President Mack, President Lowenthal, guests and friends, good afternoon.

Thank you, John Cooke, for that introduction and thanks to the World Affairs Council and the Pacific Council for hosting this event. As much as I love Washington, where the temperature has been averaging about 300 degrees, I am delighted to be here in Los Angeles. This is one of my favorite cities and the home of my distinguished predecessor, Warren Christopher.

I said when I was nominated by the President that I only hoped my heels could fill Secretary Christopher's shoes. Now, six months into the job, I am even more respectful of the responsibilities that go with the office he filled with such dignity and success.

The truth is that I love my job. And the part I love most is working to establish a true dialogue between the people who conduct our foreign policy--that is, among others, me--and the people in whose good name that policy is conducted--that is, among others, you. This dialogue matters because, in our democracy, we can't carry out diplomatic initiatives very well or for very long without your understanding and support. So I am pleased to be here and I encourage you to sit back, digest your lunch, and think of the easiest possible questions to ask after my speech.

This afternoon, I want to talk with you about the opportunity we now have to bring nations on every continent closer together around basic principles of democracy, open markets, law and a commitment to peace. We have this opportunity because past generations of Americans have accepted the mantle of leadership, built alliances to defend freedom, designed institutions to foster prosperity and done honor to timeless values of democracy and human rights. We must remain true to this tradition of leadership if we are to enter the next century strong, respected and at peace; and under the direction of President Clinton, we are.

In Europe, we are striving to realize the age-old dream of a continent united, stable and free. To deter future conflict, NATO has invited new members from among the region's emerging democracies while holding the door open to others. Historic partnerships with Russia and Ukraine have been forged. And nations from throughout the region have come together in Bosnia to implement the Dayton Accords. We do this because it serves our interests, because it keeps faith with the commitments we have made, because it reflects the kind of people we are, and because it is right.

In the Middle East, despite setbacks, the essential logic and structure of the peace process remains. For Israel, for the Palestinians, and for the region, the path to security and prosperity is the path of reconciliation. The United States cannot impose peace, but as President Clinton has made clear, we can and will remain resolute in opposing terror and in supporting those with the courage to pursue peace.

In Latin America and the Caribbean, we are working with our democratic partners to expand commercial ties, achieve social progress, combat the scourge of drugs, and deepen political and economic reforms. We are also working to improve the quality of life on both sides of our 2000-mile-long border with Mexico. As the recent elections indicate, Mexican democracy is thriving, and we are working jointly with its government on issues from law enforcement to clean water to immigration to trade.

In Africa, poverty and disorder remain grave problems, but more and more leaders are adopting policies that produce growth and foster democracy. Last month, President Clinton announced a plan to stimulate commerce, reduce debt, provide technical aid and otherwise help those in Africa who are doing the most to help themselves. We are determined, as we prepare for the next century, that no continent should be left behind.

Finally, we are continuing to build a new and inclusive Pacific community based on stability, shared interests and the rule of law. U.S. objectives in Asia, especially in Southeast Asia, are very much on my mind. Tomorrow, I will leave for Malaysia for the annual meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, better known as ASEAN. While in Kuala Lumpur, and later in Singapore, I will discuss a full range of issues with my regional counterparts. This trip is my third to Asia in the six months I have served as Secretary of State. This reflects the priority we have placed on improving ties throughout the Asia-Pacific.

Our strategy is to work with our many friends in this region of rising powers to ensure stability, build prosperity and promote democracy. Towards the first of these goals, we are fortifying our core alliances. We are maintaining our forward deployment of troops. And we are supporting new multilateral security dialogues such as the ASEAN Regional Forum.

The growing importance of the Forum reflects the fact that, in our era, security in the Asia-Pacific is not a zero sum game. Forum participants include not only the members of ASEAN, but also--among others--the United States, China, Russia, Japan, the European Union, India and Korea. Each has an interest in stability, in seeing disputes resolved peacefully and in avoiding misunderstandings that could lead to armed conflict. While in Kuala Lumpur, I will urge my colleagues to join in supporting measures to reduce the threat posed by nuclear and advanced conventional arms, to cooperate in reducing tensions caused by conflicting claims in the South China Sea and to ensure freedom of navigation in South Pacific sea lanes, through which one-fourth of the world's oceangoing freight is transported. I will also emphasize the value of ASEAN support for efforts to maintain stability on the Korean Peninsula. The Agreed Framework with North Korea, negotiated three years ago under Secretary Christopher's leadership, has frozen and will eventually dismantle North Korea's dangerous nuclear program. But we need the continued support of our Asian and other partners to finance the Framework's implementation.

This backing is especially vital now, as we prepare for potentially historic talks with Seoul, Pyongyang and Beijing for the purpose of achieving permanent peace on the Peninsula. In the meantime, we are continuing to respond positively to a United Nations appeal for food to ease hunger among the North Korean people.

The second essential contributor to a strong and vibrant Pacific community is economic growth. Under President Clinton, we have had great success in using our diplomacy to build prosperity. More than 200 trade agreements have been negotiated, including NAFTA and the Uruguay Round. The resulting increase in exports has created an estimated 1.6 million new American jobs. During this time, we have negotiated 23 market access agreements with Japan alone, and we are working hard to improve market access and protection of intellectual property rights in China.

These accomplishments matter especially to California, which has been America's gateway to the Pacific for more than 150 years. Today, your state accounts for almost one-sixth of U.S. exports, and nine of your top fifteen markets are in Asia. Recent export growth has helped California replace well-paying defense jobs with equally well-paying jobs in high-tech. And it has certainly benefited Los Angeles, with its huge port facility and its status as an unofficial capital of the emerging Pacific Rim.

All of this is to the good, but if growth is to continue, America must continue to open new markets. It is to that end that President Clinton plans to ask Congress for fast-track negotiating authority this fall. The President needs fast track to gain agreements to open up critical sectors of the global economy, such as the one we reached last year on information technology. He will need that authority to pursue new trade agreements and to maintain momentum towards our long term goals of agreeing on a Free Trade Area for the Americas by the year 2005, and of achieving open trade and investment across the Pacific by the following decade. Every President since Ford has had and has used fast-track authority to the benefit of the United States. Extending it now to President Clinton is critical. At stake is the chance to expand trade further and create more American jobs.

At stake, as well, is the indispensable contribution that our economic leadership makes to U.S. influence around the globe. American prestige is not divisible. If we want our views and our interests respected, we cannot sit on the sidelines with towels over our heads while others seize the opportunities presented by the global marketplace. That is why, from a foreign policy perspective, I consider fast-track to be among our highest legislative priorities. And it is why I will be working hard with the President and my cabinet colleagues to gain Congressional Support for it this fall.

Creating the rules for a more open global economy is one challenge; ensuring that those rules are implemented is another. As long as I am Secretary of State, our diplomacy will strive for a global economic system that is increasingly open and fair. Our embassies will provide all appropriate help to American firms. Our negotiators will seek trade agreements that help create new American jobs. And I will personally stress the point--as I have in visits to our principal trading partners--that if countries want to sell to us, they had better allow America to sell to them.

During the meetings this weekend, economic and trade issues will be prominent. ASEAN comprises collectively our fourth largest trading partner and possesses a half trillion dollar regional economy that is expected to double within ten years. It is in our interest to encourage ASEAN to continue opening up markets and liberalizing trade. That is precisely what I will do in Kuala Lumpur, where I will press for better enforcement of intellectual property rights, greater transparency in government procurement and higher standards against bribery and corruption. I will also ask ASEAN's help in reaching a worldwide agreement this year to liberalize financial services.

Throughout our diplomacy, the argument that we make, and that underlies the very concept of ASEAN, is that economic progress is contagious. As recent currency de-valuations in Southeast Asia indicate, the shape and scope of economic expansion will vary country to country and year by year. New competitors will arise and new technologies will be developed. Market shares will wax and wane. But over the long term, the road to prosperity for each is the road to prosperity for all.

Building security and maintaining momentum towards economic growth are two of the goals we will be discussing with our partners in Malaysia this weekend. A third is support for democracy and internationally-recognized human rights.

Last month, I made my first visit to Vietnam. I found a nation bursting with energy, blessed with a young and literate population, eager to become more fully integrated into multilateral economic and political institutions, and cooperating with us in our priority of accounting, for Americans still missing from the war in Southeast Asia. I also found a government torn between its desire to encourage development and its reluctance to give more than lip service to international norms of political openness and respect for human rights.

My message was clear. The United States wants full normalization of relations with Vietnam. We want to see the people of Vietnam prosper. But we also believe that economic progress will proceed far more rapidly if accompanied by a healthy dose of political reform. Overall, I am optimistic about Vietnam. Its people face many obstacles. Its government is still hampered by habits of the past. The country still has a very long way to go. But Vietnam is a nation on the move, and it is moving in the right direction.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of its neighbor, Cambodia. There, in recent weeks, democracy has taken a giant step backwards. The coalition government installed four years ago has split. The number two Prime Minister, Hun Sen, has seized full power. The number one Prime Minister is in exile. And dozens of people have reportedly been murdered.As a result, ASEAN has suspended plans to admit Cambodia as a new member. The United States has suspended aid, condemned violations of human rights and cautioned against any effort to legitimize the political role of the notorious Khmer Rouge.

During my meetings in Kuala Lumpur, I will consult closely with ASEAN and other nations that have played a role in helping Cambodia. My purpose will be to maintain broad international pressure on Cambodian authorities to respect the 1991 Paris Peace Agreement, allow political parties to operate freely and prepare for fair elections next year.

As the past informs us, there is much at stake in Cambodia. The humanitarian risk is embodied in our memory of the refugees who spent a decade in camps along the Thai border. The threat to regional stability is recalled in the cross border invasions of Cambodia by Vietnam and of Vietnam by China in the late 1970's. The persistence of evil is underlined by the survival of Pol Pot. And the terrible costs of violence are reflected in the pyramid of skulls Cambodia maintains as a reminder of the genocide.

For all of these reasons, the international community was right to invest in peace in Cambodia, and we are right to insist now that the government in Phnom Penh live up to its obligation to respect democratic principles.

Hun Sen initially rejected ASEAN's help in negotiating a solution to the current crisis. Today, through his spokesman, he appears to have accepted ASEAN's offer of mediation. He has also promised to restore the coalition government and observe the rule of law. The United States will use its leverage and do all we can in partnership with others to see that Hun Sen's words are translated into concrete actions. This will be one of our primary goals at the meetings this weekend in Kuala Lumpur.

Another brake to the region's progress is Burma, a deeply-troubled nation that is about to become an ASEAN member. As in Cambodia, democratic elections in Burma were forcibly overturned. Here, too, elected leaders have been arrested, persecuted and exiled. And here, too, the lack of a fully legitimate government has created a climate of lawlessness that threatens stability. It is no accident, after all, that Burma is the world's leading producer of heroin. And it is only right that Burma is subject to international sanctions and consumer boycotts.

The novelist George Orwell once wrote a book entitled Burmese Days. Unfortunately, the Burma of today resembles more closely another Orwell novel--1984. The authorities there are among the most repressive and intrusive on earth. To overcome the repression that is isolating and holding Burma back, Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel Prize-winning leader of the democratic opposition, is seeking a dialogue aimed at achieving a peaceful transition to popular rule.

Movement towards such a democratic Burma would reduce the tensions caused by refugees and armed ethnic groups. It would create respect for law. And it would lay the groundwork for a revival of Burma's economic and political institutions that would allow that proud country to become a contributor, rather than a liability, to ASEAN. Until that happens, Burma may be inside ASEAN, but it will remain outside the Southeast Asian mainstream. By admitting Burma as a member, ASEAN assumes a greater responsibility; for Burma's problems now become ASEAN's problems. And the goal of democratic change and respect for human rights in Burma becomes not only a national, but a regional and global imperative.

The choice in Burma, Cambodia, and elsewhere is not between so-called Asian values and beliefs imposed by the West. As Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister, recently wrote, "each country must find its own path to civil society. Yet, there are core humanitarian values (by which) we are (all) bound."

In recent years, there are some--both in Asia and the United States--who have warned that the future will be one of inevitable conflict between East and West, a clash of civilizations, a showdown between different cultures and values. Others have pointed to the phenomenon of globalization--the massive intermingling of people, ideas and products--to suggest that differences between peoples are gradually being smoothed away. Still others see globalization as a tool by which developed countries are re-colonizing the poor.

I am a diplomat, not a fortune-teller. But I am also a student of history. And my view is that generalizing about whole societies and cultures is both dangerous and unwise. I find it neither likely, nor desirable, that distinctions of national identity and culture will melt away no matter how pervasive globalization becomes. But I find compelling reasons, based on the best interests of societies rich, poor, east, west, north and south that we reach across the boundaries of geography and culture to build an international system that will brighten futures from Seoul to Santiago, and from Juneau to Johannesburg.

To strengthen and broaden that system, we must be forthright about the value of open markets, open politics and the rule of law. We must be willing to include within the system every nation on every continent that is willing to abide by its rules. And we must accept our obligation, as Americans, to play a leading role. As I said this June at Harvard University, on the 50th anniversary of George Marshall's announcement of the Marshall Plan, that is the role we have played for half a century -- not as the sole arbiter of what is right and wrong, for that is a responsibility widely shared, but as a pathfinder -- the nation able to show the way when others cannot.

Every nation that seeks to participate in the international system, and that is willing to do all it can to help itself, should have America's help in finding the right path. Today, the greatest danger to America is not some foreign enemy; it is the possibility that we will turn inward; that we will allow the momentum towards democracy to stall, take for granted the principles and institutions upon which our own freedom is based, and forget what the history of this century reminds us, that problems abroad, if left unattended, will all too often come home to America. A decade or two from now, we will either be known as the neo-isolationists who allowed tyranny and lawlessness to rise again or as the generation that solidified the global triumph of democratic principles. We will be known as the neo-protectionists whose lack of vision produced financial chaos or as the generation that laid the groundwork for rising prosperity around the world. We will be known as the world-class ditherers who stood by while the seeds of renewed global conflict were sown or as the generation that took strong measures to forge alliances, deter aggression and keep the peace.

There is no certain roadmap to success, either for individuals or for generations. Ultimately, it is a matter of judgment, a question of choice. In making that choice, let us remember that there is not a page of American history of which we are proud that was authored by a chronic complainer or prophet of despair. We are doers. We have a responsibility in our time, as others have had in theirs, not to be prisoners of history, but to shape history; a responsibility to play the role of pathfinder, to join in constructing a global network of purpose and law that will protect our citizens, defend our interests and preserve our values for the remaining years of this century and through the next.

Thank you very much.