished,
first, in our specific commitment to a free trade agreement of the
Americas by 2005, which, along with NAFTA, with Chile's coming into the
NAFTA partnership, and with the recent success of the GATT world trade
agreement, puts us on the right road.  For the Americans here in the
audience, I would just like to ask you to consider that just in the last
two weeks the United States has concluded agreements to push for
regional free trade in the two fastest growing areas in the world--
first, at Bogor in Indonesia with the Asian Pacific economies, and now
here with the free trade agreement at the Summit of the Americas.

These things--along with the implementation of GATT and the expansion of
the NAFTA arrangement--will set the agenda for world trade for years to
come, in ways that benefit ordinary American families and that generate
more high-wage jobs in this country and more opportunities in the
countries of our trading partners.

Secondly, we reaffirmed our commitment to continuing to work together to
strengthen our democracies and to promote sustainable development--to
promote education and health care, labor standards, and the environment,
and to fight drugs and international crime and corruption--in other
words, to push not only for economic growth but for improvements in the
quality of life.

This spirit of Miami was embodied in 23 very specific declarations and a
specific work program that will begin immediately.  That makes it quite
a bit different from most summit declarations of the past.

Finally, and perhaps equally as important, we saw here in the
interlocking networks of people that began to meet and work together
both in preparation for this summit and here--not just the world
leaders, but others who were here in huge numbers from these various
countries--the beginning of the kind of working relationship that will
be absolutely essential to bring this hemisphere together in an
atmosphere of trust and a true spirit of partnership.  So from my point
of view, this has been a very successful summit, indeed.  I am pleased.
I am deeply indebted to the leaders of the other countries as well as to
the people who did all the work to make it a success on our side.

December 10, 1994

Remarks following the first working session of the summit, Miami,
Florida, December 10, 1994.

Good morning.  We have just completed the first working session of our
summit on trade and economic integration.  We are off to an excellent
start.  The 34 democratically elected leaders of our hemisphere have
agreed to establish a free trade area of the Americas.  This historic
step will produce real opportunities for more jobs and solid, lasting
prosperity for our people.

The agreement is specific and concrete.  We have set the year 2005 as
our deadline for negotiating a free trade area, and we have agreed that
there will be real progress before the end of the century.  The
agreement will cover a comprehensive list of areas--from tariffs on
goods and services to agricultural and intellectual property.  We have
set a highly detailed timetable that will include regular meetings of
our ministers for trade.  Talks will begin next month.

In less than a decade--if current trends continue--this hemisphere will
be the world's largest market--more than 850 million consumers buying
$13 trillion worth of goods and services.  When our work is done, the
free trade area of the Americas will stretch from Alaska to Argentina.
It is the key building block in our creation of a partnership for
prosperity.  It will build upon the many bilateral and multilateral
agreements already existing between our nations.

We want to replace the many conflicting and different trade and other
regulatory agreements with one that is consistent, while making sure to
assist smaller economies in transition.  We will ask the Organization of
American States and the Inter-American Development Bank to assist in
this transition and integration.  And we have pledged that our free
trade area of the Americas will not raise new barriers to nations
outside our region, and will be fully consistent with the rules of the
World Trade Organization.  We have reaffirmed our commitment to make our
individual trade and environmental policies mutually supportive, and to
further secure the observance and promotion of workers' rights.

Let me emphasize that none of us underestimates the hard work ahead.
But from the leaders of our hemisphere's largest economies to the
smallest, we believe the rewards will be great and very much worth the
effort.  We believe the agreement we have made today to launch the free
trade area of the Americas will produce more jobs, higher incomes, and
greater opportunities for all of our people.

From here we're going to a working lunch, where we'll discuss issues
affecting sustainable development.  Our final session this afternoon
will focus on the steps we will take to strengthen our democracies.  I
can think of no more appropriate way to end this day--the anniversary of
the adoption of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.  Thank you
very much.

(###)



ARTICLE 3: 3-5

<h5>Charting a Course for the Americas </h5>
Secretary Christopher

Breakfast Remarks

Remarks at Cabinet breakfast with business and non-governmental
organization representatives, Miami, Florida, December 10, 1994.

I am delighted to be here this morning and share this podium with my
colleagues and friends, Ron Brown and Mack McLarty.  From my standpoint,
it is a special treat to be having breakfast in the United States.  If
my body could figure out what time zone I am in, the pleasure would be
complete.

This is an important meeting.  It is the first gathering of all the
democratically elected leaders in the Western Hemisphere.  Think of it:
34 heads of state and government representing almost 800 million
Americans are working together to chart a course for our shared future.

At the last hemispheric summit in Punta Del Este in 1967, only 12 out of
the 19 countries in attendance had governments that were elected by
their people.  Even 10 years ago, many Latin American nations were still
stagnating under military rule, their economies caught in the grip of
closed markets, choking debts, and hyperinflation.

Since then, a tide of political and economic reform has transformed the
hemisphere.  As a result, relations between the United States and our
Latin and Caribbean neighbors have never been closer, stronger, or more
productive.

The Summit of the Americas is unprecedented in its scope--the leaders
will adopt a far-reaching Declaration of Principles that will call for a
free trade area, promote economic development, strengthen our
democracies, and improve the quality of life in our hemisphere.

We will come out of Miami with a detailed 23-point Action Plan, and we
will create comprehensive follow-up mechanisms.  Let me take our limited
time together to mention four significant initiatives from the Action
Plan that will make a real difference for trade and investment in our
hemisphere--and a real difference in the daily lives of ordinary
citizens.

First, the Clinton Administration is determined to build on the North
American Free Trade Agreement to strengthen cooperation through the
hemisphere.  After one year, NAFTA has not only generated jobs and
exports for the United States, Mexico, and Canada; it has pointed the
way toward expanding the frontiers of economic integration across the
Americas.

The trade initiative we are launching this weekend includes a detailed
plan for achieving a free trade area throughout the Americas--and to do
so by a specific date.  Our goal is to eliminate barriers to trade and
investment by applying to the rest of the hemisphere the same provisions
that have made NAFTA such a success.  The agreement of our 34 leaders to
the idea of hemispheric free trade is itself a signal achievement.  But
the true test of our commitment to this agreement will be in its
implementation.  To ensure that we sustain the momentum generated this
weekend in Miami, we will use ministerial meetings in mid-1995 and 1996
to review and accelerate our progress.

Our trade initiative for the hemisphere reflects our view that economic
security is vital to our national security.  There is no higher priority
at the State Department than sitting behind what I call the "America
Desk," which is my shorthand for the job of promoting American economic
interests.

In this regard, I would like to recognize the invaluable contribution
that the private sector has made to the success of this summit.  In
particular, I want to commend the many of you in this audience who
helped prepare the Agenda for the Americas.  As we have seen this year
in Casablanca, in Jakarta, and now in Miami, our efforts to promote
stability and prosperity ultimately depend on their relevance to the
private sector.  Without your support, our goals would remain out of
reach.

The second initiative that I want to highlight affects both the health
of our economies and the fabric of our societies.  The United States
recognizes that commercial corruption is a global problem.  Its spread
does more than feed the greed of crooked officials.  It robs economies
of the capital they need to raise productivity and expand growth.

The Clinton Administration has energized the fight against the bribery
of foreign officials around the world.  In response to an initiative
that I launched last October, the member nations of the OECD committed
themselves to take "concrete and meaningful" steps to stop illicit
payments by their firms.  Now, here in Miami, we are calling for close
cooperation between the OAS and the OECD anti-bribery working group that
our nation helped to create.  We will vigorously support Venezuela's
initiative to negotiate a "hemispheric approach" to corruption,
including extradition agreements and arrangements.

We are determined to maintain pressure on our trade competitors and
partners around the world to work with us to root out this ugly problem.
I call on all of us to leave this summit with a determination to stamp
out commercial corruption.

The third initiative I want to emphasize this morning concerns our
effort to stop the flow of illegal drugs across international
boundaries.  Here in Miami, the nations of this hemisphere are pledging
to intensify their fight against drug traffickers.  We intend to build
on the long history of regional cooperation against narcotics by
offering our summit partners assistance in adopting and implementing
measures that strike narco-traffickers where it hurts the most:  their
bank accounts.  Through sharing our experience in drafting laws and
regulations, training investigators, and developing regional data bases,
our goal is to forge a coordinated hemispheric response to money
laundering.

The fourth initiative that I would like to mention strengthens our fight
against the terrorists who have turned streets in New York and Buenos
Aires into canyons of broken glass and twisted steel.  At the summit we
will resolve that there will be no refuge in the Americas for those who
kill to advance their cause.  Our Action Plan calls for the OAS to
convene a special conference on terrorism.  For its part, the United
States will double its anti-terrorism assistance to $6 million this
year.  This money will be used to improve anti-terrorist training for
police forces in this hemisphere.  And we will expand the role of the
FBI and other law enforcement agencies to assist governments--at their
request--in the investigations of terrorist acts.

These four initiatives will make a significant contribution toward
safeguarding our hemisphere's hard-won democracy.  At the summit we will
also be discussing how to strengthen the foundations of civil society--
the non-governmental organizations and community groups that have done
so much to broaden democratic participation in all our countries.  Other
Action Plan initiatives call for sound environmental management.

We must also bolster the institutions that promote and defend our
fundamental human rights.  I note that this summit celebrating
democracy's triumph fittingly coincides with our commemoration of Human
Rights Day.

The challenges that confront this hemisphere are as diverse in their
scope as this audience drawn from the worlds of private enterprise,
public service, non-governmental organizations, and the universities.
But one common vision unites us all:  that of a hemisphere of
democracies, dedicated to working together for prosperity and
development.  This weekend in Miami, we are bringing that vision to
life.  Thank you very much.

Luncheon Remarks

Remarks at working luncheon with foreign ministers, Miami, Florida,
December 10, 1994.

Good afternoon.  It is a pleasure to be able to welcome my colleagues
here today to the Summit of the Americas on behalf of President Clinton
and the United States.

This historic assembly is giving us the chance to focus the world's
attention on this hemisphere's epic achievements.  Our relations as
neighbors have never been better than they are today.  And the potential
benefits of cooperation have never been greater.

A new consensus of the Americas has formed around open societies and
open markets.  To build on that consensus, our nations will work
together at the Summit of the Americas in a new spirit of partnership.

With good reason, much of our attention at the summit will focus on
accelerating the region's economic dynamism.  Political stability and
economic reform are creating jobs and opportunities for workers in all
our nations.  Expanded trade between the United States and its Latin
American and Caribbean neighbors is spurring growth throughout the
hemisphere.

It is no surprise that President Clinton signed the GATT Agreement at
the OAS, for it underscores our common interest in an open global
trading system.  That interest was reinforced by NAFTA, and by all the
other regional groupings our nations have formed:  by CARICOM, Mercosur,
the Andean Group, and the Central American Common Market.  This weekend,
our leaders will undertake a landmark commitment to expand free trade in
the hemisphere, north and south.

At the same time, the summit reaffirms that our future depends as much
on strengthening and safeguarding our hard-won democracies as it does on
extending economic cooperation.  Business people from Caracas to Chicago
agree that the rule of law protects investment, just as free speech
roots out corruption.  We know from experience that open societies make
better neighbors.  Indeed, respect for human rights and democratic
values has become a cardinal principle of the Americas.

In all our nations--including mine--democracy means more than voting.
It requires responsive legislative, judicial, and law enforcement
institutions that protect our citizens and our freedom.  It demands
accountability and transparency at all levels and branches of
government.  It means the doors of opportunity must open wide for all
our people.

Every nation present today is taking steps on its own to strengthen and
safeguard democracy and to intensify cooperation with its democratic
neighbors.  I am confident that we will reach agreement to take concrete
action together to support democracy.  On behalf of the United States,
allow me to mention some of the steps that we as host of this summit are
prepared to take:

--  To bolster institutions that support democracy, the United States
will contribute funds to the OAS to strengthen its capacity to foster
political dialogue and legislative and electoral reform.  With the
election of Secretary-General Gaviria, I am confident that the OAS can
play an even more constructive role.

--  To combat corruption, we will back close cooperation between the OAS
and the OECD anti-bribery working group that our nation helped to
create.  We will press for the OECD to implement its anti-bribery
initiatives.  And we will vigorously support Venezuela's initiative to
negotiate a "hemispheric approach" to corruption, including extradition
agreements and arrangements.

--  To attack narcotics traffickers, we will offer experts and trainers
to help countries adopt strong measures against money laundering.  We
will also help complete the Counternarcotics Strategy for the 21st
Century called for in the Action Plan.

--  To defeat terrorism, we will double our anti-terrorism assistance to
$6 million this year, to improve anti-terrorist training for police
forces in the hemisphere.  We will expand the role of the FBI and other
law enforcement agencies to assist governments, at their request, in the
investigation of terrorist acts.

As foreign ministers, we have a special responsibility.  It is our task
to ensure that our initiatives are implemented.  For our partnership to
bring results, we must match brave words with bold deeds.  We must turn
consensus into tangible progress.

I look forward to a very productive discussion this afternoon, and to a
constructive process in the months ahead.  (

###)



ARTICLE 4: Page 5

<h5>Opportunities and Obligations Of the Western Hemisphere</h5>
President Clinton

Remarks welcoming leaders to Summit of the Americas reception, Miami,
Florida, December 9, 1994

To our distinguished heads of state, Vice President and Mrs. Gore,
members of the Congress and the Cabinet, Governor and Mrs. Chiles, Lt.
Governor and Mrs. MacKay, Mayor Clark; to the distinguished leaders of
the business community and non-governmental organizations that work so
wonderfully together; to the co-chairs and others from the host
committee who have done such a wonderful job of putting together this
extraordinary event; and to all of our distinguished guests from other
lands--let me say a hearty welcome to this remarkable summit.

Let me begin by thanking the wonderful city of Miami for rising so
magnificently to the challenge of hosting the Summit of the Americas.
If we leaders can match the dedication of the citizens of Miami and
South Florida to the work of this week, we will truly bring our people
and our hemisphere closely together.

The end of the Cold War has given all of us a great opportunity to build
bridges where, for 50 years, only barriers stood.  We in the United
States have worked hard to seize this moment for peace and prosperity--
from the Middle East to Northern Ireland, to Southern Africa, to Haiti.
Through our commitment to expanded trade through NAFTA and the GATT
agreement, we are doing our best to demonstrate our willingness to reach
out to the rest of the world to promote the peace and prosperity we all
want.

Here in our own hemisphere we are especially privileged--all of us--to
live at a moment of great opportunity.  With that opportunity comes a
heavy obligation upon all of us who occupy positions of leadership in
this hemisphere.  It is in the spirit of that opportunity and that
obligation that I proudly welcome the 33 democratically elected leaders
of the Americas to the United States and to Miami.

This week, we have come together to build a better world and a better
future for our children.  Students of the Americas will recognize this
as an old dream.  In the 1820s, at the dawn of freedom for the new Latin
American republics, Simon Bolivar dreamed the Americas could be the
greatest region on earth, and I quote, "not so much by virtue of her
area and wealth, but by her freedom and her glory."  Now, some 170 years
later, Bolivar's dream for the Americas is becoming a reality.

The people represented here are free, we are friends, and we are
committed to creating the best century in our history.  We can become
true partners for prosperity, and we can begin this week.

Our goals for the summit are clear:  We want to extend free trade from
Alaska to Argentina, we want to strengthen our democracies, and we want
to improve the quality of life for all our people.  It is clear that
these goals are bound together.  If we grow more prosperous through
trade we will strengthen our democracies and our friendship.  If we
confront our common problems--the common threats to democracy--in a
spirit of genuine partnership, we will increase our chances at
prosperity.  If together we can confront our common challenges in the
environment, in health, and in education to provide for long-term,
sustainable development, both our prosperity and our freedom will be
secure.

A partnership for prosperity, stronger democracies, improving the
quality of life of our people--these are the opportunities that lie
before us.  So, my fellow citizens of the Americas, let us make the most
of them.

(###)



ARTICLE 5: Pages 6-9

<h5>Summit of the Americas: Creating a Partnership for Prosperity</h5>

President Clinton

Remarks to members of summit community, host officials, and officials
from Florida, Miami, Florida, December 9, 1994

Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President.  Thank you, ladies and
gentlemen, for that warm welcome.  Hillary and I and the Vice President
and Mrs. Gore are delighted to be here.  We thank Governor Chiles and
Mrs. Chiles, the Lt. Governor and Mrs. MacKay, the members of the
Florida congressional delegation, Senator Graham, Senator Mack, and the
distinguished members of Congress who have come from all over the United
States to be here.  I want to say a special word of thanks to Dante
Fascell, the honorary co-chair of this summit and a great man.  I thank
the mayors of Miami Beach and Miami, all the people who are involved in
the Metro Dade government, all the people who have worked so hard on
this summit.

When we first announced the plans to hold the Summit of the Americas
here in Miami, it seemed that it was a natural choice.  This city, after
all, has been variously described as the hub, the melting pot, the
gateway, the crossroads of the Americas.  But in the end, we chose Miami
because of the commitment of the people who live and work here to make
this summit a success, led, as the Vice President said, by the Governor
and the Lt. Governor.

I will not dwell on all the subtle and not-so-subtle details of our many
conversations about this.  But, let me say that they persuaded me that
this was the reverse of that wonderful line in the movie "Field of
Dreams," where they said to us, "if you come, we will build it."  You
have, and I thank you.

Your efforts have been extraordinary, and we are grateful for them.  I
have just been amazed at the energy that has come out of this community
and this state over the last several months--the kind of energy that is
supposed to be generatedonly by the Florida sun.  You promised that the
citizens of Miami would do it right, and it is clear that you have
delivered.  I think I can say for all of those who have come from around
America to be here, we knew we would need to be warm in December, and
now we are in more ways than one.  We thank you very, very much.

History has given the people of the Americas a dazzling opportunity to
build a community of nations committed to the values of liberty and the
promise of prosperity.  Now, over the next three days, the 34
democratically elected leaders of our hemisphere will gather to begin to
seize this opportunity.

I convened this Summit of the Americas with three clear goals in mind:

First, to open new markets and create a free trade area throughout our
hemisphere;

Second, to strengthen this remarkable movement to democracy; and

Third, to bring together our nations to improve the quality of life for
all of our people.

If we are successful, the summit will lead to more jobs, opportunity,
and prosperity for our children and for generations to come.  We will
have launched a new partnership for prosperity.

Today, we gather in Miami to mark a quiet revolution and to launch a new
era, for here in the Americas, as all of us know, nation after nation
has freed itself from dictatorship and debt, and embraced democracy and
development.

When historians look back on our times, they will marvel at the speed
with which democracy has swept across the entire Americas.  Consider
this:  At the time of the last hemispheric summit in 1967, 10 countries
suffered under authoritarian rule, and there were fewer here.  But
today, 34 of the hemisphere's leaders have won their post through
ballots--not bullets.

This weekend, we will welcome leaders like President Aristide of Haiti.
We have all seen his commitment to reconciliation and the rule of law
and how it is now moving his people from fear to freedom.  I hope I can
take a moment of pride to salute the brave American men and women in
uniform and their partners from around the world who helped to restore
that democracy and freedom to Haiti.  We are very proud of them.

Here at the Summit of the Americas, the people of the United States will
meet a whole new generation of leaders--a generation no longer subject
to the dictates of military juntas, who stifle liberties and loot their
nation; a generation that has proved in Central America that bloody
regional conflicts can be peacefully concluded through negotiation and
reform and reconciliation; a generation which has pledged to support
democracy collectively wherever it is imperiled in this hemisphere.
That is a commitment no other region in the world has made.

These leaders are here in Miami because they have tapped what Simon
Bolivar, the liberator of Latin America, called "the most sacred
spring"--"the will of the people."  Today, just a day before the
anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, we honor them--all of them.  We must also honor the brave men
and women who dedicated themselves to the cause of freedom and liberty,
and who today lie all across this hemisphere in unmarked graves.  This
summit is also a tribute to their astonishing sacrifice, and it is their
triumph as well.

Only one nation in our hemisphere is not represented here.  It is the
only one where democracy is still denied.  We support the Cuban people's
desire for peaceful, democratic change, and we hope that the next time
we have one of these summits--and the people of all the Western
Hemisphere send their leaders here--a leader of a democratic Cuba will
take its place at the table of nations.

The wave of political freedom that has swept across the Americas has
also been matched by unprecedented economic reform.  In these times of
very great stress, farsighted leaders in nation after nation have
adopted sound policies to tame inflation, to restore economic growth.
They have cut tariffs, stabilized currencies, and opened their economies
to foreign investment.  They have worked together to shrink mountains of
debt.  They have privatized; they have decentralized.

Argentina has cut its central government by 60% in four years.  Bolivia
has given back to local communities more responsibility for health,
education, and agriculture.  Brazil has slashed its inflation rate.  The
so-called "lost decade" in Latin America is a fading memory.  These
reforms are working wonders.  Investment is growing; the middle class is
again on the rise.  The Western Hemisphere now boasts the second
fastest-growing economy in the world.  If current trends continue,
within just a decade, our hemisphere will be the largest market in the
world--more than 850 million consumers buying $3 trillion worth of goods
and services.  These are remarkable, hopeful times.

Here in the United States, we, too, have developed a comprehensive
economic strategy to reap the rewards of this moment.  We had a lot of
work to do just to put our economic house in order.  We have made deep
cuts in our deficit and federal spending--in the size of the federal
government.  This year--for the first time since Harry Truman was
President--we will have three years of reduction in our deficit in a
row.  We are already taking our federal government down to its smallest
size since John Kennedy was President.  We have made major steps toward
deregulation in banking and trucking, and deregulating the states in the
areas of welfare, health, and education.  We have just begun to move in
this direction.

Our country has produced over five million new jobs during the past 22
months.  We have the lowest unemployment rate in four years, and have
been voted by the Annual Panel of International Economists as the
world's most productive economy for the first time in nine years.  But,
the thing that gives me the most hope, after all the years--nearly two
decades--in America of American families working longer work weeks for
stagnant wages and more fragile benefits, is that this year more high-
wage jobs have come into our economy than in the previous five years
combined.  We hope that we are seeing the beginning of the end of a 20-
year trend in stagnant wages, and the beginning of the restoration of
the American Dream by reaching out to the world and into our hearts.

Still, we know that millions of Americans have not felt this economic
recovery.  Millions of Americans are still working harder for less and
feeling very uncertain, even as they read all the good statistics in the
newspaper.  We have a lot of work to do.  But, the truth is that the
United States has never been in a stronger economic position to compete
and win in the world.

We are also taking bold steps to open new markets and to make the global
economy work for our people.  For 40 years, our markets have been more
open than those of many other nations.  We led the restoration of
economic hope and opportunity after the Second World War.  But, now that
competition is everywhere and productivity is growing, and the lessons
of management, technology, and investment are readily apparent to hard-
working people all across the world, we cannot allow that to continue.
We simply must be able to export more of our goods and services if we
are going to create more high-wage jobs.

Just a year ago yesterday, I signed into law NAFTA--the North American
Free Trade Agreement.  When Congress voted for NAFTA, that event
committed the United States to continuing leadership and engagement in
the post-Cold War world.  It marked a new era in world trade relations
for America, and it gave birth to this summit, which could not have
occurred if that had not happened.

During the first nine months of this year, our exports to Mexico jumped
22%.  Increased exports to Mexico and Canada have helped us to create
more than 100,000 new jobs in America in this year alone.  Auto exports
to Mexico are up 500%, and I might say, Mexican exports to the United
States are also up.  It has been a good deal for us and a good deal for
them.  There has been no "giant sucking sound," except for American
goods going across the border.

Last month in Indonesia, we agreed with 17 other Asia-Pacific nations--
including Mexico and Chile, two countries represented here--to achieve
free trade in the Asia-Pacific region by the year 2020.  The tariffs
will begin to fall and give us new access to new markets in the fastest
growing economies of the world long before then.

Just yesterday, I signed into law the bill implementing the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the largest agreement ever for free and
fair trade.  GATT, like NAFTA before it, passed because we had strong,
bipartisan support in Congress.  That is a pattern that must prevail as
we continue to pursue open markets and prosperity in this hemisphere and
around the world.  I strongly urge all nations in our hemisphere who
have not yet done so, to follow what America has done and implement this
agreement now.  It is an important thing for our future growth.

Finally, let me emphasize that our economic strategy seeks to prepare
our own people to fill the high-wage jobs of the future.  For too many
people, as I said earlier, these times are ones of great uncertainty.
Pressures of the global economy have held wages down  and increased job
turnover for people who are not in a position to take advantage of the
developments now occurring.  We owe it to those Americans to provide the
kind of lifetime education and training that will give them a chance to
win in this economy as well.  We must ensure that basic labor standards
are preserved and promoted so that freer trade means better working
conditions for all.

After all, in America, our people, our workers, are the most important
asset we have.  That is true in every other nation as well.  That is why
democracy and free trade go hand in hand.  More free trade is worthwhile
only if its benefits actually change the lives of real people for the
better.

But, as I have said over the last two years, that does not mean that we
can repeal the laws of change--repeal the sweeping changes taking place
in the global economy.  If we do nothing to reach out to other countries
than to expand trade--if we had walked away from NAFTA, if we had walked
away from GATT--if we do not reach out here and throughout the world,
the United States will still continue to suffer the burdens of trade, or
we cannot walk away.  But, if we reach out, as we are, with NAFTA, with
GATT, with the Summit of the Americas--if we act wisely, then we can
make this new world work for us.  Trade can be a benefit to our people.

When we have the opportunity to sell American products and services
around the world, we know we can compete and we know that means new jobs
and a rising standard of living--the core of the American Dream.

I will say again, we in the United States must not only create jobs, but
raise incomes.  We can only do that if we train people for higher wage
jobs, and if we create those jobs.  One of the ways we can create those
jobs is to expand trade, especially in this hemisphere.  So, that is why
every American worker in every part of the United States should be glad
we are all here today at the Summit of the Americas.

Now, I hope I have established why that is my primary goal for this
summit.  We have a real opportunity here to build on the momentum of
NAFTA and GATT.  That is what this new partnership of prosperity is all
about--creating a free trade area that stretches from Alaska to
Argentina.  Let no one underestimate the significance of this--from
Alaska to Argentina.  People have talked about free trade in this
hemisphere for years.  It has been talked about and talked about.  The
difference is, here in Miami we have a chance to act, and we are going
to take it.

Let me try to describe in graphic terms what this means.  Latin America
is already the fastest-growing region in the world for American exports.
Of every dollar Latin Americans spend on exports, 44 cents buy goods
made in the United States.  Despite trade barriers that are, on average,
four times higher than ours, Florida alone sold almost $9 billion worth
of goods in the Americas last year alone.  By the year 2005, if current
trends continue, our country will sell more to Latin America than to
Western Europe or Japan.  That is why we are here.  That is an
investment worth making.

Creating a free trade area would be good news throughout the Americas.
Here in the United States, our exports to Latin America could literally
double by the year 2005.  That would create over 1 million new jobs.

Exports also create good-paying jobs.  On average, export-related jobs
pay 17% more than average wages in America.  They are the kinds of jobs
that guarantee the families that we are concerned about a fair shot at
the American Dream.  That is why we must succeed here.

But, trade is not the only goal of this meeting--there are two others.
The second goal of our summit must be to preserve and strengthen our
community of democracies.  Continued economic prosperity clearly depends
upon keeping the democracies alive and stronger.  We can only do that if
we address the dangers to democracy that face all nations.  Many of the
dangers we face--consider them--international crime, narcotics
trafficking, terrorism, environmental degradation--these things can only
be overcome if we act in harmony.  So, in the days ahead, we will
discuss ways to seize the assets of money launderers, to explore new
ways like those developed in Chile to prevent corruption from corroding
our democracies, and to move forward on all of these fronts.

We must also keep our democracies healthy and open.  Our hemisphere has
come too far and the cost has been too great to return to the days of
repression and dictatorship.  So, at the summit we will discuss how the
Organization of American States can help to reconcile political disputes
and ensure that democratic constitutions actually live and breathe.

Here in the United States, we know that democracy is hard work.  We have
been at it over 200 years, and we know we still have to defend it every
day.  We have to continually review how well our governments perform,
and even whether they should be doing some things at all.  Our own
efforts to cut the size and cost and improve the performance of
government, led by the Vice President and his reinventing government
team, demonstrate the immense importance and the great rewards of this
undertaking.  We, too, have only just begun.

The third goal of the summit is to bring our nations together to pursue
sustainable development.  That is far more than a buzzword.  Our
democracies and our prosperity will be short-lived if we do not figure
out how to deal with the things that enable us to grow and come together
and maintain our quality of life over the long run.  Improving the basic
health and education of our people is a key part of that sustainable
development strategy.

Consider our common efforts to eradicate polio--banished from our
hemisphere since 1991.  That shows you what cooperation can bring.  So
at this summit we will discuss ways that we can combat poverty and
disease, increase health care, increase education, and remove threats
from millions and millions of our fellow citizens.

Our summit agenda also calls for important talks aimed at making our
environmental and trade policies mutually supportive.  Threats to our
environment respect no border, and ultimately, can undermine our
economies.  We must discuss initiatives that will make progress.  We are
going to talk about things like banning lead from gasoline in every
country, conserving nature's diversities, spreading innovative
environmental technologies.  We will be doing the kinds of things that
will permit us to sustain the remarkable trends of the last few years.

At the summit, in support of expanding trade and democracy and
sustainable development, we will consider more than 20 initiatives to
plot a course for the future.  I am convinced that we will succeed as
long as we recognize that the bonds that unite us are stronger than the
forces that divide us.

Once, the United States and its neighbors were clearly divided by
seemingly unbridgeable cultural and economic gulfs.  But today,
superhighways, satellite dishes, and enlightened self-interest draw us
together as never before.  Our economies are increasingly interwoven.
Latin American and Caribbean contributions to American culture--in great
novels, fine foods, spirited music, free television networks, and in
many other ways--grow every day.

By the year 2020, the United States of America may well boast a Spanish-
speaking population second in size only  to that of Mexico.  The
connections between north and south in the Americas are, in short, a
source of great energy.  We have to strengthen these bonds.  We must
make them work for the benefit of all of our people.

On this very day, 170 years ago, the foot soldiers of Bolivar's army won
the Battle of Ayacucho, the last battle for liberation between the
people of the New World and colonial Spain.  With that triumph, Peru
proclaimed its independence and a new era began in our hemisphere.  It
was an era that Bolivar hoped would produce greater unity among the Pan
American states.  Well, his dream was not realized in his lifetime, and
generation after generation has struggled without success to make it
real.

In our own century, President Roosevelt's good neighbor policy, as Vice
President Gore said, sought to unite the hemisphere by urging mutual
respect among all and recognizing even then, long ago, the importance of
our interdependence.  Three decades later, President Kennedy's Alliance
For Progress inspired the people of the Americas with its vision of
social justice and economic growth.  Today, we can build on those
foundations and do what could not be done in former times.

We can create a partnership for prosperity where freedom and trade and
economic opportunity become the common property of the people of the
Americas.  Just imagine it:  a hemisphere where disputes among or within
nations are peacefully and honorably resolved; where cultures and
nations are universally and mutually respected; where no person's rights
are denied and labor is not abused; where ideas and trade flow freely
across borders; where work is rewarded and families and communities are
strong--just imagine it.

My fellow Americans, this is a magic moment.  Let us seize it.  Thank
you very much.

(###)



ARTICLE 6:  Page 9

<h5>The Promise of Freedom, Democracy, And Free Enterprise</h5>
President Clinton
Remarks to volunteers of the Summit of the Americas, Miami, Florida,
December 8, 1994 (introductory remarks deleted)

I hope that you can fully grasp the significance of what we are doing
here.  Every country in the world today--at the end of the Cold War and
the emergence of an exploding global economy with all sorts of
opportunities but profound problems--every country  is fighting a battle
within itself between hope and fear; between reaching out and drawing
back; between believing in the best of its potential and giving in to
the worst, or at least walking away from the challenge.

This morning, the Vice President and I went to the auditorium of the
magnificent headquarters of the Organization of American States, and I
signed the legislation adopting the GATT world trade treaty.  In the
last two years, our Administration has relentlessly pursued an economic
strategy designed to make sure Americans could compete and win and be
rewarded for their work in the 21st century, not by withdrawing from the
world and hunkering down, but by reaching out to the world and embracing
it.  We have reduced our deficit; we have increased our investment in
education and training; we have focused on the needs of every region of
our country.  We worked hard here, for example, to try to help rebuild
after the things that happened to Homestead and the rest of South
Florida in the hurricane.

But we know--we know no matter what else we do, unless we have people
around the world who buy our products and services, people who will join
with us in combatting the problems of the world--from environmental
problems to terrorism to organized crime to the drug problems--unless we
have people who will be our partners in democracy and freedom, we can
never be what we fully ought to be.  That is the significance of this
summit.

It builds on what happened with NAFTA; it builds on the GATT agreement;
and it builds on our efforts to reach out to the world.  This is the
largest summit of world leaders ever hosted here--34 democratically
elected leaders from this entire hemisphere joining hands together, not
because we agree on everything, but because we agree on the important
things and because we believe in the promise of freedom; we believe in
the promise of democracy; we believe in the promise of open, free trade;
and we believe in the human potential of the people of the United States
and every other country represented here.

So, we come here representing people from the tip of Alaska to the tip
of Argentina to plan and to build and to dream for all of you and for
your children because we believe in the promise of America.  We are
elated that others have embraced the challenge and the promise of
freedom and democracy and free enterprise.  I know you wish us well, and
if this meeting turns out to have the profound historic significance
that it should, I hope you will remember for the rest of your life how
hard you worked on it and be justly proud.

Thank you and God bless you all.

(###)



ARTICLE 7: Pages 10-12

<h5>Declaration of Principles</h5>
Text of declaration signed on December 11, 1994, by the 34 heads of
state and government participating in the Summit of the Americas, Miami,
Florida, December 9-11.

Partnership for Development and Prosperity: Democracy, Free Trade and
Sustainable Development in the Americas

The elected Heads of State and Government of the Americas are committed
to advance the prosperity, democratic values and institutions, and
security of our Hemisphere.  For the first time in history, the Americas
are a community of democratic societies.  Although faced with differing
development challenges, the Americas are united in pursuing prosperity
through open markets, hemispheric integration, and sustainable
development.  We are determined to consolidate and advance closer bonds
of cooperation and to transform our aspirations into concrete realities.

We reiterate our firm adherence to the principles of international law
and the purposes and principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter
and in the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS),
including the principles of the sovereign equality of states, non-
intervention, self-determination, and the peaceful resolution of
disputes.  We recognize the heterogeneity and diversity of our resources
and cultures, just as we are convinced that we can advance our shared
interests and values by building strong partnerships.

To Preserve and Strengthen  The Community of Democracies Of the Americas

The Charter of the OAS establishes that representative democracy is
indispensable for the stability, peace and development of the region.
It is the sole political system which guarantees respect for human
rights and the rule of law; it safeguards cultural diversity, pluralism,
respect for the rights of minorities, and peace within and among
nations.  Democracy is based, among other fundamentals, on free and
transparent elections and includes the right of all citizens to
participate in government.  Democracy and development reinforce one
another.

We reaffirm our commitment to preserve and strengthen our democratic
systems for the benefit of all people of the Hemisphere.  We will work
through the appropriate bodies of the OAS to strengthen democratic
institutions and promote and defend constitutional democratic rule, in
accordance with the OAS Charter.  We endorse OAS efforts to enhance
peace and the democratic, social, and economic stability of the region.

We recognize that our people earnestly seek greater responsiveness and
efficiency from our respective governments.  Democracy is strengthened
by the modernization of the state, including reforms that streamline
operations, reduce and simplify government rules and procedures, and
make democratic institutions more transparent and accountable.  Deeming
it essential that justice should be accessible in an efficient and
expeditious way to all sectors of society, we affirm that an independent
judiciary is a critical element of an effective legal system and lasting
democracy.  Our ultimate goal is to better meet the needs of the
population, especially the needs of women and the most vulnerable
groups, including indigenous people, the disabled, children, the aged,
and minorities.

Effective democracy requires a comprehensive attack on corruption as a
factor of social disintegration and distortion of the economic system
that undermines the legitimacy of political institutions.

Recognizing the pernicious effects of organized crime and illegal
narcotics on our economies, ethical values, public health, and the
social fabric, we will join the battle against the consumption,
production, trafficking and distribution of illegal drugs, as well as
against money laundering and the illicit trafficking in arms and
chemical precursors.  We will also cooperate to create viable
alternative development strategies in those countries in which illicit
crops are grown.  Cooperation should be extended to international and
national programs aimed at curbing the production, use and trafficking
of illicit drugs and the rehabilitation of addicts.

We condemn terrorism in all its forms, and we will, using all legal
means, combat terrorist acts anywhere in the Americas with unity and
vigor.

Recognizing the important contribution of individuals and associations
in effective democratic government and in the enhancement of cooperation
among the people of the Hemisphere, we will facilitate fuller
participation of our people in political, economic and social activity,
in accordance with national legislation.

To Promote Prosperity Through Economic Integration And Free Trade

Our continued economic progress depends on sound economic policies,
sustainable development, and dynamic private sectors.  A key to
prosperity is trade without barriers, without subsidies, without unfair
practices, and with an increasing stream of productive investments.
Eliminating impediments to market access for goods and services among
our countries will foster our economic growth.  A growing world economy
will also enhance our domestic prosperity.  Free trade and increased
economic integration are key factors for raising standards of living,
improving the working conditions of people in the Americas and better
protecting the environment.

We, therefore, resolve to begin immediately to construct the "Free Trade
Area of the Americas" (FTAA), in which barriers to trade and investment
will be progressively eliminated.  We further resolve to conclude the
negotiation of the "Free Trade Area of the Americas" no later than 2005,
and agree that concrete progress toward the attainment of this objective
will be made by the end of this century.  We recognize the progress that
already has been realized through the unilateral undertakings of each of
our nations and the subregional trade arrangements in our Hemisphere.
We will build on existing subregional and bilateral arrangements in
order to broaden and deepen hemispheric economic integration and to
bring the agreements together.

Aware that investment is the main engine for growth in the Hemisphere,
we will encourage such investment by cooperating to build more open,
transparent and integrated markets.  In this regard, we are committed to
create strengthened mechanisms that promote and protect the flow of
productive investment in the Hemisphere, and to promote the development
and progressive integration of capital markets.

To advance economic integration and free trade, we will work, with
cooperation and financing from the private sector and international
financial institutions, to create a hemispheric infrastructure.  This
process requires a cooperative effort in fields such as
telecommunications, energy and transportation, which will permit the
efficient movement of the goods, services, capital, information and
technology that are the foundations of prosperity.

We recognize that despite the substantial progress in dealing with debt
problems in the Hemisphere, high foreign debt burdens still hinder the
development of some of our countries.

We recognize that economic integration and the creation of a free trade
area will be complex endeavors, particularly in view of the wide
differences in the levels of development and size of economies existing
in our Hemisphere.  We will remain cognizant of these differences as we
work toward economic integration in the Hemisphere.  We look to our own
resources, ingenuity, and individual capacities as well as to the
international community to help us achieve our goals.

To Eradicate Poverty And Discrimination In Our Hemisphere

It is politically intolerable and morally unacceptable that some
segments of our populations are marginalized and do not share fully in
the benefits of growth.  With an aim of attaining greater social justice
for all our people, we pledge to work individually and collectively to
improve access to quality education and primary health care and to
eradicate extreme poverty and illiteracy.  The fruits of democratic
stability and economic growth must be accessible to all, without
discrimination by race, gender, national origin or religious
affiliation.

In observance of the International Decade of the World's Indigenous
People, we will focus our energies on improving the exercise of
democratic rights and the access to social services by indigenous people
and their communities.

Aware that widely shared prosperity contributes to hemispheric
stability, lasting peace and democracy, we acknowledge our common
interest in creating employment opportunities that improve the incomes,
wages and working conditions of all our people.  We will invest in
people so that individuals throughout the Hemisphere have the
opportunity to realize their full potential.

Strengthening the role of women in all aspects of political, social and
economic life in our countries is essential to reduce poverty and social
inequalities and to enhance democracy and sustainable development.

To Guarantee Sustainable Development and Conserve Our Natural
Environment for Future Generations

Social progress and economic prosperity can be sustained only if our
people live in a healthy environment and our ecosystems and natural
resources are managed carefully and responsibly.  To advance and
implement the commitments made at the 1992 United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro, and the 1994 Global
Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing
States, held in Barbados, we will create cooperative partnerships to
strengthen our capacity to prevent and control pollution, to protect
ecosystems and use our biological resources on a sustainable basis, and
to encourage clean, efficient and sustainable energy production and use.
To benefit future generations through environmental conservation,
including the rational use of our ecosystems, natural resources and
biological heritage, we will continue to pursue technological, financial
and other forms of cooperation.

We will advance our social well-being and economic prosperity in ways
that are fully cognizant of our impact on the environment.  We agree to
support the Central American Alliance for Sustainable Development, which
seeks to strengthen those democracies by promoting regional economic and
social prosperity and sound environmental management.  In this context,
we support the convening of other regional meetings on sustainable
development.


Our Declaration constitutes a comprehensive and mutually reinforcing set
of commitments for concrete results.  In accord with the appended Plan
of Action, and recognizing our different national capabilities and our
different legal systems, we pledge to implement them without delay.

We call upon the OAS and the Inter-American Development Bank to assist
countries in implementing our pledges, drawing significantly upon the
Pan American Health Organization and the United Nations Economic
Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean as well as sub-regional
organizations for integration.

To give continuity to efforts fostering national political involvement,
we will convene specific high-level meetings to address, among others,
topics such as trade and commerce, capital markets, labor, energy,
education, transportation, telecommunications, counter-narcotics and
other anti-crime initiatives, sustainable development, health, and
science and technology.

To assure public engagement and commitment, we invite the cooperation
and participation of the private sector, labor, political parties,
academic institutions and other non-governmental actors and
organizations in both our national and regional efforts, thus
strengthening the partnership between governments and society.


Our thirty-four nations share a fervent commitment to democratic
practices, economic integration, and social justice.  Our people are
better able than ever to express their aspirations and to learn from one
another.  The conditions for hemispheric cooperation are propitious.
Therefore, on behalf of all our people, in whose name we affix our
signatures to this Declaration, we seize this historic opportunity to
create a Partnership for Development and Prosperity in the Americas.

Done at Miami, Florida, on this the 11th day of December, 1994, in the
English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish languages.


Note:  The following hemispheric leaders signed the Declaration of
Principles:

Antigua and Barbuda--Prime Minister Lester Bird
Argentina--President Carlos Saul Menem
The Bahamas--Prime Minister Hubert A. Ingraham
Barbados--Prime Minister Owen Arthur
Belize--Prime Minister Manuel Esquivel
Bolivia--President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada Bustamente
Brazil--President Itamar Franco
Canada--Prime Minister Jean Chretien
Chile--President Eduardo Frei  Ruiz-Tagle
Colombia--President Ernesto Samper Pizano
Costa Rica--President Jose Maria Figueres Olsen
Dominica--Prime Minister Dame M. Eugenia Charles
Dominican Republic--President  Joaquin Balaguer Ricardo
Ecuador--President Sixto Duran Ballen Cordovez
El Salvador--President Armando Calderon Sol
Grenada--Prime Minister Nicholas Braithwaite
Guatemala--President Ramiro de Leon Carpio
Guyana--President Cheddi Jagan
Haiti--President Jean-Bertrand Aristide
Honduras--President Carlos Roberto Reina Idiaquez
Jamaica--Prime Minister Percival James Patterson
Mexico--President Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de Leon
Nicaragua--President Violeta Chamorro
Panama--President Ernesto Perez Balladares
Paraguay--President Juan Carlos Wasmosy
Peru--President Alberto Kenyo Fujimori
Saint Kitts and Nevis--Prime Minister Kennedy Simmonds
Saint Lucia--Prime Minister  John G. M. Compton
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines--Prime Minister James F. Mitchell
Suriname--President Ronald R. Venetiaan
Trinidad and Tobago--Prime Minister Patrick Manning
United States--President William J. Clinton [host]
Uruguay--President Luis Alberto Lacalle
Venezuela--President Rafael Caldera Rodriguez

(###)



ARTICLE 8: Pages 13-23

<h5>Plan of Action</h5>
Text of Plan of Action appended to the Declaration of Principles and
endorsed by the 34 hemispheric leaders in that document at the Summit of
the Americas, Miami, Florida, December 11, 1994.

Table of Contents

I.  Preserving and Strengthening the Community of Democracies of the
Americas

1.  Strengthening Democracy

2.  Promoting and Protecting Human Rights

3.  Invigorating Society/Community Participation

4.  Promoting Cultural Values

5.  Combating Corruption

6.  Combating the Problem of Illegal Drugs and Related Crimes

7.  Eliminating the Threat of National and International Terrorism

8.  Building Mutual Confidence


II. Promoting Prosperity Through Economic Integration and Free Trade

9. Free Trade in the Americas

10. Capital Markets Development and Liberalization

11. Hemispheric Infrastructure

12. Energy Cooperation

13. Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure

14. Cooperation in Science and Technology

15. Tourism


III. Eradicating Poverty and Discrimination in Our Hemisphere

16. Universal Access to Education

17. Equitable Access to Basic Health Services

18. Strengthening the Role of Women in Society

19. Encouraging Microenterprises and Small Businesses

20. White Helmets--Emergency and Development Corps


IV. Guaranteeing Sustainable Development and Conserving Our Natural
Environment for Future Generations


21. Partnership for Sustainable Energy Use

22. Partnership for Biodiversity

23. Partnership for Pollution Prevention


The heads of state and government participating in the 1994 Summit of
the Americas in Miami, Florida, desirous of furthering the broad
objectives set forth in their Declaration of Principles and mindful of
the need for practical progress on the vital tasks of enhancing
democracy, promoting development, achieving economic integration and
free trade, improving the lives of their people, and protecting the
natural environment for future generations, affirm their commitment to
this Plan of Action.

I.  PRESERVING AND STRENGTHENING THE COMMUNITY OF DEMOCRACIES OF THE
AMERICAS

1.  Strengthening  Democracy

The strengthening, effective exercise and consolidation of democracy
constitute the central political priority of the Americas.  The
Organization of American States (OAS) is the principal hemispheric body
for the defense of democratic values and institutions; among its
essential purposes is to promote and consolidate representative
democracy, with due respect to the principle of non-intervention.  The
OAS has adopted multilateral procedures to address the problems created
when democratic order has been interrupted unconstitutionally.  In order
to prevent such crises, the OAS needs to direct more effort toward the
promotion of democratic values and practices and to the social and
economic strengthening of already-established democratic regimes.

Governments will:

--  Give expeditious consideration to ratifying the Cartagena de Indias,
Washington and Managua Protocols to the OAS Charter, if they have not
already done so.

--  Strengthen the dialogue among social groups and foster grass roots
participation in problem solving at the local level.

--  Support efforts by the OAS to promote democracy by:


--Encouraging exchanges of election-related technologies and assisting
national electoral organizations, at the request of the interested
state.

--Strengthening the Unit for the Promotion of Democracy so that it can
provide assistance at the request of the interested state on such
matters as legislative and judicial processes, government reforms
(including administration of justice, technical modernization of
national legislative bodies, simplification of government regulations
and promotion of participation by community organizations in local
democracy), and other institutional changes.

--Encouraging opportunities for exchange of experiences among member
states' democratic institutions, particularly legislature-to-legislature
and judiciary-to-judiciary.

--Fostering understanding, dialogue and political reconciliation, at the
request of the affected state and bearing in mind that national
reconciliation comes from within.

--Requesting the OAS to promote and follow up on these commitments.

2.  Promoting and Protecting Human Rights

Great progress has been made in the Hemisphere in the development of
human rights concepts and norms, but serious gaps in implementation
remain.  While courts ultimately have the responsibility for enforcing
legal rights and obligations, reforms in other institutions are needed
to contribute to the further development of a climate of respect for
human rights.  There must also be universal access to justice and
effective means to enforce basic rights.  A democracy is judged by the
rights enjoyed by its least influential members.

Governments will:

--  Give serious consideration to adherence to international human
rights instruments to which they are not already party.

--  Cooperate fully with all United Nations and inter-American human
rights bodies.

--  Develop programs for the promotion and observance of human rights,
including educational programs to inform people of their legal rights
and their responsibility to respect the rights of others.

--  Promote policies to ensure that women enjoy full and equal legal
rights within their families and societies, and to ensure the removal of
constraints to women's full participation as voters, candidates and
elected and appointed officials.

--  Review and strengthen laws for the protection of the rights of
minority groups and indigenous people and communities to ensure freedom
from discrimination, to guarantee full and equal protection under the
law, and to facilitate active civic participation. Support a process to
review and enhance the protection of indigenous rights in OAS member
states and to develop promptly an effective United Nations declaration
on indigenous rights.

--  Review national legislation affecting people with disabilities, as
well as benefits and services for them, and make any changes needed to
facilitate the enjoyment by these individuals of the same rights and
freedoms as other members of society.

--  Undertake all measures necessary to guarantee the rights of
children, and, where they have not already done so, give serious
consideration to ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child.

--  Guarantee the protection of the human rights of all migrant workers
and their families.

--  Take the necessary steps to remedy inhumane conditions in prisons
and to minimize the number of pretrial detainees.

--  Review training curricula for law enforcement agents to ensure that
they adequately cover proper treatment of suspects and detainees as well
as relations with the community.

--  Exchange experiences on protection of human rights at the national
level and, where possible, cooperate in the development of law
enforcement and security force training or other programs to reduce the
potential for human rights violations.

--  Call on the OAS and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) to
establish or to reinforce programs, as appropriate, to support national
projects for the promotion and observance of human rights in the Western
Hemisphere.

--  Further strengthen the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

3.  Invigorating Society/Community Participation

A strong and diverse civil society, organized in various ways and
sectors, including individuals, the private sector, labor, political
parties, academics, and other non-governmental actors and organizations,
gives depth and durability to democracy.  Similarly, a vigorous
democracy requires broad participation in public issues.  Such
activities should be carried out with complete transparency and
accountability, and to this end a proper legal and regulatory framework
should be established to include the possibility of obtaining technical
and financial support, including from private sources.

Governments will:

--  Review the regulatory framework for non-governmental actors with a
view to facilitating their operations and promoting their ability to
receive funds.  This review will emphasize the management and oversight
of resources as well as transparency and the accountability to society
of said actors.

--  Take steps to improve the participation in social activities and
initiatives of groups traditionally marginalized, including women,
youth, indigenous people and the extremely poor.

--  Exchange progress reports on activities in the civil society area at
the 1996 Summit Conference on Sustainable Development in Bolivia.

--  Consider the development by the IDB of a new Civil Society Program
to encourage responsible and accountable philanthropy and civic
engagement in public policy issues.

4.  Promoting Cultural Values

Cultural development is a fundamental and integral component of
development in the Americas and has an inherent capability to enrich our
societies and to generate greater understanding among our countries.

In order to promote cultural values, governments will:

--  Encourage more dynamic relations among public and private
institutions and organizations, including universities, museums, and
centers of art and literature, as well as among individual cultural
actors.  Such exchanges emphasize our cultural diversity, recognize the
value of our local cultures and contribute to improving hemispheric
understanding.

--  Request that the OAS and IDB reinforce their plans and programs to
facilitate these cultural exchanges and the flow of cultural and
historical information within and among our nations.

5.  Combating Corruption

The problem of corruption is now an issue of serious interest not only
in this Hemisphere, but in all regions of the world.  Corruption in both
the public and private sectors weakens democracy and undermines the
legitimacy of governments and institutions.  The modernization of the
state, including deregulation, privatization and the simplification of
government procedures, reduces the opportunities for corruption.  All
aspects of public administration in a democracy must be transparent and
open to public scrutiny.

Governments will:

--  Promote open discussion of the most significant problems facing
government and develop priorities for reforms needed to make government
operations transparent and accountable.

--  Ensure proper oversight of government functions by strengthening
internal mechanisms, including investigative and enforcement capacity
with respect to acts of corruption, and facilitating public access to
information necessary for meaningful outside review.

--  Establish conflict of interest standards for public employees and
effective measures against illicit enrichment, including stiff penalties
for those who utilize their public position to benefit private
interests.

--  Call on the governments of the world to adopt and enforce measures
against bribery in all financial or commercial transactions with the
Hemisphere; toward this end, invite the OAS to establish liaison with
the OECD Working Group on Bribery in International Business
Transactions.

--  Develop mechanisms of cooperation in the judicial and banking areas
to make possible rapid and effective response in the international
investigation of corruption cases.

--  Give priority to strengthening government regulations and
procurement, tax collection, the administration of justice and the
electoral and legislative processes, utilizing the support of the IDB
and other international financial institutions where appropriate.

--  Develop within the OAS, with due regard to applicable treaties and
national legislation, a hemispheric approach to acts of corruption in
both the public and private sectors that would include extradition and
prosecution of individuals so charged, through negotiation of a new
hemispheric agreement or new arrangements within existing frameworks for
international cooperation.

6.  Combating the Problem Of Illegal Drugs and Related Crimes

The problems of illegal drug and related criminal activities pose grave
threats to the societies, free market economies, and democratic
institutions of the Hemisphere.  Drug use imposes enormous social costs;
drug money and income are net drains on economic growth; and drug lords
and criminal organizations endanger the security of our people through
corruption, intimidation, and violence.  While drug trafficking
continues to be a significant source of illegal funds, the money
laundering industry increasingly deals with the proceeds of all types of
criminal activity.  An integrated and balanced approach that includes
respect for national sovereignty is essential to confront all aspects of
these problems.  For these reasons, a broad coordinated hemispheric
strategy to reduce drug use and production, including new enforcement
methods that can disrupt drug trafficking and money laundering networks
and prosecute those engaged in such activities, is required.  In this
context, governments note the work of the 1992 San Antonio Summit,
endorse the efforts of the Inter-American Commission on Drug Abuse
Control, and agree to work together to formulate a counter-narcotics
strategy for the 21st century.

Governments will:

--  Ratify the 1988 United Nations Convention Against the Illicit
Traffic of Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances and make it a criminal
offense to launder the proceeds of all serious crimes.

--  Enact legislation to permit the freezing and forfeiture of the
proceeds of money laundering and consider the sharing of forfeited
assets among governments.

--  As agreed by ministers and representatives of Caribbean and Latin
American governments in the Kingston Declaration, November 5-6, 1992,
implement the recommendations of the Caribbean Financial Action Task
Force on Money Laundering and work to adopt the Model Regulations of the
Inter-American Commission on Drug Abuse Control (CICAD).

--  Encourage financial institutions to report large and suspicious
transactions to appropriate authorities and develop effective procedures
that would allow the collection of relevant information from financial
institutions.

--  Work individually and collectively to identify the region's
narcotics trafficking and money laundering networks, prosecute their
leaders, and seize assets derived from these criminal activities.

--  Adopt programs to prevent and reduce the demand for and the
consumption of illicit drugs.

--  Adopt effective and environmentally-sound national strategies to
prevent or reduce substantially the cultivation and processing of crops
used for the illegal drug trade, paying particular attention to national
and international support for development