President Clinton Poland: Taking its Place in The ... · July 1997 • U.S. Department of State...

July 1997 • U.S. Department of State Dispatch 1

President Clinton

Poland: Taking its Place inThe Community of DemocraciesJuly 10, 1997

Remarks to the citizens of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.

Thank you. Mr. President, Mr. Mayor,Major Kuklelka, Lieutenant Blazeusz, to thepeople of Warsaw and the people of Poland: Iam proud to speak to you and to welcome you,along with the people of Hungary and theCzech Republic, as the next members of NATOand the next allies of the United States ofAmerica.

If my interpreter will forgive me, I want todepart from the text to say that our Americandelegation is proud to be here. But there aretwo here for whom this day has special mean-ing, and I would like to ask them to stand.The first is our Secretary of State, who was bornin the Czech Republic and driven out by thetroubles that so grieved the Poles in the last 50years—Madeleine Albright. The second is oneof the most distinguished Members of theUnited States Congress; both of her grandfa-thers were Polish immigrants—Sen. BarbaraMikulski from Maryland.

We gather to celebrate this moment ofpromises kept and of promise redeemed. Here,in the twilight of the 20th century, we set oursights on a new century—a century in whichfinally we fulfill Poland’s destiny as a freenation at the heart of a free Europe, a newEurope undivided, democratic, and at peace.

Three years ago this week, I came to thisgreat city and made this pledge: Nothing aboutyou without you—Nic o was bez was. Now,Poland is joining NATO. Poland is taking itsplace in the community of democracies. Neveragain will your fate be decided by others.Never again will the birthright of freedom bedenied you. Poland is coming home.

Freedom burned brightly in Poland 200years ago. Then you gave Europe its firstwritten constitution and the world’s secondwritten constitution after America’s own. Thatsolemn pact gave strength and hope to yourancestors, even as Poland fell victim again andagain to tyranny. But this week, its words andthose who revered them speak to us across the

centuries. “We do solemnly establish thisconstitution, willing to profit by the presentcircumstances of Europe and by the favorablemoment which has restored us to ourselves.”People of Poland, this favorable moment hasrestored you to yourselves.

It is a moment that you have made. Just asfreedom was born here 200 years ago, it wasreborn here eight years ago when you changedthe course of history. And now, together, wehave restored Poland to Europe and to thedestiny you deserve. From this day forward,what Poland builds in peace Poland will keepin security.

To the citizens of my own country I say:This land where I speak has known the worstwars of the 20th century. By expandingNATO, we will help to prevent another warinvolving Poland, another war in Europe,another war that also claims the lives ofAmericans.

We come to this moment grateful for itsblessings but conscious of the grave responsi-bility it carries. Through the power of itsexample and the example of its power, ourNATO alliance has kept Western Europe,Canada, and the United States secure for nearlyhalf a century. Not once has a NATO memberbeen attacked. Not once has NATO ever lashedout in aggression.

Now we must adapt our alliance to a newtime. Our common enemy of communistoppression has vanished, but common dangershave not. Too many people still fear changebecause they have not yet felt its benefits. Theyremain vulnerable to the poisoned appeal ofextreme nationalism; to ethnic, racial, andreligious hatreds. Rogue states seek to under-mine the community of democracies. Terrorists,international criminals, drug traffickers showno regard for borders. These are our commondangers, and we must defeat them together.

NATO is doing its part—taking in newmembers, taking on new missions, workingwith new partners. Like Poland, we have

2 U.S. Department of State Dispatch • July 1997

reached out to Ukraine to help forge stability inEurope, and we are working with a new Russiaas our partner in building a Europe in whichevery nation is free and every free nation joinsin securing peace and stability for all. Now, as your President has said, you mustcontinue to do your part. Poland, Hungary,and the Czech Republic will now become fullmembers of our alliance, with the full responsi-bilities of membership: the responsibility tonurture and strengthen and defend yourdemocracies, because, as we in America knowafter more than 200 years, the struggle fordemocracy is never over—it must be foughtevery day; the responsibility to continue theremarkable transformation of your economies,because, having known poverty, you know thetrue value of the prosperity you have onlybegun to achieve; the responsibility to reach outto all your neighbors, to the East as well as theWest, including the people of Russia—youmust continue to build in tolerance what othersdestroyed in hate; the responsibility to meetNATO’s high military standards and to help tobear its cost, because true security requiresstrength and readiness—we know you areready to share the burdens of defendingfreedom, because you know the price of losingfreedom. Other nations are counting on you to showthe contributions new members can make. Youdid not walk through NATO’s door to see itshut behind you. That door will stay open.Eight years ago you led the way to freedom.

Now, we ask you to be pathfinders again.People of Warsaw, people of Poland, theAmerican people know from the hard lessons ofthis century that your fate and our future arejoined. After World War I, America turnedaway from the world, and freedom’s flickeringtorch was engulfed by Europe’s darkenednight. After World War II, we and our alliescontinued to hold liberty’s beacon high, but itcould only light half the continent. Now, we come here to celebrate history’smost precious gift—a second chance: a secondchance to redeem the sacrifice of those whofought for our liberty from the beaches ofNormandy to the streets of Warsaw; a secondchance finally to unite Europe not by the forceof arms but by the power of peace. One week ago was the 4th of July, America’sIndependence Day. More than 200 years ago,you sent your sons to help secure our future.America has never forgotten. Now, together, wewill work to secure the future of an undividedEurope for your freedom and ours. That is the promise that brings us togethertoday. That is the promise that will keep ustogether in a new Europe for a new century.That is our promise to all the young people heretoday and to generations yet to come: security,for 100 years—Sto lat; democracy for 100 years;freedom for 100 years. God bless America, and God bless Poland.Thank you. ■


Secretary Albright

A Moment of CelebrationAnd of DedicationJuly 14, 1997

Address to the people of Prague, Prague,Czech Republic, July 14, 1997.

President Havel, Prime Minister Klaus,Mayor Koukal, Senators and Parliamentarians,Excellencies, distinguished guests: Thank youso much for your warm and unforgettablewelcome. Let me begin by expressing mysadness at the devastation that has been causedby the flooding over the last week. Ourthoughts and prayers today are with those whohave lost their loved ones and their homes. Iknow that there are many mayors here fromregions affected by the flood. The solidarity anddedication that you and the Czech people haveshown in this tragedy is inspiring.

This week, as I traveled from Madrid tocentral Europe, I could not help but think aboutthe three journeys that have framed my life andmy life’s work:

I have been thinking about the memoriesand the meaning of my own family’s journeythrough the war and the turbulence of post-warEurope to the freedom and security of theUnited States. I have been thinking as wellabout Europe’s journey from total war toabsolute division to the promise of enduringunity and peace. And of course, I have beenthinking about the journey of the Czech nationfrom the day in 1918 when its independencewas proclaimed on this very spot to the day in1948 when its liberty was extinguished, to thisday, when you take your rightful place in thefamily of European democracies—fully, finally,and forever. T.S. Eliot wrote:

We shall not cease from explorationAnd the end of all our exploringWill be to arrive where we startedAnd know the place for the first time.

Today, you know me in a new way, in mynew role. And I see you in a new way as well—not only as the friend of the United States butalso as our next ally. Truth does conquer, afterall, President Havel. Truth and love conquer,after all.

I have been here many times since theVelvet Revolution. And I am filled with prideevery time I hear the playing of my country’s

national anthem, “The Star Spangled Banner,”and yours, “Where is My Home.” But nothingcompares to the feeling of coming to myoriginal home, Prague, as the Secretary of Stateof the United States for the purpose of saying toyou: Welcome home. For with the news fromMadrid this week, you are coming home, infact, to the community of freedom that younever left in spirit.

From Munich to Madrid, from tragedy totriumph, it has been a long and painful journey.But you have arrived at your destination. Youhave arrived at a moment of injustice undone,of promises kept, of a unified Europe begun.Now a new journey begins, and, at last, we cantravel it together.

We stand at one of those great turningpoints in history. For the third time in thiscentury, the politics of Europe are changingfundamentally. And this time, we pray, forgood.

Almost 80 years ago, our parents andgrandparents were full of the hope thatWoodrow Wilson’s dream of universal democ-racy inspired across the lands of central andeastern Europe. That dream was shattered bythe illusion that the people of Paris and Londonand New York could simply go on with theirlives while the people of Vilnius and Krakowand Prague were robbed of their independence,sent away in box cars, and machine-gunned inforests.

After World War II, it was Stalin’s armiesthat shattered our dream. And for the next50 years, one-half of Europe was consigned tosubjugation; the other half to fear. We wereseparated by concrete and barbed wire, byradio jammers and minefields, by lies thatmight seem ridiculous today had they notruined so many lives.

The amazing thing is that all those years ofpropaganda, terror, and isolation utterly failedto flatten Europe’s moral landscape. Thecommunist authorities kept from you the truth,and still you spoke the truth. They fed you avacuous culture, and still you gave us works ofart that fill our lives with intelligence, humor,


and warmth. They tried to smother yourallegiances, your faith, and your initiative, andstill you taught the world the meaning ofsolidarity and civil society. They banished yourfinest leaders, and still you gave us VaclavHavel. This is what we must remember as theCzech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joinNATO. As President Clinton has said, we arenot just new allies. In the ways that trulymatter, we are old allies. We are and alwayshave been part of the same community.

NATO membership will bring manybenefits to the Czech Republic and to others

who join today and in thefuture—as will ourbroader strategy ofintegration. Above all, itmeans you will always beable to rely on us, and wewill always be able to relyon you. If there is a threatto the peace and securityof this country, we will bebound by a solemncommitment to defeat ittogether. For this reason,we can be confident thatsuch a threat is far lesslikely to arise. It meanssecurity in Europe willnot stop at its Cold Wardividing lines. It meansEurope’s new democra-cies will not be consigned

to a buffer zone of excluded states. It means youwill be the authors of your history, the mastersof your destiny, the vassals and victims of noone.

But, my friends, this is more than a momentof celebration. For NATO’s old and new alliesalike, it is also a moment of challenge. Our mostimmediate challenge is to ensure together thatthe people and parliaments of NATO’s 16member nations embrace the enlargement ofour alliance. In America, the debate will bevigorous. Because we take our commitmentsseriously, we do not extend them lightly.

I believe that our Senate will approve thisinitiative, but the burden of proof will still restwith those of us who believe that NATOenlargement serves American interests. TheSenators will ask us many appropriate ques-tions about risks and costs. They will remindyou, as do I, that along with a first-class ticketto NATO comes the obligation to make a first-class contribution.

Regrettably, you will also hear echoes ofMunich in this debate. Already, people havetrotted out the tired myth that in times of crisiswe will make no sacrifice to defend a distantcity with an unpronounceable name; that wewill protect the freedom of Barcelona but notBrno, Stuttgart but not Szczecin.

I challenge those critics: Come meet yourfuture allies; speak with their people. Theirnames may sound unfamiliar, but they speakthe same language of freedom. Visit theveterans in this region who fought for theAllied cause in World War II. Talk to theveterans of the dissident movements. They havespent a lifetime sacrificing for the ideals wehave in common. Look them in the eye. Askthem why we should be allied with Europe’sold democracies forever but its new democra-cies never.

You might listen to President Havel, aswell. “If we appeal to the West not to close itselfoff to us,” he has said,

this is not only because we are concerned aboutour own security and stability. We are con-cerned about the destiny of the values andprinciples that communism denied, and inwhose name we resisted communism andultimately brought it down.

Defending values, righting history’swrongs—these are idealistic arguments. Oddly,some are troubled by that. They want NATO toretain its military muscle, but they are suspi-cious of enlargement because it also appeals toour hearts. Others, who champion freedom incentral Europe and Russia, are suspicious ofenlargement precisely because NATO is anorganization with tanks and bombers. But thereis no contradiction here between realism andidealism, between pragmatism and principle,between security and justice.

Those of us who knew Prague before theCold War know that freedom without securityis a frail reed. And those in America who mostardently prosecuted the Cold War should bethe first to admit that it was not merely amilitary enterprise, but an idealistic one as well.

You know that NATO enlargement fulfillsa moral and strategic challenge. By turning aEurope of shared values into a Europe ofshared responsibilities, you know we can doboth.

Because we are old friends, let me speakplainly. NATO is welcoming new membersbecause we know you are ready to make aneven deeper commitment to the commonendeavors of our alliance of democracies—from the pursuit of peace in troubled regionsto the fight against terror and crime, to oursupport for those who still struggle for thefreedom you enjoy.

For example, the SFOR mission in Bosniawill come to an end in one year. But the UnitedStates has made a long-term commitment tosupport peace in that country and, given whatyou have already done in Bosnia, I trust youwill, too. I trust you will also be leaders in theeffort to keep deadly weapons from dangerousrogue states, even if it means losing a sale fromtime to time. And I trust you will pay the costs

“You know thatNATO enlargement

fulfills a moraland strategic

challenge. By turninga Europe of

shared values intoa Europe of shared

responsibilities, you knowwe can do both."


and do what is necessary to assure the fullintegration of the Czech armed forces intoNATO.

It is your willingness to assume greatresponsibilities that has brought you to thispoint. You are about to join NATO. You arealready a member of the OECD. No doubt, youwill join the EU as well. Our memory of the last50 years makes it hard to believe, but, as youenter these institutions, you will stand amongthe most prosperous and powerful nations inthe world. You are no longer on the outsidelooking in; you are on the inside lookingforward.

For 50 years, you looked to the free worldfor support, understanding, and recognition.Now you are the free world; other nations willlook to you for support.

Part of our new responsibility to others isto ensure that the door to NATO remains opento all European democracies that are willingand able to meet the obligations of membership.That is the policy NATO adopted in Madrid.We count on you to support that policy in wordand deed. It is also a personal commitmentPresident Clinton has made to all the nationsthat lie between the Baltic and Black Seas. Andit is our message today to the people ofSlovakia. For it is our sincere hope that theirnation will rejoin the path of true democraticreform and make itself a strong candidate forthe second round of NATO enlargement.

To all the nations that still aspire to joinNATO, I say: Consider why we have invited theCzech Republic. It is not because the Czechs aresomehow more “European” than the Orthodoxand Muslim peoples to the south and east—wehave no patience for that kind of thinking. It isnot because Prague is west of Vienna. It is notjust because of your pre-war democratictradition. Rather, the Czech Republic’s invita-tion to NATO was inscribed by its deeds overthe past seven years. Others will soon be readyto follow your lead, and you must join us inhelping them.

You know that the effort to join NATO isnot a race to escape a bad neighborhood. It is aneffort to improve the neighborhood for thebenefit of all. This is why I appreciate the CzechRepublic’s support for the NATO-RussiaFounding Act and your recognition that ademocratic Russia must be part of a Europewhole and free. As President Havel has said,“in this era, we—as nations—cannot divideourselves according to who were the victorsand who the vanquished in the past.”

After my trip to Europe this week, I ammore confident than ever that together we canmeet his challenge and more. In Madrid, I sawNATO’s strength as its leaders made a decisionthat was difficult but right. With PresidentClinton in Warsaw, I saw that our new allies

are not just ready but eager to add their energyto ours. In Bucharest, I watched the Presidentaddress 100,000 people at University Square—and even though their country will not beamong the first group of new allies, theyshowed us that they support NATO’s enlarge-ment and that they will do what it takes to bepart of a new Europe. I heard the same messagein Ljubljana and in Vilnius. And in St. Peters-burg, I saw a Russia that is moving ahead withreform and moving closer to the rest of Europe.

Today, I can foresee a Europe where everynation is free and every free nation is ourpartner. Not long ago, that was a future wemight have imagined but in the darkest mo-ments perhaps thought would never come. Andthat brings me back to the earlier part of myremarks—and of my life.

Fifty years ago, Jan Masaryk was told byStalin in Moscow that Czechoslovakia must notparticipate in the Marshall Plan despite itsnational interest in doing so. Upon his return toPrague, Masaryk told my father, his chef decabinet, that it was then he understood that hewas employed by a government no longersovereign in its own land.

Soon after, the communists took over inPrague. That coup drove my parents and mefrom this country for the second time. Andmore than any other single event, that coupawakened America and western Europe to theneed for an Atlantic alliance. Thus, the eventthat cast my family out of Prague and you intodarkness also helped create the alliance that hasbrought me back again and put you in thecenter of a new Europe.

Today, there is no Stalin to give orders toyou or to anyone. The opportunity to be part ofthe international system is open to all. The goalof integration is not bound by strategic realitiesor confined by cultural arrogance to westernEurope, to central Europe, or even to Europe.

Today, the west has no fixed easternfrontiers. Every democratic nation that seeks toparticipate in the global system we are con-structing and that is willing to do all it can tohelp itself will have America’s help in findingthe right path. Now they will have your helpand your example as well.

People of Prague, people of the CzechRepublic: Half a century ago, our journeysdiverged; but this week’s events have broughtour paths together again. Now thanks to thevision of my President, Bill Clinton, and thecourage of your people, we are reunited in acommon cause. Soon we will be joined in acommon alliance. And we will never be partedagain.

You were the passion of my parents. Youare the land of my birth. And now you and I,my nation and yours, will build and defend anew Europe together. God bless you. ■


Secretary Albright

ASEAN: Meeting Regional Chal-lenges, Building Global CommunityJuly 28, 1997

Address at the ASEAN Post-Ministerial ConferenceNine-Plus-Ten Session, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

I am very pleased to represent the UnitedStates at this year’s ASEAN Post-MinisterialConference. I welcome this opportunity todiscuss economic and global issues with agroup that includes not only the members ofASEAN, but our most important partners fromEurope, North America, East Asia, and SouthAsia, for the challenges we face can only be mettogether.

The United States is determined to deepenits cooperation with our partners in this regionand beyond. This commitment is solid becauseit is solidly based on American interests.

• We have an abiding security interest ina region where we have fought three wars inthe last half-century, and where almost anysignificant outbreak of international violencewould threaten our well-being and that of ourfriends;

• We have an abiding economic interest ina region that is experiencing phenomenalgrowth;

• We have an abiding strategic interest in aregion whose cooperation we need in respond-ing to threats of proliferation, terrorism,narcotics, and damage to the environment; and

• We have an abiding political interest insupporting democracy and respect for humanrights and the rule of law, because stability andprosperity ultimately depend on it.

The list of issues on our agenda todayreflects the breadth of the interests we sharewith the nations and peoples of this region. Italso reminds us just how far ASEAN has comesince the days when it was primarily a forumfor economic cooperation.

In this 30th anniversary year of ASEAN’sbirth, we have much to celebrate. When ASEANwas created, virtually every nation in thisregion was engulfed or threatened by violence.For many nations, the question of the hour was“How can we survive?” not “How can wethrive?”

ASEAN helped to change all that. Itestablished the patterns of consultation thathave transformed this region. It helped to fuel aquarter-century of economic growth that hasexceeded the wildest expectations of itsfounders.

ASEAN includes nations of vastly differentsize and strength, yet it has forged a model ofcooperation among equals. It stands at theconfluence of many cultures and religions, yet itoffers a troubled world a model of harmonyand stability.

Today, the nations of this region are takingASEAN to a new level. In doing so, theyconfront two fundamental challenges that areshared by virtually every similar grouping.

The first is the challenge of looking out-ward to a world that welcomes and increas-ingly needs positive and dynamic leadershipfrom this region on the great questions of ourtime.

ASEAN already has an impressive recordto build upon, including its role in the ParisPeace Accords, in moderating tensions in SouthChina Sea, in the formation of APEC and theARF, and in the effort to liberalize global trade.From Indonesia’s support for populationprograms in Asia to Malaysia’s contributions tothe cause of peace in Bosnia, ASEAN’s membernations are doing their part as well.

The primary aim of America’s engagementwith ASEAN is to encourage this development.We view ASEAN as an important contributornot only to regional security and prosperity, butto the global effort to bring nations closertogether around basic principles of politicalfreedom, open markets, law, and sharedcommitment to peace.

The second challenge ASEAN faces is thatof looking within, to manage its expansion in away that preserves its cohesion.

The United States shares the goal of anintegrated Southeast Asia and ultimately ofASEAN at 10. In fact, we believe that thegrowth of institutions and arrangements that


link less developed nations to their moredeveloped neighbors is one of the most hopefultrends of our time. This is what the UnitedStates and our European partners are doing bywelcoming strong, new democracies intoNATO and the EU, and what we are doing inour hemisphere by building a Free Trade Areaof the Americas.

But in a world that is still marked bytremendous disparities, integration also carrieschallenges. In this region, it includes nationsseared by political crisis, held back by poverty,and burdened by problems such as drugtrafficking, refugee migration, epidemicdisease, and pollution. These are problems thatcould come home to all our nations if we do notaddress them together and now.

In this region, as in every other, integrationis not an end in itself and it requires far morethan bringing new nations into old organiza-tions. The point of international cooperation isto raise standards. We must be bullish on ourability to improve on the past and not slow ourpush to open our economies and to build newpartnerships. But we must also address theconcerns our citizens have—creating good jobs,preventing crime, protecting the environment,and promoting human rights and humandignity.

Looking Outward and ForwardTo An Open Global Economy

It is not necessary to remind this audiencehow close the economic links between theUnited States and ASEAN are. Americaninvestment in this region now exceeds$35 billion, and it grew by over 200% between1990 and 1996. Collectively, ASEANis the United States’ fourth-largest tradingpartner, and our exports to ASEAN support700,000 U.S. jobs. On my way to Kuala Lumpur,I stopped in California—America’s biggestexporting state. A full 25% of the productsleaving California are destined for SoutheastAsian ports.

Our host, Malaysia, is by itself the world’s12th-largest exporter. Today, Malaysia looks tothe future with innovative plans for a multime-dia super corridor that can vault it into thevanguard of the information age.

The United States has been watchingdevelopments in Southeast Asian financialmarkets very closely. Our Treasury Departmentis in close contact with the IMF.

It is important that we distinguish amongthe countries in the region, as fundamentalsdiffer significantly. Appropriate market-oriented responses by a number of countrieshave also helped to dampen currency volatility.

This response reinforces the ASEAN consensusthat sound economic policies and open marketsare the best path to long-term development. Theinitiatives we are discussing here, including theeffort to liberalize trade in financial services,have a critical part to play in ensuring contin-ued growth and prosperity in the region.

We are reminded again that none of us canrest on our laurels. We cannot assume thatsuccess in the future will flow easily andnaturally from our success in the past.

The world will look to ASEAN to continuemaking the right choices, together with itsmany partners; for the mem-bers of ASEAN have become apowerful force in steering theglobal economy. They willhave a crucial role in deter-mining whether future gen-erations will witness the trans-lation of regional initiativesinto global benefits, or the slideof regional exclusivity intouniversal stagnation.

On their own and throughAPEC, ASEAN countriesmade crucial contributionsover the last year to WorldTrade Organization negotia-tions to liberalize trade in in-formation technology and telecommunications.They helped to shape a critical mass of newlyindustrialized economies willing to make boldliberalizing offers. By doing so, ASEANmembers showed they are ready and able toassume greater responsibility for the opentrading system that has enabled them toprosper and grow.

This year, the ASEAN countries have thechance to play the same positive role in WTOnegotiations to liberalize financial services. Nocountry can have a world-class, high-techeconomy without a world-class, properlyregulated financial services sector to allocatecapital efficiently. Significantly improved offersfrom all ASEAN states will help generate themomentum needed to reach a global agreementby the December 12 deadline. ASEAN input isalso vital to the alliances we must build withbusiness to promote meaningful service sectorreform.

ASEAN countries are also a dynamic forcewithin APEC. An ASEAN state has hostedAPEC’s leaders’ meetings every other year andachieved impressive results—under Indonesia’sdirection, the historic agreement to achieve freetrade and investment in the region by 2010/2020; during the Philippines’ tenure, theadoption of 18 action plans for reaching that

“The world will lookto ASEAN to continue

making the right choices,together with its many

partners; for the membersof ASEAN have become apowerful force in steering

the global economy."


goal. Next year, Malaysia will lead APEC at apivotal point in our drive for liberalizationacross the Pacific Basin.

Our immediate challenge is to sustainAPEC’s momentum in Vancouver this Novem-ber. We should advance four goals: gaining thesupport of all APEC members for a globalfinancial services agreement; improving ourIndividual Action Plans for meaningfulprogress toward open trade; making voluntaryoffers to liberalize quickly in key sectors; andfinally, pushing for concrete, focused outcomesthat offer immediate benefits to our businessesand workers.

ASEAN’s own path-breaking plans to cuttariffs among its members through the develop-ment of an ASEAN Free Trade Area areimportant as well. The United States applaudsthem and looks forward to further progresstoward opening the fast-growing trade inservices. ASEAN countries have also beenleaders in APEC’s effort to liberalize trade intelecommunications equipment—and can domore. ASEAN’s plans to harmonize customsprocedures, to accelerate the implementation ofGATT’s methods of valuing trade, and to worktoward lowering non-tariff barriers will alsostimulate trade and create jobs in this regionand beyond.

ASEAN countries have played an impor-tant role over the past year in advancing theprotection of intellectual property rights. ThePhilippines, Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnamhave strengthened their IPR legislation andenforcement or beefed up international coop-eration to combat IPR violation. We now facethe challenge of ensuring these new provisionsare carried out fully.

Civil aviation is another arena that willbenefit from liberalization. We have seen OpenSkies agreements as much as double travelbetween nations. In the past four months, theUnited States has concluded Open Skiesagreements with Singapore, New Zealand,Brunei, and Malaysia. I hope these pioneeringefforts will prepare the way for a broader OpenSkies regime in Asia and around the world.

Of course, it takes more than trade agree-ments to build a stable and open globaleconomy. All the nations represented here haveseen that transparent and strong legal systemsare critical to sustain the confidence of inves-tors, producers, and workers.

The consensus for open markets is fragile.To strengthen it, we must do more to lift thestifling hand of corruption from our economies.Last year, Secretary Christopher urged that thefight against illicit payments be a priority forthe nations of ASEAN and the world. Sincethen, the United States has worked through the

UN, the OECD, and the WTO to combat andcriminalize corruption. Let us continue to worktogether bilaterally and through APEC to raisestandards and encourage transparency.

Among our people, the consensus for freetrade also rests on an expectation that corelabor standards will be met. It is in our interestto see workers everywhere enjoy the benefits ofthose rights—such as freedom of associationand freedom from child and forced labor—thatwe have all accepted. More and more corpora-tions, too, are finding that codes of conductmake for good business and good citizenship. Ihope ASEAN governments will accelerate thistrend by encouraging their companies to signthe Model Business Principles that the UnitedStates introduced last year at the InternationalLabor Organization.

Meeting Transnational Threats

I am very pleased that ASEAN has added adiscussion of transnational issues to its agenda.Problems such as drug trafficking and defores-tation threaten us all as much as protectionismand recession do. They represent a particularchallenge in Southeast Asia, where integrationamong nations has proceeded even faster thanchange within nations.

Nothing has done more to harm the healthof our people and their faith in government andlaw than the epidemic of drug addiction. TheAmerican people have suffered tremendouslyfrom this plague. I know that the people ofSoutheast Asia have as well. I know that thespread of cheap heroin and the recent influx ofmethamphetamines have spared no nation inASEAN. We have to attack this problem at alllevels—production, transportation, andconsumption.

The primary source of these drugs isBurma, which is itself experiencing an alarmingrise in drug abuse and AIDS infection. Narcot-ics production has grown in Burma year afteryear, defying every international effort to solvethe problem. As a result, drug traffickers whoonce spent their days leading mule trains downjungle tracks are now leading lights in Burma’snew market economy and leading figures in itsnew political order.

We are increasingly concerned thatBurma’s drug traffickers, with official encour-agement, are laundering their profits throughBurmese banks and companies—some of whichare joint ventures with foreign businesses. Drugmoney has become so pervasive in Burma thatit taints legitimate investment and threatens theregion as a whole. This is a challenge we mustface together—and another reminder that it willbe hard to do normal business in Burma until aclimate of law is restored to that country.


Indeed, it is hard to imagine a lastingsolution to this region’s narcotics problemwithout a lasting solution to Burma’s politicalcrisis. This is one reason why President Clintonhas barred future U.S. investment in thecountry.

Other nations in this region are showingwhat can be done when governments andcitizens work together to fight the drug trade.Thailand’s program of crop eradication andinterdiction has dramatically cut heroinproduction and increased the number oftraffickers brought to justice at home andabroad.

And in Laos, a U.S.-supported alternativecrop project in one province has reduced opiumcultivation to non-commercial levels. We planto sponsor more such programs in Laos andelsewhere. We urge others to contribute bystrengthening legal frameworks, criminalizingmoney laundering, and sponsoring efforts todeny traffickers freedom of operation.

With economies whose growth oftenoutpaces government efforts at regulation,ASEAN nations are vulnerable to criminalslooking for a place to operate or a place to hide.Because international criminals respect no lawor border, it is in every nation’s interest to fightthem together.

We must also strike hard together againstterrorism. We are making progress: Thenumber of attacks worldwide in 1996 hit a 25-year low. But far too many lives are still beinglost. And terrorism still fosters destruction anddivision that undermine what we seek toachieve through our diplomatic and economiccooperation. I trust the members of ASEAN willcontinue to stand with us in this fight byratifying the 11 existing anti-terrorism agree-ments and turning the full weight of theirauthority against all terrorist activity.

Environmental threats such as deforesta-tion, coral reef degradation, and global climatechange could also undermine ASEAN’s future.They could even alter the contours of our mapsin the none-too-distant future.

The difference between action and inactionmay be the difference between sustainableagriculture and failing agriculture; betweenstable societies and societies in conflict overdwindling resources; between nations in whichthe quality of life is improving and nations inwhich fewer and fewer people can look to thefuture with hope.

The United States is committed to makingenvironmental cooperation a central part of ourcooperation with ASEAN states. That is why wehave opened a regional environmental hub inour embassy in Bangkok, and why we areworking on projects from controlling emissionsin the Philippines to building wind generatorsin Indonesia.

As you know, we are staunch proponentsof the UN-sponsored negotiations to slow theprocess of global climate change. There is noquestion that the world’s wealthiest economieshave contributed the lion’s share of the green-house gases that threaten us right now. Wehave a moral and political responsibility toact—and act fast. That is why last month, in hisspeech to the UN General Assembly SpecialSession, President Clinton undertook to “bringto the Kyoto conference a strong Americancommitment to realistic and binding limits thatwill significantly reduce our emissions.”

That is why we are also leading the way innegotiations to apply innovative strategies tocut greenhouse gas levels, such as selling ortrading emission rights, supporting newtechnologies, and rewarding countries thatprovide assistance to others.

But the same science that tells us that todaythe United States is responsible for 22% of theworld’s carbon emissions also tells us that inthe next 30 years, developing world emissionswill surpass those of the developed world. Therapidly industrializing countries of Asia, withtheir increasing need for electrical power, willbe major contributors.

We are all wiser than we were a generationor two ago. If we each take our turn to pollutethe world, we will each pay a terrible price. Justas you cannot erase a budget deficit by cuttingspending in one area and piling up loanssomewhere else, we will not be able to sustainsafe levels of greenhouse gases without actionby developed and developing countries alike.

For the balance of this century, no decisionwe make will have a greater impact on thefuture of the global economy, not to mentionthe global environment, than the one we willmake in Kyoto. We have to do it right. We haveto do it cooperatively. We all have to do it.

And here ASEAN has another shiningopportunity for leadership, because you havethe know-how, the proven skills at innovationand adaptation, that will help us find thetechnologies we all need for greener develop-ment. I urge you to take up the challenge and towork with the United States and others to crafta global consensus that will safeguard thenature preserves of Borneo, the islands of theMergui Archipelago, and the livelihoods of ourchildren and grandchildren.

I congratulate ASEAN for all it hasachieved in strengthening regional cooperationin these areas and in reaching out to othersbeyond this region who share the same interestsand the same fundamental goals. I pledge toyou my best efforts, and those of the UnitedStates, to ensure we keep moving forwardtogether. ■


Deputy Secretary Talbott

A Farewell to Flashman: AmericanPolicy in the Caucasus andCentral AsiaJuly 21, 1997

Address at the Johns Hopkins School of AdvancedInternational Studies, Baltimore, Maryland.

Thank you very much, Fred [Starr], andthanks to you, too, Paul [Wolfowitz]. I‘vefollowed the institute’s work since it openedup shop 10 months ago. In that short time, ithas become a major source of scholarship andpublic education. You have already made animportant contribution to the Americannational interest in the Caucasus and CentralAsia.

That region is opening up and reaching outto us and to the other established democracies.Let me illustrate that point with an image froma scene I witnessed almost exactly two weeksago. It was in Madrid, at a meeting of the 44countries that make up the new Euro-AtlanticPartnership Council. President Clinton foundhimself seated between the Prime Minister ofthe United Kingdom and the Foreign Ministerof Uzbekistan, and directly across from theForeign Minister of Armenia and the Presidentof Azerbaijan. The protocol may have been anaccident of the alphabet, but it was symbolicallyappropriate, nonetheless.

The Euro-Atlantic community is evolvingand expanding. It stretches to the west side ofthe Atlantic and to the east side of the Urals.The emergence of such a community representsa profound break with the past for all thepeople involved, but for none more than thoseof the Caucasus and Central Asia, who have,for so much of their history, been subjected toforeign domination.

Today, they have the chance to put behindthem forever the experience of being pawns ona chess board as big powers vie for wealth andinfluence at their expense. For them, genuineindependence, prosperity, and security aremutually reinforcing goals.

The United States has a stake in theirsuccess. If reform in the nations of the Caucasusand Central Asia continues and ultimatelysucceeds, it will encourage similar progress in

the other New Independent States of the formerSoviet Union, including in Russia and Ukraine.It will contribute to stability in a strategicallyvital region that borders China, Turkey, Iran,and Afghanistan and that has growing eco-nomic and social ties with Pakistan and India.The consolidation of free societies, at peacewith themselves and with each other, stretchingfrom the Black Sea to the Pamir mountains, willopen up a valuable trade and transport corridoralong the old Silk Road between Europe withAsia.

The ominous converse is also true. Ifeconomic and political reform in the countriesof the Caucasus and Central Asia does notsucceed—if internal and cross-border conflictssimmer and flare—the region could become abreeding ground of terrorism, a hotbed ofreligious and political extremism, and abattleground for outright war.

It would matter profoundly to the UnitedStates if that were to happen in an area that sitson as much as 200 billion barrels of oil. That isyet another reason why conflict resolution mustbe job one for U.S. policy in the region: It is boththe prerequisite for and an accompaniment toenergy development.

Let me review very briefly what hashappened in the 5 1/2 years since the hammer-and-sickle flag was lowered for the last timeover the Kremlin—and over governmentbuildings throughout the former U.S.S.R.Thanks to the prompt and farsighted responseof the Bush Administration, we were the firstcountry to open embassies in every capital. Weairlifted essential humanitarian assistance tothese countries in their first winters of indepen-dence.

By the way, it was at Paul Wolfowitz’sinsistence, when he was at the Pentagon, thatthe U.S. established Defense Attache offices atthese embassies. And it was at his behest thatthe first military-to-military contacts took place.


In the 4 1/2 years since the Clinton Adminis-tration came into office, our message to thestates of the region has been simple: As long asthey move in the direction of political andeconomic freedom, of national and interna-tional reconciliation, we will be with them.That is what President Clinton told EduardShevardnadze of Georgia last Friday. It is whatVice President Gore told Askar Akayev ofKyrgyzstan earlier in the week. It is whatPresident Clinton will tell President Aliyevnext week. And it is the message that the FirstLady will carry directly to the people andgovernments of Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, andUzbekistan this fall.

Our support has four dimensions: thepromotion of democracy, the creation of freemarket economies, the sponsorship of peaceand cooperation within and among the coun-tries of the region, and their integration withthe larger international community. Over thecourse of the past year, we have broadened anddeepened our engagement with the region ineach of these areas. Let me take them one at atime.

First, is democracy: The requisite institu-tions and attitudes—rule of law, civilian controland parliamentary oversight of the military,and respect for human rights—are not, to put itmildly, deeply rooted in the region. The verynewness of democracy is itself a major obstacleto the process of democratization. After at leastseven decades of being ruled from Russia—and in some cases much longer than that—these states were, when they gained theirindependence overnight on Christmas Day1991, ill-prepared for the challenge of modernstatehood. Many observers asserted that of the12 New Independent States that emerged fromthe U.S.S.R., the eight of Central Asia and theCaucasus would be the least likely to survive.

President Shevardnadze has been particu-larly courageous in proving that pessimismwrong and in warning us—during his twovisits to Washington—to make sure it is notself-fulfilling. The Georgian elections in 1995were the first in the region that internationalobservers judged to be free and fair.

Elsewhere, the picture is mixed.Kyrgyzstan is the only Central Asian state tohave held an open, multi-candidate presidentialelection, but the government has launchedcriminal proceedings against some of its critics.Other states have committed serious violationsof their citizens’ human rights.

For our part, the United States has workedwith international organizations like the OSCE,as well as with non-governmental organiza-tions like the National Democratic Institute andthe International Republican Institute toprovide training and assistance to nascentpolitical parties. We have also supported a

wide range of home-grown NGOs, such as anassociation for the defense of women’s rights inAzerbaijan, a Young Lawyers’ Association inGeorgia, and the Association of Youth Leadersin Kazakstan. All the while, we have spokenout publicly about human rights abuses andflaws in the democratic process, such as theshortcomings in the elections in Azerbaijan twoyears ago and in Armenia last fall.

In promoting democracy, we make thecase that it is a condition for lasting economicprogress. Only if the citizenry and the growingprivate sectors in these states have a say in thepolicies of the governmentwill reform have the neces-sary backing; and only ifthese countries develop therule of law will they attractthe foreign investment theyso desperately need.

As in politics, somestates have proceeded morerapidly than others in theeconomic realm. Armeniaand Georgia deserve a lot ofcredit, literally and figura-tively. Both lack mineralwealth and have been caughtup in serious regional con-flicts. Yet they have beenpace-setters in fiscal stabili-zation, privatization, andprogress toward real growth.

In Central Asia,Kyrgyzstan and Kazakstanreached that last milestone—real growth—in1996. Other countries, however, have yet to takethe most difficult steps toward building amarket economy. Our goal is to help them inthat direction. Since 1992, the U.S. has obligatedmore than $2.2 billion in overall assistance tothe eight states of the Caucasus and CentralAsian region. Initially, much of this aid wasdirected at pressing humanitarian needs. Wehave also been a major donor to refugeeprograms throughout the area.

But we are now shifting our focus in theregion from humanitarian to developmentassistance. That is the priority in the plan wehave submitted to Congress for expandedassistance programs within the NIS in FY 1998.We are asking Congress to increase our assis-tance by 34%, to $900 million. These additionalresources will allow us to increase our supportfor democratic and economic reform in CentralAsia and the Caucasus by more than 40%. Evenin straightened budgetary times, that is aprudent investment in our nation’s future.

But there are obviously limits to what wecan do ourselves. That is why, in our supportfor reform in the Caucasus and Central Asia,

“. . .Our message to thestates of the region hasbeen simple: As longas they move in thedirection of political

and economicfreedom, of nationaland international

reconciliation,we will be with them."


we have been close partners with the majorinternational financial institutions (IFIs).Working through the IFIs allows us to leverageour scarce aid dollars with those of the interna-tional community.

American assistance has helped Kazakstanand Kyrgyzstan implement one of the mostmodern and transparent tax reform laws in theNIS, and we have helped Kazakstan andArmenia with ambitious privatization pro-grams. We have also aided Kyrgyzstan inestablishing a stock market. Throughout theregion, we’re encouraging the states there toestablish ties with the World Bank, Interna-tional Monetary Fund, the Council of Europe,the European Union, and other internationalfinancial and political institutions. We hope towelcome Armenia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, andKazakstan into the World Trade Organization—on the commercial terms generally applied tonew members—before the end of 1998. We havesupported the efforts by states in the region todevelop a Eurasian transportation corridor, toeliminate trade barriers among them, and tocreate a region-wide market through theCentral Asian Free Economic Zone.

Meanwhile, we are also providing fundingand technical advice to help the nations of theCaucasus and Central Asia overcome anothergrim legacy of Soviet rule—environmentaldegradation, such as the disaster that hasbefallen the Aral Sea. This summer, we willopen a regional environmental office inTashkent to coordinate our environmentalefforts in Central Asia. We are advocatingsimilar regional approaches to transnationalissues like weapons proliferation, drug traffick-ing, and organized crime.

Let me turn now to the security dimensionof our engagement in the Caucasus and CentralAsia. This September, the Central AsianPeacekeeping Battalion—made up of armedforces from Kazakstan, Uzbekistan, andKyrgyzstan—will host troops from the UnitedStates, Russia, Turkey, and other nations in ajoint peacekeeping exercise. These units willpractice together their skills in minesweepingand distributing humanitarian aid. The imageof American, Russian, and Turkish troopsparticipating together—very much on the sameside—in combating threats to the stability andsecurity of the region is worth keeping in mindwhen listening to conventional wisdom abouthow the region is heading back to the future.

For the last several years, it has beenfashionable to proclaim, or at least to predict, areplay of the ”Great Game” in the Caucasusand Central Asia. The implication, of course, isthat the driving dynamic of the region, fueledand lubricated by oil, will be the competition ofthe great powers to the disadvantage of thepeople who live there.

Our goal is to avoid and to actively dis-courage that atavistic outcome. In ponderingand practicing the geopolitics of oil, let’s makesure that we are thinking in terms appropriateto the 21st century and not the 19th. Let’s leaveRudyard Kipling and George McDonald Fraserwhere they belong—on the shelves of historicalfiction. The Great Game—which starredKipling’s Kim and Fraser’s Flashman—wasvery much of the zero-sum variety. What wewant to help bring about is just the opposite:We want to see all responsible players in theCaucasus and Central Asia be winners.

An essential step in that direction is theresolution of conflicts within and betweencountries and people in the region. In the lastcentury, internal instability and divisionprovided a pretext for foreign intervention andadventurism. In the last decade, since thebreakup of the U.S.S.R., several such conflictshave erupted again. Let me touch on three andon what the United States and the internationalcommunity are doing to help resolve them.

The first is the war over Nagorno-Karabakh. Even though the guns are, for themoment, silent, the fighting of the past decadehas displaced nearly 800,000 Azeris. That’s over10% of the population of Azerbaijan. While thecease-fire is welcome, it is also precarious, andthe absence of real peace has hurt bothAzerbaijan and Armenia.

The United States, through its involvementin the OSCE, is determined to help find asolution in Nagorno-Karabakh—a solution that,by definition, will require difficult compro-mises on all sides. This is an effort in which I’vebeen personally involved for over four years,particularly in recent months.

Along with Russia and France, the UnitedStates is conducting an OSCE initiative underthe auspices of the so-called Minsk Conference.I traveled to the region at the end of May, andLynn Pascoe, our special envoy, has been backthere in the last several days. The U.S., Russian,and French co-chairs have achieved an extraor-dinary degree of harmony. That solidarityseems to have induced some flexibility amongthe three parties to the conflict.

But there are still plenty of obstacles tofurther progress. One of those is domestic—wehave inflicted it on ourselves. I am referring toSection 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act,which limits our ability to provide assistance tothe Government of Azerbaijan. This legislation,written in 1992, was intended to help Armeniaovercome an Azerbaijani embargo. But it hashad the negative effect of limiting our leveragewith Baku and complicating our ability to be aseffective as we could otherwise be as an honestbroker. It has also made it impossible for us to


provide the Azerbaijanis with assistance onelections, economic reform, energy develop-ment, and in other areas where it is in ournational interest to do so—hence our oppositionto Section 907. I suspect you’ll be hearing moreon the subject when President Aliyev arriveshere next week.

There is, of course, another conflict in theCaucasus, about which we heard a great dealfrom President Shevardnadze last week. This isthe one in Abkhazia. President Clinton toldPresident Shevardnadze that the United Statesis prepared to intensify its diplomatic efforts onbehalf of a United Nations-backed settlement.

As for the five-year-old civil war inTajikistan, that situation remains fragile anddangerous. We have provided funding for theUN-brokered peace process, and we welcomedthe signing last month of a comprehensivepeace accord in Moscow. We are prepared toprovide aid for demobilization, start-upassistance for political parties, and preparationfor new elections. The difficulties in implemen-tation are sobering, but the recent accord offersa real opportunity for reconciliation not onlywithin Tajikistan but with benefits for thesurrounding countries as well.

That is the more general point to which Iwould like now to turn: The big states thatborder the eight nations of the Caucasus andCentral Asia have much to gain from regionalpeace and much to lose from regional conflict.Some would say that is self-evident, but otherswould say it is ”ahistorical” in that it disregardsthe inevitable and irresistible temptation of theGreat Powers to replay the great game for theprize of oil and gas from the Caspian Basin.

Overcoming old prejudices and predisposi-tions from the era of Lt. Harry Flashman needsto be a constant theme in our own diplomacyin the region, and we are using our good officesto that end. On all my trips to or from theCaucasus, I’ve made a point of stopping inAnkara. The Turks are making major invest-ments in Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan and aredeveloping trading relationships with the entireregion.

Turkey’s increased attention and activismhas been a source of solace and support to thosewho rightly worry about the projection ofIranian influence. But many Russians see theTurkish role differently. They worry thatTurkey’s growing involvement in the regionmight cut them off from the former Sovietrepublics.

Russia, of course, is the target of concernitself for reasons rooted in history, includingvery recent history. Under Czars and commis-

sars alike, Russia’s leaders in the past seemedcapable of feeling strong, secure, and proudonly if others felt weak, insecure, and humili-ated.

Today there are still plenty of questions—and, among Russia’s neighbors, plenty ofanxieties—about how Moscow will handle itsrelations with the other members of the CIS.Whether that grouping of states survives willdepend in large measure on whether it evolvesin a way that vindicates its name; that is,whether it develops as a genuine common-wealth of genuinely independent states. If itgoes in another direction—if its largest membertries to make ”commonwealth” into a euphe-mism for domination of its neighbors—then theCIS will deserve to join that other set of initials,U.S.S.R., on the ash heap of history.

President Clinton has addressed thisquestion frequently over the past four years:”How will Russia define its role as a greatpower?” He asks: ”In yesterday’s terms, ortomorrow’s?” Russia, he has said, has ”. . . achance to show that a great power can promotepatriotism without expansionism; that a greatpower can promote national pride withoutnational prejudice . . . the measure of Russia’sgreatness in the future will be whether the bigneighbor can be the good neighbor.”

One of the watchwords of our dialoguewith Russia is integration—the right kind ofintegration. Integration means that the doors—and benefits—of international institutions willbe open to Russia as long as Russia stays on apath of reform, including in the way it conductsits relations with its neighbors, and that meansthe way it defines integration in the context ofthe CIS.

As I indicated at the outset, that is conso-nant with the message we are conveying to allthe New Independent States, notably includingthose of the Caucasus and Central Asia. Webelieve that our presence and influence in theregion can itself be a force for the right kind ofintegration.

Let me close by stressing that support forreform, democracy, economic development,and integration in that vitally important regionis not just a task for the U.S. Government oreven for governments in general. Ultimatesuccess will also depend upon the efforts ofnon-governmental organizations and busi-nesses like those represented by many of youhere today. And it will require the kind of clearthinking, new ideas, and constructive criticismthat this institute has generated in its first yearof existence—some of which I look forward tohearing from you right now. Thank you verymuch. ■


Stuart Eizenstat

United States Trade With AsiaJune 18, 1997

Statement by the Under Secretary for Economic and BusinessAffairs before the Senate Commerce, Science, and TransportationCommittee, Washington, DC.

Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunityto testify before you on Asian trade issues andthose concerning China, in particular. I person-ally look forward to a close relationship withthis committee in my new capacity at the StateDepartment on the full range of internationaleconomic policy issues under the committee’sjurisdiction.

Asia is undergoing breathtaking economicexpansion, with annual growth rates averaging5%, approaching double-digit levels in someAsian countries. It is the most lucrative terrainin the world for American exports and jobs—and, therefore, its commercial vigor reinforcesour own. All of America’s global interests—security, economic, environmental, narcotics,terrorism, and human rights—are front andcenter in Asia.

Asia presents some of the most criticaleconomic and trade policy challenges in thenext century for the U.S. Government andprivate sector alike. Asia is particularly impor-tant as a market for U.S. exports, which havegrown by an average of 13% a year from 1992to 1996. U.S. two-way trade with Asia issimilarly impressive, exceeding our two-waywith Europe by a substantial margin—35% vs.24% of total U.S. two-way trade with the world.

At the same time, however, the U.S. hadtrade deficits with most of the key Asiancountries in 1996; the deficits with Japan andChina alone accounted for nearly half the totalU.S. trade deficit last year. We want to addressthe structural barriers that contribute to thosedeficits. Consequently, the United States shouldcontinue to press our partners to reducebarriers to U.S. goods and services in thisvitally important region, which already ac-counts for over 30% of total U.S. merchandiseexports. We seek to further anchor the UnitedStates in Asia through growing U.S. exportsand investment in key technologies and sectors.An open and transparent international tradingand investment system is essential if U.S.companies are to compete on a level playingfield in Asia and elsewhere around the world.

Following World War II, we allowed anasymmetrical relationship to take hold with ourtrading partners in developing countries. At thetime it made sense. We turned a blind eye tocertain anti-competitive behaviors and condi-tions such as monopolies and cartelization andpermitted them market access while they builtup their infant industries.

Our new philosophy recognizes that thesedays are over. While we should and willcontinue to give special treatment to certainpoor developing countries—for example,through the Generalized System of Preferencesand the Caribbean Basin Initiative—we areemploying a new approach to a whole range ofcountries in Latin America and the Asian tigerswho are at a stage of development wherepreferential treatment and anti-competitive andtrade restricting practices can no longer betolerated. We need to press these countries tocome up to our standards for market access. Wesimply will not sign multilateral agreementswithout a critical mass of such developingcountries who make genuine market openingproposals within a reasonable period of time.Trade must be seen by Americans as a two-waystreet, or we will not be able to sustain apolitical consensus for further liberalization.We adopted this approach with the Asiancountries during the negotiations last year onthe Information Technology and Basic Telecom-munications Agreements in the World TradeOrganization (WTO), and we are doing thesame this year in the WTO Financial Servicesnegotiations.

Asia-Pacific EconomicCooperation (APEC)

Asian countries’ commitments to coopera-tive approaches translates into support for theWTO, ASEAN Free Trade Area, and for theAPEC forum. APEC is a pivotal part of ourefforts to create free and open markets and toreduce trade barriers between Asian and PacificRim countries. It includes the fastest-growingeconomies of the world, largely emerging


economies with a total of nearly three billionpeople. We estimate that reaching the ambi-tious goal of free and open trade and invest-ment within APEC by 2020 would increaseU.S. exports alone by 27% annually—or almost$50 billion a year—once the goal has beenachieved.

We are working closely with APECcountries to identify sectors for early liberaliza-tion in the region. Chemicals, wood, andenvironmental goods and services are amongthe early candidates for APEC action. TheUnited States introduced this year a set ofbenchmarks or best practices for each of the 14individual action plan sectors/areas in whichAPEC members committed to remove barriers.These benchmarks are transparent guidelines toassess the degree to which APEC members aremeeting APEC’s free trade and investmentgoals. We will be aggressively monitoring othermembers’ implementation of their IndividualAction Plans using these benchmarks.

In addition to these regional liberalizationefforts, we are moving to rally APEC supportfor global trade liberalization initiatives. Lastyear, APEC leaders’ endorsement of the WorldTrade Organization Information Technologyand the Basic Telecommunications Agreementspaved the way for concluding global negotia-tions on both agreements shortly afterward. Weintend to follow the same approach this yearwith the WTO financial services agreement,since APEC members again play a critical rolein assuring the conclusion of a successfulagreement by the December deadline.

APEC and ASEAN provide the regionalcontext for our efforts to expand trade withAsian and Pacific countries. These organiza-tions help forge common approaches tocommon challenges. Much of our work, though,is still handled bilaterally.

Japan

Japan is our second-largest trading partner,following only Canada; in 1996, our bilateraltrade deficit was higher than with any othercountry. The trade deficit with Japan andJapan’s overall current account surplus haslong concerned us. While both declined in 1996,they are projected to rise significantly in 1997due in part to the weaker yen and the JapaneseGovernment’s budget deficit reduction policy.President Clinton and Prime MinisterHashimoto agreed at their meeting in April onthe need to promote strong, domestic demand-led growth in Japan and avoid a significantincrease in Japan’s external surplus.

Overregulation of Japan’s economy hasslowed growth and limited market access tonew entrants, foreign and domestic. Conse-quently, the U.S. has pressed Japan to follow

through on its stated commitment to deregulatethe economy. President Clinton and PrimeMinister Hashimoto also agreed in April to setup a process to enhance the U.S.-Japan dialogueon deregulation issues. We are discussing nextsteps on deregulation with the Japanese. Thisdialogue should produce concrete measuresthat will liberalize the Japanese economy andexpand market access for U.S. and other foreignfirms. We will also continue to monitor closelyJapan’s implementation of the 23 agreements ne-gotiated in this Administrationdesigned to improve marketaccess for U.S. firms.

Korea

Korea’s economic growthover the last 30 years has madeU.S.-Korean bilateral economicrelations extremely important.Once a key recipient of U.S.assistance, Korea is now ourseventh-largest trading partnerand our fifth-largest exportmarket. Although we are nowrunning a trade surplus withKorea, U.S. exports in sectorssuch as automobiles and tele-communications still face seri-ous obstacles. We expect to con-sult soon with the Korean Gov-ernment on ways to expandthe insignificant level of U.S.car sales in one of the fastest-growing markets in the world. We are holdingtalks as we speak with the Korean Government onincreasing market access for U.S. telecommunica-tions firms. We also have raised our concernsabout the anti-import aspects of Korea’s “frugal-ity campaign” with the Korean Government di-rectly and through both the WTO and the OECD.We are encouraged by recent Korean Govern-ment actions to address our concerns, including astrong public statement affirming Korea’s com-mitment to the international trading system.

China

But of all our challenges in Asia, none ismore important or complex than developingour relationship with China, the most populouscountry in not only Asia but the world. AsSecretary Albright has said, “there is no greateropportunity—or challenge—in Americanforeign policy today than to encourage China’sintegration into the international system as afully responsible member.” China’s emergence

“We estimate thatreaching the ambitiousgoal of free and opentrade and investment

within APEC by 2020would increase U.S.

exports alone by 27%annually—or almost

$50 billion ayear—once the goal has

been achieved."


as a global power is a development ofimmense, historic significance, both to theUnited States and the world. The People’sRepublic of China is, of course, already a keyregional power in Asia, and its high rate ofeconomic growth means we must assume itwill become still more important. But withpower must come responsibility—responsi-bility for acting according to internationalnorms in human rights, proliferation, tradeand commerce, and the resolution of politicaldisputes. Bringing China more an ally intothe international economic system, includingits rules, standards, and institutions, benefitsus as a nation and average Americans asworkers, consumers, and citizens.

China shares borders with more coun-tries—14—than any other in the world, andhas unresolved border issues with four. It hasa territorial dispute with Japan in the EastChina Sea and with several countries in theSouth China Sea. From the Korean Peninsulato the Spratly Islands, China is a key factor inthe stability of the Asia-Pacific region.

In short, China is already a country ofcritical significance to the United States andto our allies and key trading partners, and islikely to become still more important in theyears ahead. Its role could be helpful orharmful, and it is the task of Americandiplomacy to help ensure that it is the former.The manner in which we engage China willhave an important bearing on whether itbecomes integrated into international normsand institutions or whether it becomes anisolated, unpredictable, and disruptive forcein the world. Few developments will have agreater effect for better or worse on whatkind of world we live in during the nextcentury. We must avoid taking actions thatwill have the effect of isolating China. China,for all of the very real problems we have withits actions, is not our enemy, and we must notact as if it is.

The question that concerns us today,whether to revoke China’s MFN status, willhave a crucial effect on how we conduct ourpolicy toward China. Is there any reason tobelieve that China’s conduct on the issuesthat concern us will improve if we deny it thenormal trade benefits virtually every countryon earth receives? Is there any reason tobelieve that we can deal effectively with theissues that concern us by severing our traderelations with China? To ask the question isto answer it. Such a policy assumes we arefated to confront China in the future and thatAmerican diplomacy is helpless to preventthis result.

We do not have the luxury to take such astance. We cannot walk away from engagingChina. American interests would be seriouslydamaged if we were to do so.

MFN is Central to Our Strategy ofComprehensive Engagement

This Administration is committed to astrategy of comprehensive engagement with theP.R.C. in order to achieve our goal of incorporat-ing China into the international system. Americanforeign policy has consistently focused on thisgoal for 25 years, a period embracing the terms ofsix Presidents of both parties. Our policy isdesigned to pursue cooperation where appropri-ate while clearly and directly opposing thoseChinese actions with which we disagree. Wework with the P.R.C. on a number of issues,ranging from alien smuggling and drugs toCambodia and our cooperative efforts to enhancesecurity on the Korean Peninsula. Where we havedifferences, we have worked to change Chinesepolicies, ranging from human rights to prolifera-tion of weapons of mass destruction, using thefull range of tools at our disposal—public andprivate diplomacy, bilateral and multilateraldiscussions, and targeted sanctions when appro-priate. In this regard, we continue to maintainsanctions that were put in place after the suppres-sion of the pro-democracy demonstrations inTiananmen Square in 1989; during the March1996 tension in the Taiwan Strait, we dispatchedtwo aircraft carrier battle groups to avoid amiscalculation; and our willingness to imposesanctions resulted in favorable conclusions todiscussions on textiles shipments and intellectualproperty. Revocation of MFN is far too blunt of aninstrument to advance these policies. Its conse-quences would adversely affect many of ourpolicies. We have a very strong interest in themaintenance of a high degree of autonomy inHong Kong and the preservation of Hong Kong’sbasic freedoms, and we carry on an activedialogue with Beijing on this issue.

MFN is central to this strategy. Access to theAmerican market is the most tangible evidencethere is of the benefits of joining the internationalsystem. MFN—most-favored-nation treatment—does not, of course, in any way suggest that weare bestowing favors on China. It is simplyordinary tariff treatment, the same as we havewith virtually every country in the world.Renewal of MFN must be based on a clear-eyedcalculation of American interests. What is best forAmerican workers, American business, Americanconsumers, and American foreign policy interestsin Asia? On all of these counts, it is in our interestto have a normal trading relationship with China.

By contrast, revocation of MFN wouldreverse a quarter-century of bipartisan Chinapolicy. It would also isolate us from our friends


and allies, every one of which would continuenormal trade with China. In the run-up to thisfall’s Party Congress in Beijing, revocationwould discredit the forces of reform in Beijingand would strengthen those who seek to fill thecountry’s ideological void with a belligerentnationalism. We are unlikely to influenceinternal developments in any country, espe-cially one as large as China, if we are notengaged with it. And MFN is essential to anypolicy of engagement.

Moreover, as I said before, there are only atiny handful of countries with which we do nothave trade or MFN. To include China withthese mostly pariah states would encourageprecisely the opposite of the conduct that wewish to see. Far from helping to integrate Chinainto the international system, such an actionwould send Beijing a message that there is noplace for it in the community of nations. Andthat message could result in a new and damag-ing pattern of conduct on China’s part to thedetriment of the U.S. and the internationalsystem.

Revocation of MFN Would HarmOur Economic and Trade Interests

Termination of normal trade status woulddamage our foreign policy with China acrossthe board and would be directly counterpro-ductive in the area of trade. Large numbers ofour workers and businesses scattered allaround the country benefit from normal tradewith China. Today we have annual exports toChina of $12 billion, directly responsible forsome 170,000 American jobs. These exports andthese jobs would be at risk from China’s certainretaliation to the revocation of MFN.

We already have an impressive record ofachievement on trade issues with China, andmomentum is building for still more successes.In June of last year, we reached an accord onprotection of intellectual property that hasalready advanced our efforts to protect Ameri-can products in some of our strongest exportindustries. Since that agreement, China hasclosed 39 illegal CD factories and establishedhot-lines in southern China offering rewardsthat are worth more than 20 times the averagelocal annual salary in exchange for tips leadingto factory closings. In February, we concludeda textile agreement that provides expandedaccess to the Chinese market for Americantextile producers. During Vice President Gore’strip to China in March, Boeing and GeneralMotors signed major contracts that demonstrateboth the current importance of the Chinesemarket and its vast potential.

China has reinvigorated its negotiations onaccession to the World Trade Organization incertain important areas, and we are makingprogress toward a commercially meaningfulaccession package, although there remains avery long road for China to travel. We havemade clear that a viable accession package willrequire China to cut tariffs, provide access toU.S. services, allow U.S. companies to importand export goods to and from China, andremove quotas and unfair licensing rules. Tomeet WTO requirements, China also will haveto make laws public, require judicial review ofall trade activities, apply all trade laws moreuniformly, and submit to WTO dispute settle-ment to ensure compliance with WTO rules.China’s accession to the WTO under theseterms would open significant new exportopportunities for American firms. It would alsorepresent another milestone in our strategy ofintegrating the P.R.C. into the world commu-nity. Revocation of MFN would halt progressin all these areas and would almost certainlyundo the gains we have so painstakinglyachieved.

Despite the significant progress we havemade, we still face a large trade deficit withChina. The reasons for this deficit are many,including the use of China by other Asiancountries as a processing location for theirown exports. Revoking MFN is not the way toaddress them.

I have personally raised, both privately andpublicly during my trip to China last March,our profound concerns with the trade deficit—last year $39.5 billion. I stressed that it was notsustainable. I believe China better appreciatesthis. It has quadrupled since 1990 and is thesecond-largest in the world. I presented a list ofmajor projects for which U.S. companies werehighly competitive and advocated on theirbehalf. But the most important way to reducetheir unacceptably high deficit is through asound, commercially viable WTO package thatwill open China’s markets to our products. Theway to reduce the trade deficit with China isnot by limiting China’s exports to America,thereby harming our own workers and manu-facturers who depend on Chinese inputs fortheir own products. Rather, it is to remove thebarriers confronting American exports to China.We are pursuing this goal with all the toolsavailable, including WTO accession negotia-tions and our bilateral trade negotiations.

The World Bank estimates that China willinvest $750 billion in infrastructure in the nextdecade. Without a normal trading relationship,American firms would be frozen out of thismarket, to the delight of our competitors. By


increasing the prices of imports, it would alsoadd over $500 million to the shopping bill of theAmerican consumer. Since many Chineseexports are “low end,” low technology goods,lower-income Americans will feel a dispropor-tionate share of that increased bill.

Revocation of MFN Would HurtHong Kong at a Critical Time

In two weeks, Secretary Albright, togetherwith many Members of Congress, will travel toHong Kong for the historic occasion of the

reversion of that colony toChinese sovereignty. Hervisit will emphasize ourstrong support for themaintenance of the rule oflaw in Hong Kong and theprotection of civil libertiesand basic freedoms for thepeople of Hong Kong. Farfrom supporting HongKong, revocation ofChina’s MFN status wouldundermine the basis of theisland’s prosperity.

Hong Kong handlesover 50% of U.S.-Chinatrade, making it highlydependent on the continu-ation of that trade. TheHong Kong Governmentestimates that revocationwould slash trade by $20-$30 billion, eliminate60,000-85,000 jobs, cut itseconomic growth rate by

over 50%, and reduce incomes by $4 billion.Hong Kong’s economic strength is one of

its chief assets in ensuring its autonomy fromBeijing. As Martin Lee recently said, “If theUnited States is concerned about the handover,then the best thing is to assure the communityby making sure nothing dramatic happens toHong Kong. The (Hong Kong) DemocraticParty has always strongly supported renewal ofMFN for China unconditionally. We have neverchanged from that position.” Just last week,Governor Patten wrote to the President that “Tothose of our friends who say that the best wayto help Hong Kong is to attach conditions toChina’s MFN status, or to withdraw it alto-gether we say: `Thanks, but no thanks. If youreally want to help Hong Kong, the best thingyou can do is to renew MFN without condi-tions.’” In short, failing to renew MFN forChina now would hurt Hong Kong just when it

most needs our support. Our other friends inAsia would also suffer, notably Taiwan, whichhas a significant stake in trade and investmentrelations with the P.R.C.

MFN Advances Our Human RightsAgenda

I have already discussed the economicharm we would inflict upon ourselves byfailing to renew MFN. But ending normal traderelations would also harm U.S. interests inmany other ways, including policies aboutwhich we as Americans feel most passionately.Historically, China’s treatment of its ownpeople has always been at its worst when it ismost isolated. Among the darkest hours underthe communist regime, the years of the CulturalRevolution from 1966 to 1976, was also whenthe P.R.C. was most withdrawn from the world.

Today, by contrast, pluralism is increasingin China, and our close economic engagementwith Chinese society is a major engine drivingthis process. Every year, thousands of Chinesevisit this country on business. While here, theyreceive first-hand a dose of the American wayof life: our politics, our economy, and ourpersonal freedoms. Thousands more Chineseemployees of American firms who do not visithere are supervised by American managers,and correspond via e-mail on a daily basis withtheir American counterparts. We would doourselves and the people of China a disserviceby unilaterally reducing this influence.

The lack of progress on toleration ofpolitical dissent cannot be denied. This Admin-istration has been firm and vocal in opposingP.R.C. human rights abuses, and we willcontinue to do so. We also recognize, however,the progress China has made in the past 15years. The average Chinese today enjoys greaterfreedom of choice in terms of employment,education, housing, travel at home and abroad,and greater access to information than everbefore in China’s 4,000 year history. Beijing hasalso begun to pass new criminal and civil lawsdesigned to protect citizens’ rights and bringthe P.R.C. closer to international norms. Finally,in a development that may one day spreadfurther, the P.R.C. is conducting village elec-tions in rural areas, and perhaps half of China’srural population has participated in theseelections. Ambassador James Sasser recentlyobserved one of these elections. As electedofficials yourselves, you know better thananyone the significance of this development,which will put into the minds of Chinese thenotion that the government should be respon-sible to the people for how it conducts itsaffairs.

“Historically, China'streatment of its own

people has always beenat its worst when it is most

isolated. Among thedarkest hours under thecommunist regime, theyears of the Cultural

Revolution from 1966 to 1976,was also when the P.R.C.was most withdrawn from

the world."


Clearly, however, P.R.C. human rightspractices still do not meet international norms,and our bilateral relationship cannot come tofull fruition without progress on this issue. Itcontinues to imprison dissidents for thepeaceful expression of their views. We areconcerned about the maintenance of Tibet’sunique cultural, religious, and linguisticheritage, and we continue to urge Beijing toreopen discussions with the Dalai Lama. Weurge China to provide access to its prisons tointernational humanitarian organizations. Wehave urged it to sign and ratify the UN Cov-enants on Civil and Political Rights and onEconomic, Social, and Cultural Rights. We arepleased by Beijing’s announcement that it willsign the latter covenant and is giving seriousconsideration to the former. We also stress tothe P.R.C. the importance of the freedom topractice religion; in particular, we are disturbedby restrictions on religious freedom, harass-ment of religious groups, including Protestantand Catholic groups, and reports of the destruc-tion of house churches. We note that, nonethe-less, membership in registered and unregis-tered churches continues to grow. We speakfrankly and candidly about these matters in ourhigh-level meetings with the Chinese, and asSecretary Albright insists, we will continue to“tell it like it is.” There is no reason to believe,however, that revocation of MFN would causethe P.R.C. to change any of these policies. Onthe contrary, by lessening outside influence inChinese society, it would remove an importantinfluence for further reform. MFN helps, nothurts, our pursuit of human rights objectives.

The China Service Coordinating Office, anorganization serving more than 100 Christianorganizations in service and witness in China,agrees. It fears revocation of MFN would:

• Close doors for service in China througheducational, cultural, and other exchanges;

• Undermine Hong Kong and Taiwan,thereby hurting Christian outreach to themainland from those islands; and,

• Hurt most exactly those areas wheresocial and political developments are mostpromising.

The China Service Coordinating Office recog-nizes that engagement keeps the door open tocontinued progress on religious freedom inChina and on human rights more generally.

Engagement Strategy Has ProducedResults in Other Areas

Our strategy of engagement has producedimpressive results in other areas as well, and bydisrupting this policy, revocation of MFNwould halt prospects of further progress and

threaten our achievements. We are workingwith China to begin the Four Party Talks to endthe state of war on the Korean Peninsula. Chinawill play a critical role in determining thesuccess of these historic talks.

In the area of non-proliferation, China in1994 agreed to abide by the guidelines andparameters of the Missile Technology ControlRegime. It signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and the Chemical WeaponsConvention. In May of last year, China issuedan important statement that it would notprovide assistance to unsafeguarded nuclearfacilities. We have had useful talks with Beijingon issues involving the export of nucleartechnology and expect further progress as wework toward meeting conditions necessary toimplement our 1985 agreement on uses ofpeaceful nuclear energy.

There are other non-proliferation matterswhere we have been disappointed with theprogress we have made, and we are continuingto work on those areas. We have expressed ourstrong concerns about China’s inadequatecontrols on the export of materials and technol-ogy that can be used in missile developmentand chemical and biological warfare; aboutshipments to Iran by Chinese companies ofdual-use chemicals and equipment that can beused in a weapons program, and about its armssales to Iran and Pakistan. Last month, weimposed sanctions on Chinese individuals andcompanies that were providing assistance toIran’s chemical weapons program. We willcontinue to take appropriate action in the futureagainst such violations of our laws.

Our strategy has also achieved a reductionof tensions in the Taiwan Strait. In March 1996,the President dispatched two carrier battlegroups to the area in response to the P.R.C.missile exercise in the Strait. At the same time,we reaffirmed our commitment to the threecommuniques and our support for the peacefulunification of Taiwan with the mainland. Ouractions reassured Asia and the world of ourcommitment to the peaceful resolution of theTaiwan issue. Tensions in the Strait havesubsided since our action, and, for the firsttime, some direct commercial shipping hasrecently opened between Taiwan and themainland.

In the environmental field, our two govern-ments have increased cooperation by establish-ing the U.S.-China Environment and Develop-ment Forum. Vice President Gore inauguratedthe forum during his recent visit to China. Theforum has set an ambitious agenda for collabo-ration in four areas: energy policy, environmen-


tal policy, science for sustainable development,and commercial cooperation. The combinedefforts of our two Environmental ProtectionAgencies have already resulted in China’srecent decision to eliminate the use of leadedgasoline and in the undertaking of joint studieson the health effects of air pollution.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me bevery clear about this vote. The vote on renewalof MFN is most assuredly not a vote endorsingChina’s policies. Everyone of us opposes many

of the practices and policies of the P.R.C. Thisvote is about American national interests. It isabout the kind of international environmentthat the United States is constructing for the21st century. It is about advancing our concernson human rights. It is about working togetherwith China to protect the environment that weall share. It is about good jobs for Americanworkers, lower prices for American consumers,and a huge market for American businesses. Itis about, Mr. Chairman, continuing to conduct afirm, forceful, patient, and diligent diplomacythat advances our national interests, rather thanthrowing up our hands and turning away,heedless of the consequences. ■


TREATY ACTIONSMULTILATERAL

Chemical WeaponsConvention on the prohibition of the develop-ment, production, stockpiling, and use ofchemical weapons and on their destruction,with annexes. Done at Paris Jan. 13, 1993.[Senate] Treaty Doc. 103-21. Entered into forceApr. 29, 1997.Signature: Suriname, Apr. 28, 1997.Ratifications: Cuba, Apr. 19, 1997;1 Singapore,May 21, 1997; Slovenia, June 11, 1997;Suriname, Apr. 28, 1997; Turkey, May 12, 1997.

ChildrenConvention on the protection of children andcooperation in respect of intercountry adoption.Done at The Hague May 29, 1993. Entered intoforce May 1, 1995.2

Acceptance: Finland, Mar. 17, 1997.

Convention on the rights of the child. Done atNew York Nov. 20, l989. Entered into forceSept. 2, 1990.2

Accession: Cook Islands, June 6, 1997.

North Atlantic TreatyAgreement to amend the agreement of Aug. 3,1959, as amended, to supplement the agreementbetween the parties to the North Atlantic Treatyregarding the status of their forces with respectto foreign forces stationed in the FederalRepublic of Germany. Done at Bonn May 18,1994.3

Ratification: France, May 27, 1997.

Agreement among the states parties to theNorth Atlantic Treaty and other states partici-pating in the Partnership for Peace regardingthe status of their forces. Done at BrusselsJune 19, 1995. Entered into force Jan. 13, 1996.

Additional protocol to the agreement amongthe states parties to the North Atlantic Treatyand the other states participating in the Partner-ship for Peace regarding the status of theirforces. Done at Brussels June 19, 1995. Enteredinto force June 1, 1996.3Ratification: Georgia, May 19, 1997.

BILATERAL

BangladeshUSAID strategic objective agreement forreduced fertility and increased family health.Signed at Dhaka May 9, 1997. Entered into forceMay 9, 1997.

GuyanaAgreement regarding the reduction andreorganization of certain debts owed to,guaranteed by, or insured by the United StatesGovernment and its agencies, with annexes.Signed at Georgetown Mar. 27, 1997. Enteredinto force June 6, 1997.

IsraelAgreement amending the memorandum ofagreement concerning the tactical high energylaser (THEL) advanced concept technologydemonstration (ACTD). Signed at Tel Aviv andWashington Apr. 20 and May 2, 1997. Enteredinto force May 2, 1997.

MongoliaAgreement concerning cooperation in theGlobal Learning and Observations to Benefitthe Environment (GLOBE) Program, withappendices. Signed at Ulaanbaatar May 6, 1997.Entered into force May 6, 1997.

NepalAgreement relating to the employment ofdependents of official government employees.Effected by exchange of notes at WashingtonDec. 19, 1996 and May 13, 1997. Entered intoforce May 13, 1997.

New ZealandAir transport agreement, with annexes. Signedat Washington June 18, 1997. Entered into forceJune 18, 1997.

PakistanAir transport agreement, with annexes. Signedat Rawalpindi Apr. 10, 1997. Entered into forceApr. 10, 1997.

PolandAgreement for cooperation in the GlobalLearning and Observations to Benefit theEnvironment (GLOBE) Program, with


International Development, with annexes.Signed at Hanoi Apr. 7, 1997. Entered into forceJune 23, 1997.

YemenAgreement regarding the consolidation andrescheduling of certain debts owed to, guaran-teed by, or insured by the United States Gov-ernment and its agencies, with annexes. Signedat Sanaa Apr. 8, 1997. Entered into force May22, 1997.

1With declaration(s).2Not in force for the U.S.3Not in force. ■

appendices. Signed at Warsaw Apr. 22, 1997.Entered into force Apr. 22, 1997.

SpainMemorandum of understanding on scientificand technological cooperation in the field ofwater resources development. Signed atMadrid May 20, 1997. Entered into force May20, 1997.

VietnamAgreement regarding the consolidation andrescheduling of certain debts owed to,guaranteed by, or insured by the UnitedStates Government and the Agency for

President Clinton Poland: Taking its Place in The ... · July 1997 • U.S. Department of State...

Documents

Transcript of President Clinton Poland: Taking its Place in The ... · July 1997 • U.S. Department of State...