US Department of State 

Dispatch, Vol 1, No 5, October 1, 1990

Title:

US Support for Additional UN Action Against Iraq

Baker Source: Secretary Baker Description: Remarks delivered to the United Nations Security Council, New York Date: Sep 25, 19909/25/90 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: MidEast/North Africa Country: Iraq, Kuwait Subject: United Nations, Trade/Economics [TEXT] Our meeting here today is extraordinary. This marks only the third time in the 45-year history of this organization that all of the permanent five foreign ministers of the Security Council are meeting. Rarely has the United Nations been confronted by so blatant an act of aggression as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Rarely has the international community been so united and determined that aggression should not succeed. Acts have consequences. The stakes are clear. For international society to permit Iraq to overwhelm a small neighbor and to erase it from the map would send a disastrous message. The hopes of the world for a new, more peaceful post-Cold War era would be dimmed. The United Nations Charter would be devalued-- at the very moment when its promise is closer to fulfillment than at any time in its history. Speaking for the United States, I want to tell the council that our hopes for a better world are real. The United Nations Charter embodies the values of the American people and people everywhere who know that might alone cannot be allowed to make right. Elementary justice and a prudent regard for our own interests have brought together an unprecedented solidarity on this issue. We are engaged in a great struggle and test of wills. We cannot allow our hopes and aspirations to be trampled by a dictator's ambitions or his threats. Our purpose must be clear and clearly understood by all, including the government and people of Iraq. Security Council Resolutions 660 and 662 establish the way to settle the crisis: complete, immediate, and unconditional Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait, the restoration of Kuwait's legitimate government, and the release of all hostages. Until that time, the international community through Resolution 661 and its successor resolutions has set a high and rising penalty upon Iraq for each passing day that it fails to abandon its aggression. These penalties are beginning to take effect, and bellicose language from Baghdad cannot compensate for the perils of isolation. Threats only prolong the needless suffering of the Iraqi people. Iraq has been quarantined because its brutal actions have separated it from the community of nations. There can be no business as usual. In fact, there can be no economic exchanges with Iraq at all.
Additional Measures
Today, the United States, together with other members of this council, supports a new resolution and additional measures: First, the council explicitly states that United Nations Security Council Resolution 661 includes commercial air traffic. This demonstrates again that the international community is prepared to plug any loophole in the isolation of Iraq. Second, we agree to consider measures against any government that might attempt to evade the international quarantine. No temptation of minor gain should lead any government to complicity with Iraq's assault on international legality and decency. I would even say that the more effective the enforcement of sanctions, the more likely the peaceful evolution of this conflict. Third, we remind the government of Iraq that it is not free to disregard its international obligations, especially the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Each day that Iraqi officials flout norms of elementary decency makes it that much more difficult for Iraq to resume its place in the international community and to repair the damage it has done. On this point, I would note the call of the Arab League for reparations. Many thousands of innocent people have been dislocated as well. That is why the United States supports a coordinated and unitary approach to refugee assistance and relief efforts. The appointment of Sadruddin Aga Khan is a major step in this direction. Fourth, the council puts the government of Iraq on notice that its continued failure to comply could lead to further action, including action under Chapter Seven. The international community has made clear its desire to exhaust every peaceful possibility for resolving this matter in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. But we are all well aware that the charter envisages the possibility of further individual and collective measures to defend against aggression and flagrant violations of international humanitarian law. Eduard Shevardnadze (Foreign Minister, USSR) spoke for all of us when he said earlier today: "This is a major affront to mankind. In the context of recent events, we should remind those who regard aggression as an acceptable form of behavior that the United Nations has the power to suppress acts of aggression. There is ample evidence that this right can be exercised. It will be, if the illegal occupation of Kuwait continues." It is important to emphasize that the sanctions we have adopted are aimed at reversing the aggressive policies of the Iraqi government. They are not aimed at the people of Iraq, who are being forced to live with the consequences of a misguided policy. The council has acknowledged that its sanctions, as with any disruption, can be costly to many of our member states. We have a duty to make sure that no nation is crippled because it stood for the principles of international order. The United States has worked with other nations to coordinate an international effort to provide assistance to those desperately in need. The passing of the Cold War has meant many things--above all, a rebirth of hope. The horizons of democracy, of human rights, of national dignity, and of economic progress have all been extended. The result has been a rebirth of the United Nations as well. Suddenly, the vision of the charter and the promise of international cooperation seem within reach. In Central America, in Namibia, and perhaps soon in Cambodia and Afghanistan, this organization makes signal contributions as a peacemaker. We are beginning to control at last the proliferation of conflicts, major and minor, that have exacted so high a price from humanity. Now, together we all confront a supreme challenge to the United Nations and all that it represents. If the United Nations is to fulfill its mission, if peace is to prevail, then Iraq's leader must not be allowed to gain from his assault on decency and basic human values. We must do what justice, honor, and international peace demand that we do: reverse Saddam Hussein's brutal aggression.
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 5, October 1, 1990 Title:

Meetings of Foreign Ministers at UN Security Council

Date: Sep 25, 19909/25/90 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Subject: United Nations [TEXT] Before the September 25, 1990 session, foreign ministers from the five permanent members (China, France, UK, USA, USSR) of the UN Security Council had met only twice in the organization's 45-year history, in 1970 and in 1985. However, some foreign ministers from Security Council member states have met in New York on a number of occasions to discuss matters of special concern. Some of the more significant:
October 1956
--series of meetings on the Suez Canal, attended by Secretary John Foster Dulles and the foreign ministers of Belgium, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia.
1970
(five permanent members)--first periodic meeting under UN Charter Article 28(2).
1978
--adoption of Security Council Resolution 431 on Namibia.
1978
--adoption of Security Council Resolution 435 on Namibia.
September 1985
(five permanent members)-- commemorative meeting for the 40th anniversary of the Security Council.
July 1987
--adoption of Security Council Resolution 598 on the Iran-Iraq war. At times, a foreign minister has attended SC meetings on an issue of concern to his/her country. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 5, October 1, 1990 Title:

UN Security Council Resolution 669 on Iraq

Date: Sep 24, 19909/24/90 Category: Fact Sheets Region: MidEast/North Africa Country: Iraq Subject: United Nations [TEXT]
UN Resolution 669 (Sept. 24, 1990)
The Security Council, Recalling its resolution 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, Recalling also Article 50 of the Charter of the United Nations, Conscious of the fact that an increasing number of requests for assistance have been received under the provisions of Article 50 of the Charter of the United Nations, Entrusts the Committee established under resolution 661 (1990) concerning the situation between Iraq and Kuwait with the task of examining requests for assistance under the provisions of Article 50 of the Charter of the United Nations and making recommendations to the President of the Security Council for appropriate action. VOTE: Unanimous (15-0)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 5, October 1, 1990 Title:

UN Security Council Resolution 670 on Iraq

Date: Sep 25, 19909/25/90 Category: Fact Sheets Region: MidEast/North Africa Country: Iraq Subject: United Nations [TEXT]
UN Resolution 670 (Sept. 25, 1990)
The Security Council Reaffirming its resolutions 660 (1990), 661 (1990), 662 (1990), 664 (1990), 665 (1990), 666 (1990), and 667 (1990); Condemning Iraq's continued occupation of Kuwait, its failure to rescind its actions and end its purported annexation and its holding of third State nationals against their will, in flagrant violation of resolutions 660 (1990), 662 (1990), 664 (1990) and 667 (1990) and of international humanitarian law; Condemning further the treatment by Iraqi forces of Kuwaiti nationals, including measures to force them to leave their own country and mistreatment of persons and property in Kuwait in violation of international law; Noting with grave concern the persistent attempts to evade the measures laid down in resolution 661 (1990); Further noting that a number of States have limited the number of Iraqi diplomatic and consular officials in their countries and that others are planning to do so; Determined to ensure by all necessary means the strict and complete application of the measures laid down in resolution 661 (1990); Determined to ensure respect for its decisions and the provisions of Articles 25 and 48 of the Charter of the United Nations; Affirming that any acts of the Government of Iraq which are contrary to the above-mentioned resolutions or to Articles 25 or 48 of the Charter of the United Nations, such as Decree No. 377 of the Revolution Command Council of Iraq of 16 September 1990, are null and void; Reaffirming its determination to ensure compliance with Security Council resolutions by maximum use of political and diplomatic means; Welcoming the Secretary-General's use of his good offices to advance a peaceful solution based on the relevant Security Council resolutions and noting with appreciation his continuing efforts to this end; Underlining to the Government of Iraq that its continued failure to comply with the terms of resolutions 660 (1990), 661 (1990), 662 (1990), 664 (1990), 666 (1990) and 667 (1990) could lead to further serious action by the Council under the Charter of the United Nations, including under Chapter VII; Recalling the provisions of Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations; Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations: 1. Calls upon all States to carry out their obligations to ensure strict and complete compliance with resolution 661 (1990) and in particular paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 thereof; 2. Confirms that resolution 661 (1990) applies to all means of transport, including aircraft; 3. Decides that all States, notwithstanding the existence of any rights or obligations conferred or imposed by any international agreement or any contract entered into or any licence or permit granted before the date of the present resolution, shall deny permission to any aircraft to take off from their territory if the aircraft would carry any cargo to or from Iraq or Kuwait other than food in humanitarian circumstances, subject to authorization by the Council or the Committee established by resolution 661 (1990) and in accordance with resolution 666 (1990), or supplies intended strictly for medical purposes or solely for UNIIMOG; 4. Decides further that all States shall deny permission to any aircraft destined to land in Iraq or Kuwait, whatever its State of registration, to overfly its territory unless: (a) The aircraft lands at an airfield designated by that State outside Iraq or Kuwait in order to permit its inspection to ensure that there is no cargo on board in violation of resolution 661 (1990) or the present resolution, and for this purpose the aircraft may be detained for as long as necessary; or (b) The particular flight has been approved by the Committee established by resolution 661 (1990); or (c) The flight is certified by the United Nations as solely for the purposes of UNIIMOG; 5. Decides that each State shall take all necessary measures to ensure that any aircraft registered in its territory or operated by an operator who has his principal place of business or permanent residence in its territory complies with the provisions of resolution 661 (1990) and the present resolution; 6. Decides further that all States shall notify in a timely fashion the Committee established by resolution 661 (1990) of any flight between its territory and Iraq or Kuwait to which the requirement to land in paragraph 4 above does not apply, and the purpose for such a flight; 7. Calls upon all States to co-operate in taking such measures as may be necessary, consistent with international law, including the Chicago Convention, to ensure the effective implementation of the provisions of resolution 661 (1990) or the present resolution; 8. Calls upon all States to detain any ships of Iraqi registry which enter their ports and which are being or have been used in violation of resolution 661 (1990), or to deny such ships entrance to their ports except in circumstances recognized under international law as necessary to safeguard human life; 9. Reminds all States of their obligations under resolution 661 (1990) with regard to the freezing of Iraqi assets, and the protection of the assets of the legitimate Government of Kuwait and its agencies, located within their territory and to report to the Committee established under resolution 661 (1990) regarding those assets; 10. Calls upon all States to provide to the Committee established by resolution 661 (1990) information regarding the action taken by them to implement the provisions laid down in the present resolution; 11. Affirms that the United Nations Organization, the specialized agencies and other international organizations in the United Nations system are required to take such measures as may be necessary to give effect to the terms of resolution 661 (1990) and this resolution; 12. Decides to consider, in the event of evasion of the provisions of resolution 661 (1990) or of the present resolution by a State or its nationals or through its territory, measures directed at the State in question to prevent such evasion; 13. Reaffirms that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to Kuwait and that as a High Contracting Party to the Convention Iraq is bound to comply fully with all its terms and in particular is liable under the Convention in respect of the grave breaches committed by it, as are individuals who commit or order the commission of grave breaches. VOTE: 14 for, 1 against (Cuba) (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 5, October 1, 1990 Title:

US Action in the Gulf: A Matter of Principle

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Remarks to Arab-American Groups, Washington, DC Date: Sep 24, 19909/24/90 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: MidEast/North Africa Country: Iraq, Kuwait [TEXT] I am honored that you could be with us to discuss the vital issue of our collective security, both abroad and at home. And I understand that you've had a good briefing. I heard a couple--and I don't know whether you've had others as well--but those were good on the situation in the gulf. I've never seen an issue, certainly since I've been President, that just pervaded the thoughts of everybody in our country. You, more than most, understand what's at stake here. Our action in the gulf is not about religion, nor is it about greed, or culture, or imperialist ambitions, as Saddam Hussein would have the world believe. Our action in the gulf is about our determination to stand up--to stand up with other nations against aggression and to preserve the sovereignty of nations. It is about keeping our word and standing by our friends. It is about our vital national security interests and ensuring peace and stability in the world. So, to sum it up: It is about principle.
The Concept of Burden-sharing
Our objectives remain clear: Iraq must withdraw from Kuwait completely, immediately, and without condition. Kuwait's legitimate government must be restored, the security and stability of the Persian Gulf assured, and American citizens abroad must be protected. And finally, a fifth objective can emerge from these: a new world order in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live together. The extent of world cooperation in condemning Saddam Hussein is literally unprecedented. The concept of burden-sharing is gaining acceptance with our allies and with our friends--from Britain and France to Germany, Japan, and the Arab world-- contributing troops and supplies and economic assistance to those countries affected by the economic blockade. In fact, since Saddam Hussein's unprovoked attack on Kuwait, more than 20 countries have answered the call for help from the gulf nations to provide defensive assistance against Iraq. And, indeed, Iraq stands alone against the world community. Over and over again, Saddam Hussein has attempted to make this the Arab world against the United States. You've heard it over and over and over again. And that lie is not going to be perpetuated. It simply is not true. We are joined with many others around the world. Iraq stands alone against the world community. The UN Security Council has strongly condemned Saddam Hussein's actions no less than seven times. Active consideration [is] going on for another resolution right now. United against aggression, the world community is working to resolve the crisis peacefully.
Other Regional Conflicts
We must also resist his attempt--Saddam Hussein's attempt--to link the Iraqi invasion with other conflicts. There are other regional conflicts and they're serious; they've got to be solved. We've got to do our level best to be catalysts for the solution. But we are going to resist his attempts to justify what he did based on other regional concerns. So I think these are merely, on his part, an effort to create additional pretexts so that he can stay in Kuwait. I'll guarantee I'm not going to be distracted by this. Once the gulf crisis is on its way to resolution, of course, we want to go forward with the peace process. Our position is clear and consistent, calling--I heard your questions and I understand where you're coming from. I agree with much of what I thought was being said here--certainly agree with what our people here have told you. But our position is clear, calling for negotiations based on these two resolutions. These negotiations have got to involve territory for peace, security, recognition for Israel, and legitimate political rights for the Palestinians.
Discrimination Against Arab-Americans
As I said before, we have no quarrel with the people of Iraq either. Our mission is to oppose the invasion ordered by Saddam Hussein. As you well know, love of justice and respect and dignity are principles as deeply embedded in the Arab tradition as they are in the whole Western tradition. No question about that. These are qualities embodied in the 2.5 million Americans of Arab descent-- with origins from Morocco to the Arabian Peninsula. Just like so many who have come to America, Arab immigrants pursued new beginnings. And they came in search of freedom and justice and equality. Unfortunately, today--I'm glad the media are here, because I want this message to go out beyond this room. Today, some Americans are the victims of appalling acts of hatred. This is a sad irony that while our brave soldiers fight aggression overseas, a few hate-mongers here at home are perpetrating their own brand of cowardly aggression. Death threats, physical attacks, vandalism, religious violence, and discrimination against Arab-Americans must end. These hate crimes have no place in a free society, and we were not going to stand for them. I've been appalled by reports from some of you--friends of mine, here in this room--by reports of discrimination against Arab-Americans. I condemn such acts, and I will continue to condemn them.
Conclusion
This administration has supported enactment of the Hate Crimes legislation because bigotry and hate still exist in this country. Hate breeds violence, threatening the security of our entire society. As I said when I signed the bill, all Americans must join together to rid our communities of the poison of prejudice, bias, and discrimination. America is home to millions of Muslims who are free to live, work, and worship in accord with the traditions and teachings of Islam. Similarly, America is also home to the millions of Christians and Jews, also free to live, work, and worship. Surely, the multinational troops -- men and women of every religion and color -- who are now on duty in the glare of the desert sun, are an example to us right here at home. They prove that a crisis abroad is no excuse for discrimination at home. As we reflect on our ongoing commitment in the gulf, we should remember an old Arab proverb: God is with those who persevere. With God's help, we shall persevere--and we shall prevail. And I'm very proud to have all of you here today. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 5, October 1, 1990 Title:

The Persian Gulf Crisis: East Asian Efforts and Effects

Solomon Source: Richard H. Solomon, Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Description: Statement before the Subcommittee on Asian Pacific Affairs, House Foreign Affairs Committee, Washington, DC Date: Sep 19, 19909/19/90 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: MidEast/North Africa, East Asia Country: Iraq, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Philippines, New Zealand, Singapore, Brunei, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia Subject: Development/Relief Aid, Trade/Economics, Human Rights [TEXT] I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to review the East Asian contribution to our efforts to reverse Iraqi aggression and the effects the crisis in the gulf are having on the economies of the region. In the 7 weeks since Saddam Hussein's army invaded and occupied Kuwait, the world community--including most of the countries of Asia--has displayed an unprecedented degree of cooperation in the effort to respond to Iraqi aggression. Political support from the countries of the region--particularly from China and Malaysia--was crucial to the rapid passage of US-backed resolutions in the United Nations. East Asian and Pacific countries were among the first to announce their adherence to the full range of UN sanctions against Iraq. Japan has announced substantial economic assistance to the front-line states of Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey. Some of our East Asian allies and friends also have contributed financial and material resources to the multinational force in the gulf, and Australia has contributed military assets as well. While the effects of Iraqi aggression have naturally been felt most severely in the Middle East, we should keep in mind that this is a crisis of truly global proportions. We have already begun to witness a negative economic impact on some of the more fragile East Asian economies, particularly the Philippines. Thailand, while enjoying a stronger economy, also will be hard hit. The price of oil has risen sharply. East Asian countries have lost two important suppliers of crude and refined petroleum products: Iraq and Kuwait. East Asian exporters also have lost the Iraqi and Kuwaiti markets for their agricultural products and finished goods. Several East Asian countries stand to lose millions of dollars in worker remittances. The repatriation of these workers and their reintegration into their home societies will burden a number of Asian economies. Our efforts to generate economic assistance for those countries adversely affected by the crisis must of necessity focus first on the front-line states of Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey. But we have not neglected the needs of the Philippines or other East Asian states. In the following remarks, I would like to address Asian support for our goals in the gulf as well as US and Asian efforts to blunt the economic impact of the crisis in the East Asia-Pacific region.
Response to the Gulf Challenge: UN Diplomacy and Sanctions
East Asian and Pacific countries have displayed unprecedented unity in support of the seven UN Security Council resolutions and in implementing UN sanctions against Iraq. Obtaining China's early support for these Security Council resolutions was one of the keys to achieving a global response to this crisis. Fellow Security Council member Malaysia also supported all of the resolutions and co-sponsored the original Resolution 660 condemning the Iraqi invasion and demanding that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait. A number of East Asian and Pacific countries, including Japan, condemned the invasion and put their own sanctions in place even before the Security Council passed Resolution 661 on August 6. Since then, the entire region--with the sole exceptions of Vietnam and North Korea--has indicated support for the sanctions and has abided by them. Even non-UN member South Korea has done so.
Responsibility-sharing
We are following a two-track approach to maintaining sanctions against Iraq. First, we must assure equitable sharing of the military and economic burdens of deterring aggression while the sanctions take effect. Second, we must assure that those states whose economies have been hardest hit by adherence to the sanctions are given financial support which will allow them to weather the loss of energy supplies, export markets, and worker remittances. I can say without hesitation that we have received substantial support from our Asian friends and allies in pursuing these two tracks, and we will continue to work with them to bolster our joint efforts in order to successfully counter Iraq's aggression. Let me first outline in some detail Japan's response.
Japan
. As I mentioned at the start, Japan responded quickly--even before passage of UN Resolution 660--to impose economic sanctions on Iraq and freeze Kuwaiti assets in Japan. The focus then turned to what Japan could do to assist in the multinational effort in the Persian Gulf. Early in the crisis, we indicated to all countries that we would welcome any and all contributions to the multinational effort. For constitutional, legal, and political reasons, with which you and the committee are very familiar, the Japanese government determined that it could not dispatch military forces to the gulf region. For our part, we, too, knew that the possibility of reversing 45 years of Japanese legal constraints and public sentiment overnight was almost zero, so there was a recognition within the US government from the beginning that Japan's contribution most probably would come in non-military areas. We have been in constant contact with our Japanese allies from the very beginning of the crisis. We have expressed our view that as an economic superpower and a major player on the world scene, and as a country whose vital interests are at stake in the Persian Gulf, Japan's contribution should be substantial, timely, and visible. Let us consider the first point--whether Japan's response has been substantial. Japan has announced that it will contribute $2 billion to the multinational defense effort in the gulf. Almost all of this will go to providing materiel and equipment for the multinational forces and paying for the charter of civilian aircraft and ships to transport equipment to the gulf. A small amount will be used to pay for support of a 100-person Japanese medical team committed to the gulf. This aid is untied, so goods can be purchased in Japan, the United States, or anywhere. It will be used to procure equipment, such as air conditioners and prefabricated housing to protect our troops against the desert heat, and for generators, vehicles, equipment for water supply and food storage, and medical supplies. From a policy point of view, Japan's contribution to the multinational defense force is a policy breakthrough with important implications for the future. This is the first time that Japan has provided financial assistance to defense efforts outside Japan. Until now, Japan has provided only for its own Self-Defense Forces and the support of US forces stationed in Japan. This has now changed. In addition, not all of this $2 billion defense contribution is going to support US forces; part of it--as yet undetermined--will go to aid other nations, with which Japan is not formally allied, participating in the multinational defense effort. Again, this sets an important policy precedent for the future. Some goods procured under this $2 billion contribution already are moving to the gulf--800 4-wheel-drive vehicles, built to desert specifications. More equipment will be coming. In addition, Japan has chartered ships and aircraft which soon will begin moving goods to Saudi Arabia. The second part of Japan's substantial financial contribution is another $2 billion for economic assistance to the countries most affected by the imposition of economic sanctions. Of this amount, $600 million will be provided now as emergency assistance to Jordan, Turkey, and Egypt as commodity loans at a concessional interest rate of 1% repayable over 30 years. This funding will be disbursed entirely within the next 2 months. The remaining $1.4 billion will require a supplemental budget allocation in the Japanese Diet. The details on this supplemental allocation are still being worked out, but we understand that most of it will also be provided to the three front-line states. The third part of Japan's financial contribution is $22 million to assist in the refugee effort in Jordan. Of this amount, Japan has allocated $8 million to the UN Disaster Relief Organization (UNDRO), $2 million to the International Red Cross, and $12 million to the International Organization on Migration. This brings Japan's total contribution to date to over $4 billion. Only Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have been more generous in their support. The first test, of substantiality, clearly has been met. The President has indicated that we are pleased by Japan's important contribution. We only ask that Japan--and other countries--be prepared to provide additional assistance should the situation warrant it. What about the other two criteria--timeliness and the visibility of Japan's effort? It is the problem of timeliness that has laid Japan open to most of the criticism over the past few weeks. From the beginning of this crisis, we have stressed to Japan the importance of early action. Quite frankly, we have stressed to the Japanese government the need for not only a timely, but also a visible, response lest people conclude Japan was reluctant to shoulder its fair share of the burdens and risks of the crisis. I regret to say that our prediction proved true. Why did it take Japan over 6 weeks, from the time of Iraq's invasion, to announce its broad response? Speaker [of the House] Foley addressed this point in a speech the other evening, and I will borrow his wise observation that to explain the reasons why something happens is not to apologize for it. The year 1990 has been a year in which Japan has had to reassess and fundamentally adjust its policies for economic development and, since early August, for its security. In a conservative society which fundamentally values decision making by consensus, and in which governmental bureaucracies carry considerably greater weight than in our system, these adjustments have not been reflexively swift. The crisis in the gulf presented the Japanese government with a range of problems and choices it had not coped with before as a leading world economic power. It had to assess constitutional and legal constraints, the reaction of the opposition parties and the labor unions, public and press reaction, concern over the Japanese hostages, and financial concerns--where the money could be found in Japan's budget to pay for its contribution. Working through these issues took a certain amount of time. As we had anticipated, American impatience began to grow as Japan worked through its decision. Last week, Congress expressed its concern on this subject. Those of us who were following these developments closely knew that the Japanese government was approaching a decision point and that a public announcement was just a few days away. Congress expressed its will on September 11, and when the Japanese made their announcement on September 14, the impression was created that Japan was responding to congressional pressure, thus reinforcing the view that bashing Japan is the only way to produce a decision. In fact, based on the information available to me, I have found Japan's political leadership determined to play a responsive and responsible role as a partner of the United States in the gulf crisis. Finally, let us take a look at the third criterion--visibility. We have often been accused of practicing "checkbook diplomacy" with Japan--that is, we make the decisions and take the action, and Japan pays the bills. In this case, we have made it clear from the beginning that we want Japan and all countries to share the risks as well as the financial burdens of the challenge in the gulf. For many years, the Japanese people have been content to let America worry about the world for them. What we and others--including many of Japan's leaders--have been seeking in recent years is a greater international role for Japan. As the President and Secretary [of State] Baker have pointed out many times, we seek a global partnership with our primary Asian ally. Because Japan, by constitutional restriction, cannot send its military forces to the gulf, it is all the more important that Japan participate actively and visibly in non-military ways. The dispatch of a Japanese medical team to the area is a welcome step. The efforts of Japanese companies to locate supplies, divert them from their regular markets, and send them on an emergency basis to our forces in Saudi Arabia is also a recognized contribution. The provision of Japanese airplanes and ships to provide transportation is another visible way Japan has contributed to our efforts-- although the level of such cooperation to date has been less than we would like. We want to see more Japanese flag carriers on their way to the gulf. Japan has made a major financial contribution to the refugee effort in Jordan, but what is needed is not only financial support but personnel and transportation resources as well. We have been heartened by recent comments by Japanese government spokesmen that thousands of Japanese personnel may yet go to the gulf in non-military roles. As we have pointed out to our Japanese partners, the gulf crisis is not an isolated regional conflict. It is a security challenge with profound implications for Japan's economic future and its role as a global partner of the United States and the industrial democracies. Japan's major financial contribution is welcomed, but we also are looking to the Japanese people, to the full extent they can, to become players in world affairs--not just spectators. Let me now turn to the support provided by others in the region.
South Korea
. The Republic of Korea recognizes the importance of its stake in this challenge to global security, both economically and in upholding the principle of resisting aggression. The South Koreans were the first to offer transport services to us and to the multilateral Arab force opposing Iraq. Treasury Secretary Brady visited Seoul on September 7 to discuss, among other issues, the need for increased financial assistance to states whose economies are being adversely affected by the gulf crisis. Secretary Brady characterized his meeting with President Roh as a success. The Korean president applauded President Bush's decisive action in the gulf and said that Korea would be supportive of the collective effort. The South Korean government is now in the process of formulating a response to requests on gulf responsibility sharing, although we are concerned that their actions are not keeping pace with events in the region.
Australia
. Australia was quick to support the multinational force in the gulf. Within a week of the Iraqi invasion, Prime Minister Hawke announced that Australia would contribute two guided-missile frigates and a support ship to the multinational force. These forces already have been engaged in actively enforcing the UN sanctions--last week an Australian ship assisted us in interdicting and boarding an Iraqi tanker in the gulf. Australia also announced support for UN sanctions against Iraq and Kuwait, even though this entails forgoing about $340 million per year in wheat sales and may involve Iraq defaulting on $700 million in debt for past grain deliveries. Australia has donated $1.6 million to various international relief agencies to assist foreign nationals stranded in the gulf. The government of Australia also donated 60,000 tons of diverted wheat destined for Iraq to Egypt for refugee relief.
New Zealand
. New Zealand also moved quickly to impose mandatory economic sanctions, a measure that will cost the country about $40-60 million in dairy and live sheep exports. New Zealand offered two fully crewed civilian aircraft to the UN Secretary General and a 40-person civilian medical team to the ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross] for use in Saudi Arabia. The Royal New Zealand Air Force airlifted 16 tons of donated milk powder to Egypt for refugee relief and used the same aircraft for three flights ferrying refugees from camps in Jordan to their homes in Pakistan and the Philippines. New Zealand intends further airlift of South Asians with a military aircraft returning from England.
Indonesia and Malaysia
. Of the ASEAN [Association of South East Asian Nations] countries, Indonesia and Malaysia have increased domestic oil production, and we expect that a portion of this will go to Asian countries that have lost Iraq and Kuwait as suppliers. Indonesian oil production is expected to increase by 50,000 barrels per day by the end of this year and by a similar amount in 1991 (a 7% increase overall). Press reports from Jakarta indicate that Indonesia may sell oil to the Philippines as part of an ASEAN petroleum security agreement. Malaysia has announced that it will increase oil production by 55,000 barrels per day (a 10% increase) and has agreed to reserve two-thirds of this increase for the Philippines, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India. Malaysia also has declared that it will donate food worth $100,000 for refugees fleeing Iraq and Kuwait.
Thailand
. Thailand has not provided economic assistance to front-line or other Asian states, and we would not expect it to be able to do so, as it is one of the countries experiencing economic difficulties as a result of the gulf crisis. The Thai have not supplied or been asked to supply cash [and/or] in- kind support for the multinational force.
Singapore and Brunei.
We have also initiated consultations with Singapore and Brunei on how they can assist refugees stranded in the Middle East and contribute to easing the economic burden of the front-line states and the Philippines.
The Economic Impact of the Crisis on East Asia and the Pacific
Implementing economic sanctions against Iraq imposes diverse burdens on countries in the region--particularly the loss of oil imports from Iraq and Kuwait, exports to Iraq and Kuwait, and worker remittances and debt repayments from those two countries. As I suggested above, our efforts at obtaining assistance have focused on support for the multinational force and aid to the front- line states. However, we will not neglect the economic impact of the crisis on East Asia and the need for aiding the hardest hit economies, particularly the Philippines. Well before this crisis, energy analysts pointed out the vulnerability of the East Asia and Pacific region--with its high dependence on imported oil and limited refining capacity--to a third oil shock originating in the Persian Gulf. All the same, we have reason to believe that the economy of the region can adjust over time to the effects of $30 per barrel of oil. However, the economic impact varies from country to country. Some particularly hard-hit economies will require help from the world community. Others will be in a more favorable economic position, allowing them to extend help. The countries of East Asia hardest hit by the gulf crisis are the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Thailand. Besides being large net oil importers, both countries had thousands of workers in Iraq and Kuwait whose remittances were a significant source of overseas earnings and who now represent a major evacuee-refugee burden. Both have lost the benefit of agricultural exports to Iraq and Kuwait. Despite these problems, Thailand is in a relatively good position to absorb the economic shocks of the crisis. The small economies of the Pacific island states, however, such as Fiji and Papua New Guinea, are almost totally dependent on foreign oil and will be hard hit by energy price increases. The newly industrialized economies may experience somewhat slower GNP growth and higher inflation over the next 2 years, but they should weather this crisis. Japan has taken a range of measures since the oil shocks of the 1970s to reduce its dependence on imported oil, and with its 140 days of reserves and its budget and current account surpluses, the country seems well positioned to ride out the short-term effects of the crisis. Minor oil producers and IEA [International Energy Agency] members Australia and New Zealand will be affected more by the loss of agricultural export markets than by the energy impacts of the crisis. The region's oil producers and refiners will experience mostly positive impacts, but as they seek to diversify their export markets, even they will be affected negatively by any slowdown in their trading partners' economies.
Philippines
. The crisis in the gulf hit a Philippine economy already burdened with serious problems. The July earthquake caused an estimated $1 billion in damage. The Philippine government is also coping with nearly $28 billion in international debt. Even before the crisis, projected GNP growth was halved to 3% as a result of the earthquake and flood. Official unemployment stood at 9%. A significant oil price increase, coupled with a fall in the economic performance of developed country importers, could cause growth in Philippine GNP to suffer a further slowdown. The more than 60,000 Filipino workers in Kuwait and Iraq have provided something on the order of $150-160 million per year in remittances. We estimate a loss of up to $60 million in remittances for the balance of CY [calendar year] 1990 and a loss of up to $156 million in 1991 if the crisis continues. Although it is difficult to estimate the cost of repatriation and resettlement, these activities will place an added burden on the Philippine economy. The oil supply situation in the Philippines gives special cause for concern. Crude oil is the Philippines' largest single commodity import, accounting, in value terms, for 11% of total 1989 imports. Kuwait supplied about 23% (in volume) of Philippine crude imports during the first 5 months of 1990. Oil imports at higher prices will put a tremendous strain on the Philippine economy, which has made significant progress under the democratically elected Aquino government. While the annual oil bill may go up as much as $1 billion, the country must continue to service its massive foreign debt. The Philippines is looking to its ASEAN neighbors, to Saudi Arabia, and to Iran as sources of replacement energy supplies.
Thailand
. As a result of the gulf crisis, Thailand is losing millions of dollars in terms of lost exports to Iraq, lost worker remittances, and increased fuel costs. Approximately 10,000 Thai workers labored in Kuwait and Iraq. In the period January-July 1990, Thailand sold 112,000 MT [metric tons] of rice to Iraq and 49,000 MT to Kuwait, worth $32 million and $13 million, respectively. With total rice sales running 47% lower in volume terms than during the same period in 1989, the Thai can ill afford to lose these markets. As a net fuel importer, Thailand appears to be adjusting well to a loss of approximately 27,000 barrels per day from Iraq and Kuwait. The Thai government has arranged with Iran for shipments equivalent to 15,000 barrels per day from September through December at a "friendship price" $0.80 to $1.55 per barrel less than the spot price. Thailand is in better general financial and economic shape than the Philippines. It is experiencing the highest GNP growth rate in Asia (over 10% in 1989) and running a government budget surplus. According to one estimate, growth may slow to between 6% and 8% as a result of the crisis.
Newly Industrialized Economies.
The newly industrialized economies (NIEs--Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong) import 100% of the oil they consume. Korea and Taiwan do have other local energy sources, such as coal and nuclear power, accounting for 46% and 28% respectively of their total primary energy requirements. However, the domestic economic impact of higher oil prices is not the only concern of these economies. The NIEs will face slower economic growth, higher general price levels, and weaker external accounts resulting from the combination of higher oil import prices at home and lower purchasing power in their trading partners (except for oil exporters). Inflation was already becoming a concern in Korea, and now a $30 per barrel oil price could push inflation into double digits. Taiwan has already revised its 1990 GNP growth estimate down to 5.5% (vs. 7.2% before the Iraqi invasion). The NIEs, Japan, and Thailand should be able to weather an oil price hike, albeit after a year or 2 of slower economic growth and higher general price levels. In many respects, the present crisis is more manageable than the oil shocks of the 1970s. In fact, according to some analyses, an oil price hike could provide an incentive to these economies to increase in time productivity and energy efficiency, thus making their economies even more competitive in foreign markets.
Regional Oil Producers
. Higher oil prices represent higher export revenues for regional oil producers Indonesia, China, Malaysia, and Brunei. At a $30 per barrel price, we estimate annual revenue increases of $5 billion for Indonesia, $2 billion for Malaysia, $2 billion for China, and $700 million for Brunei. There is a downside for even these countries, however. Their exports of manufactures may suffer from spillover effects of economic slowdown in the industrialized economies. China will lose foreign exchange formerly earned by the more than 10,000 Chinese construction workers in Iraq and Kuwait. Malaysia will have to forgo revenue from food exports to Iraq and Kuwait.
US Government Response For Aiding the Philippines
As I have suggested above, we are focusing first on the needs of the states in the Middle East most severely affected by the crisis-- Egypt, Turkey, and Jordan. Nevertheless, we are well aware of the importance of addressing this problem in the global terms that characterize this challenge to the world community. In this context, I would like to say a few words about what we have done on behalf of the Philippines and what more could be done. In practical terms, we will be working closely with international organizations on the task of repatriating and reintegrating workers. We have already seen some Asian oil producers increase domestic production to stabilize prices and offer to provide the Philippines with supply alternatives to Iraq and Kuwait. We could explore a role for aid donors and multilateral financial institutions. In doing this, however, we must keep in mind that the Philippines has embarked on an economic reform program in cooperation with the IMF [International Monetary Fund] and other donors, including the United States. We would want any arrangements to aid the Philippines to enhance the prospects for the success of this effort.
Humanitarian Concerns
Hundreds of thousands of foreign workers have lost their means of livelihood as a result of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Many of these victims of conflict remain trapped in Iraq and Kuwait, hostages to Iraq's inhumane tactics of denying them exit or food rations. Others have managed to cross a border to safety; but having left all behind, they are in dire need of international humanitarian assistance. Most will require transportation to their home countries and, while they await space in the international airlift, the world must provide for their basic needs for water, food, shelter, and medical attention. There are no good figures available on the number of Philippine workers currently in Iraq and Kuwait. Estimates range from 45,000 to 70,000 Filipinos. Approximately 10,000 Thai workers were in Iraq and Kuwait at the outset of the crisis. We understand that the Thai government has assisted in the departure of most of the Thai workers. We estimate that as many as 3,000 Filipino workers have left the region and that approximately 2,000 are in Jordan. The majority of Filipino workers stranded as a result of the crisis remain in Kuwait. At an earlier stage in the crisis, our embassy in Kuwait aided the Philippine government in assisting its citizens stranded there. We understand that food supplies and medical care for the refugees in the Jordanian camps are adequate. We remain concerned about the safety of Filipino and other workers still in Iraq and Kuwait. The International Organization for Migration is coordinating the airlift of refugees, having received to date $40 million for this purpose. In the 10-day period of September 3- 13, over 15,000 persons were moved, including 12,000 to Bangladesh and nearly 3,000 to Sri Lanka. Smaller numbers were also moved to the Philippines, Thailand, and Pakistan. Between September 13-23, we expect another 19,000 persons of all affected nationalities to depart. The United States has pledged $28 million for relief efforts-- $10 million for transportation and up to $18 million for food, shelter, and other necessities. I am glad to report that Asian countries have contributed generously to the relief effort. In his speech before the joint session of Congress, the President singled out Japan for its $22 million contribution. As I mentioned above, Australia will contribute $1.5 million to assisting foreign nationals stranded as a result of the crisis. Malaysia has leased a plane for the transport of Bangladeshis from Turkey, and we will be discussing with Brunei and Singapore their possible support for this effort. The plight of Asian and other hostages in Iraq and Kuwait has focused attention on the question of defining shipments of foodstuffs "in humanitarian circumstances," as permitted under UN Security Council Resolution 661. Last week, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 666--a resolution which, while allowing food supplies to reach the innocent bystanders in this crisis, will deny them to Iraq. The Philippines has turned to the [UN] Sanctions Committee to request relief, on an urgent basis, for their nationals trapped in Iraq and Kuwait. This request is in keeping with both the spirit and letter of UN Security Council Resolution 661 and in agreement with the approach outlined above. We will continue to work closely with the Philippines in seeking a solution to this problem.
Conclusion
I would say that this crisis has signalled to the Asia-Pacific community that acts of aggression half-way around the world have an immediate and significant impact on the community's security and economic livelihood. The Pacific community has closed ranks in support of the UN sanctions and the multinational force with remarkable dispatch. It is acting expeditiously to aid those countries--in Asia and elsewhere--hit by the economic shock waves created by the crisis. More can be done, and we are in close touch with Japan, South Korea, and other countries in East Asia capable of providing further assistance. If anything positive can be said about the gulf crisis, it is that it has led the nations of East Asia to see their economic and security interests in global terms and to pull together in response to the challenge created by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 5, October 1, 1990 Title:

The New and Critical Challenges Facing the United Nations and Its Agencies

Bolton Source: John R. Bolton, Assistant Secretary for International Organizations Description: Statement delivered to the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations and the Subcommittee on International Operations of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Washington, DC Date: Sep 19, 19909/19/90 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Country: United States Subject: United Nations [TEXT] The events of the past month and a half have presented the United Nations with a clear and unequivocal challenge to the principles and values contained in its charter. As the Cold War wound down, the United Nations provided an invaluable forum where the United States and the Soviet Union could find common cause in reducing tensions arising from regional conflicts. The UN's key role in forging an agreement for the withdrawal of Soviet occupying forces from Afghanistan, in a cease-fire between Iraq and Iran, in monitoring the electoral process in Namibia and Nicaragua--thereby providing for the people of those two countries the opportunity to exercise genuine self-determination--and the UN's response to the momentous events of the past several weeks, are unmistakable signs that the UN has emerged as the organization in which countries of the world actually can unite to confront challenges to international peace and stability.
New Challenges, New Threats
The events in the Persian Gulf over the past month and a half serve as a stark reminder, however, that even as peaceful change sweeps through regions long regarded as global "hot spots" new challenges and threats are posed. Saddam Hussein, at the beginning of last August, cynically gambled--in invading, looting, and purporting to annex Kuwait--that the international community would look the other way while he committed this act of wanton aggression. The invasion of Kuwait now poses a new and critical challenge to the United Nations as we move into the post-Cold War era. So far it has met that challenge superbly, but it is up to all of us to work together to ensure that the international community's forceful response to Saddam Hussein is sustained, and that his gamble does not pay off. One of the consequences of his aggression which Saddam obviously did not anticipate, is the opportunity it has provided for a joint US-Soviet response to this grave threat to an orderly post- Cold War world. Having accompanied the President to Helsinki for his summit with President Gorbachev, I am happy to say that the Soviets are standing shoulder to shoulder with us in the United Nations in helping to ensure that there is truly a united front against Iraq's invasion. In Helsinki, the Soviets demonstrated how, under their new thinking, they now calculate their interests. It was clear that while in the middle levels of their foreign policy bureaucracy there remains considerable sentiment in favor of maintaining their ties to one of their longest standing clients in the Middle East, the highest levels of the Soviet leadership understand that for the new relationship with the United States to move forward in a mutually beneficial manner, the Soviets must stand squarely behind the UN Charter. As a prelude to the Helsinki summit, Secretary Baker had maintained almost daily contact with Foreign Minister [Eduard] Shevardnadze. It was this constant contact that reassured the Soviets that we looked to them not as token players who could present obstacles to US plans, but as partners who as permanent members of the Security Council had a crucial role in maintaining international solidarity against Iraq's actions. The understanding that has developed between Secretary Baker and the Soviet foreign minister provided a high-level channel that could be utilized as the need arose, and it proved in fact an invaluable channel as negotiations on certain Security Council resolutions--particularly 665 on the use of force--came to a head.
Humanitarian Assistance
Shortly after we returned from Helsinki, I traveled to Geneva to consult with the newly appointed personal representative of the Secretary General for humanitarian assistance to those affected by the Iraqi invasion, Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan. In Geneva I had the opportunity to discuss with Sadruddin, as well as the heads of many of the UN agencies involved in the effort to extend relief to the thousands of third-country nationals trapped in Iraq and Kuwait or stranded in Jordan, about the high priority the President and the Secretary accord to resolving the problems caused by Iraq's inhumane policies. Although the UN effort has been slow in becoming organized, there has been an outpouring of pledges of assistance from the international community. I am proud to say that the United States has been in the forefront of those countries in acting swiftly to see that our pledges are turned into reality, both cash and in kind, for the UN effort. We have the highest confidence that Sadruddin will be able to effectively coordinate this effort so that the untold human suffering can be swiftly ameliorated.
Security Council Sanctions Committee
August 1990 is the most significant and eventful month in the 45- year history of the United Nations. It was as if Iraq's invasion administered shock therapy that could either destroy the United Nations or revitalize it. Following the condemnation of the invasion and a demand for the immediate withdrawal of Iraq's forces, the Security Council moved with breathtaking speed to impose sweeping economic sanctions under Article VII of the charter. The following week the Security Council unanimously condemned Iraq's action against embassies accredited to the legitimate Kuwaiti government, as well as its actions in holding innocent third-country nationals hostage, and finally authorized the use of force to uphold the mandatory economic sanctions it had earlier imposed. At the same time, a hopeful agreement on a potential UN role in Cambodia was forged by the permanent members of the Security Council. I believe that what we are seeing in the UN today is a return to the principles contained in the UN's charter and to the intentions of its founders, who believed that a world body should not just rely upon lofty international legal formulations, but should have the capacity to act to enforce the charter's cardinal rule: use of force in the settlement of international disputes is illegitimate and represents a threat to the vital interests of all UN member states. Unfortunately, the millions of persons who have perished in conflicts since the founding of the United Nations are a grim testimony to the failure of the international community in living up to this principle. Instead of a united body of nations determined to counter aggression from any quarter, the world was divided first between ideologies, then between newly independent states and the traditional powers, and then between rich countries and poor. The United Nations could not function effectively within the divisions of the bi-polar international system created by the stand-off and conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. I believe that the continuing efforts spearheaded by the government of the United States and others to reform the United Nations, testify to our steadfast adherence to the original intent of the framers of the UN Charter. Instead of walking away from an organization which cost us all a great deal of money, which was ineffectual at best, and at worst was monopolized by countries attacking the very values upon which the charter is based, we stayed and worked to restore the United Nations to its original purpose. First, through a series of budgetary and management reforms which had a dramatic effect in restoring the confidence of major contributors that their funds were not being squandered, and then through a renewed political commitment to multilateral cooperation in confronting serious international or transnational problems such as drug trafficking and abuse, environmental degradation, and most important, regional conflicts, we have rededicated ourselves to utilizing the United Nations in the manner its founders foresaw. In fact we are now reading articles of the charter which have been gathering dust for 45 years.
Security Council Unity
Current US policy in the United Nations is focused on four goals. These are to strengthen UN peacekeeping efforts, especially making use of the good offices of the secretary general; to restore a sense of responsibility on the part of the UN's membership and avoid the sterile politicization and rigid posturing which has, for much of the UN's history, prevented the attainment of practical measures that would promote international cooperation; to pursue the concept of a unitary UN in which better coordination would avoid much of the budget inefficiencies and overlapping duplication of programs and activities among the various UN bodies and specialized and technical agencies; and finally to meet fully our financial obligations so that the United Nations has the resources necessary to perform the tasks we expect of it. President Gorbachev's reform of Soviet foreign policy--"new thinking"--is a second major factor which has contributed to the birth of the real UN. The effect of new thinking has been to re-align Soviet foreign policy with the idea of collective action to preserve international peace and security. The Soviets have expressed interest in the concept of the unitary UN, and I have been engaged for over a year in a dialogue with Deputy Foreign Minister Petrovsky seeking to elaborate this concept in a mutually acceptable form. Of course, in the current crisis, we have enjoyed a level of support from the Soviet Union unprecedented in the post-World War II era. This cooperation is a hopeful harbinger of a close US-Soviet working relationship in the United Nations in areas where we have mutual and coincident interests. The Chinese, too, have been active in promoting use of the UN Security Council to settle regional conflicts. Traditionally wary of unilateral use of force by other superpowers, the Chinese find a strengthened international peacekeeping function within the UN to be generally harmonious with other foreign policy goals. We have seen this in the ongoing discussions on Cambodia among the five permanent members of the Security Council in which the Chinese have strongly supported a UN role in the transition between the Phnom Penh regime and a government which truly represents the will of the Cambodian people. We are pleased by developments during the last month which improve substantially prospects for a peaceful resolution to the Cambodian conflict. At a pivotal meeting in Jakarta, the four Cambodian factions last week accepted the permanent five framework for peace and committed themselves to negotiate a comprehensive political settlement. Parties to the conflict further agreed to establish a supreme national council , which will represent Cambodia externally and occupy the Cambodian seat at the United Nations. We look forward to the Cambodians working with the United Nations, the permanent five, and the Paris Conference on Cambodia to work out details of a settlement process leading to free and fair elections organized and conducted by the United Nations. The Chinese position on Resolution 665, which authorized the use of measures necessary to enforce the mandatory sanctions against Iraq contained in Resolution 661, was also revealing. At first they were extremely reluctant to have the Security Council give such unprecedented authorization. As Iraqi attempts to breach the sanctions became apparent and as Iraqi violations of international law and expressions of contempt for the international community mounted, I think the Chinese realized that the fullest pressure had to be exerted on Saddam Hussein's regime by the Security Council. Their assent probably influenced the votes of at least some of the non-aligned members of the council. Although we will have differences with the Soviets and the Chinese, as well as other nations, on the particulars of our policy, I think there is a developing international consensus that will make it possible to utilize more fully the UN's peacekeeping machinery. Of course, this greatly depends on the effectiveness of the present economic sanctions and whether they are adhered to by every member of the United Nations. The stakes are high--every member has a strong interest in seeing that no one benefits from such a naked act of aggression as has been committed by Iraq against Kuwait. And it will be this unanimity of interest which will sustain our efforts to reverse this act. The enormity of Saddam Hussein's miscalculation is in part measured by the degree to which he is now isolated. We must all work to ensure that that isolation is not diminished until Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666 and 667 have been implemented by the government of Iraq. As I mentioned earlier, we are utilizing parts of the charter that haven't been read for 45 years. For instance, resolution 661 mandates the establishment of a sanctions committee consisting of the members of the Security Council. The sanctions committee is charged with overseeing implementation of the economic sanctions against Iraq and occupied Kuwait. As part of its functions, this committee has grappled with the issues of providing relief and assistance for the immediate humanitarian problems caused by displaced third-country nationals in Iraq, Kuwait, and neighboring countries such as Jordan, of defining a procedure for providing for the shipment of foods and medicine as an exception to the economic embargo on a humanitarian basis, and of providing relief to third countries adversely affected by the embargo.
Human Rights, Social and Economic Development
While the maintenance of international peace and security is a primary objective of the United Nations, it is not its sole purpose. Promotion of economic and social development under a regime of individual human rights is also an integral part of the vision contained in the charter. These goals interlock with the goal of preserving international peace because the UN's founders realized that a peaceful world needed to be a prosperous one, and that prosperity could not be achieved without guarantees of individual rights, chief among which is the right to self-determination. Finally, the founders learned from the bitter lesson of World War II that regimes which systematically abuse the rights of their own citizens are most likely to be aggressive and abuse the rights of citizens of other nations. Respect for human rights is more than an idiosyncrasy of Western culture; it is a cornerstone of a peaceful world order. The correlation between aggressive behavior and abuse of human rights by governments is born out by Iraq's example. Criticism of Saddam Hussein's government has been mounting in recent years and came to a head when the international community learned of use of chemical weapons against Iraq's Kurdish minority. Several members of the UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) at its session earlier this year tried to pass a resolution criticizing Iraq, but were blocked by the reluctance of the developing countries on the commission to criticize one of their own. Unfortunately, such behavior on the part of many of the developing countries who now have a majority on the commission is not isolated to the case of Iraq. For a variety of reasons, chief of which is probably fear that they themselves might be called to the bar of the commission, certain developing countries prefer to single out only the most diplomatically weak and isolated countries when it comes to criticizing human rights abuses. In May, the spring ECOSOC [Economic and Social Council] voted to expand the membership of the UNHRC as of 1992 by 10 new members, allotted entirely to the Latin American, African, and Asian regional groups. I am concerned by this move, which I see as an effort to dilute the commission's ability to deal impartially with human rights violations wherever they occur. I am concerned it will become increasingly difficult with expanding unwieldy numbers to successfully press for resolutions on situations occurring in these regions. We will need to evaluate carefully the continued effectiveness of the UNHRC in the face of its newly enlarged membership. We will, however, continue to work hard to develop new alliances with countries committed to advancing human rights standards throughout the world. The enjoyment of human rights must be indivisible if a stable world order is to emerge. The unwillingness of the UNHRC to take on Saddam Hussein last March probably influenced his belief that the international community would not actively oppose his invasion of Kuwait. Certainly he was given no incentive by the Human Rights Commission to desist from the sweeping violations of international law which form the heart of his policy in the current crisis. The atrocities reported to have been committed by Iraq's forces in Kuwait, the wholesale violation of the Geneva conventions' provisions concerning the treatment of foreign nationals and civilians in a conflict, and his blatant attempt to extinguish the existence of a member state of the UN all reflect contempt for the core values of the United Nations.
US Opposition to Resolution 3379
I know that you need no reminder of a significant stain that remains on the United Nations and still calls into question the ability of its members to adhere to and respect the values contained in the charter. That stain is General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted in 1975, which equates Zionism with racism. This odious resolution is aimed at depriving a member state of the United Nations of its legitimacy. It is not only an affront to logic but to the consciousness of mankind. The joint resolution adopted by the Congress, and endorsed by President Bush puts the weight of the Congress behind US efforts to rescind this resolution, as we actively consult with member governments on how this can be accomplished at the earliest possible opportunity. For the second year in a row, the Palestine Liberation Organization suffered a major defeat in the World Health Assembly, which was held in May. The assembly not only postponed the PLO's bid to achieve full membership in WHO [World Health Organization], but the postponement was for an indefinite period. The PLO made no other progress in its desire to be accepted as "state" in international agencies. The membership of the UN-system agencies appear to agree with the US view that the PLO represents only a political organization which does not have the internationally accepted attributes of statehood.
Environmental Planning Underway
The first substantive session of the preparatory committee for the 1992 Conference on Environment and Development met in Nairobi on August 31. While this initial session was inconclusive, it laid the groundwork for positive efforts in the future. Particularly promising are studies requested on the linkages between environment and development, technology transfer mechanisms, forestry issues, and oceans and marine resource matters. These reports should lead to useful proposals for actions to be taken at the conference itself, which will be held in Brazil in 1992. The executive council of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), as well as the governing council of the UN environment program (UNEP), have adopted coordinated resolutions authorizing preparations for negotiations on a framework convention on climate change. The opening round is planned for February 1991. The United States will act as host, and the site probably will be Washington, DC. The general conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), meeting this month (September) is expected to approve a budget for 1991 that accommodates the need for expanded safeguards on the growing numbers of nuclear facilities worldwide. The agency is able to do this, while maintaining zero real growth in overall expenditures drawn from assessed contributions by IAEA member states. The narcotics control agencies of the UN system have been the subject of a comprehensive proposal for reorganization so that their work might become more efficient and effective. As a result of strong leadership from US delegations, an expert group of 15 members was assembled, including Ambassador Herbert Okun, a former deputy permanent representative to the United Nations. We expect the report to be considered by the UN General Assembly in the fall of this year, and we are urging its adoption. The WHO's AIDS-control program again was strongly endorsed by the world health assembly. Under the new leadership of American Michael Merson, the program is strengthening the cooperative efforts of member governments around the world and continuing to raise substantial amounts of extra-budgetary funds to assist governments in coping with this pandemic. We were successful in blocking confrontation on a major issue at the international labor conference in June. This related to a report on the situation of the workers in the occupied Arab territories, which has been prepared by the ILO [International Labor Organization] director general since 1978. The report often has been used by PLO supporters to attempt to have the ILO condemn Israel. In 1990, however, the conference discussion was confined to one special sitting. By insisting on rigid ground rules, the United States was able to avoid potentially disruptive and acrimonious debate in other conference forums and a highly politicized resolution. In the fifth-cycle negotiations at the UN development program's governing council, the United States managed to increase the focus of UN grant assistance on the poorest countries. Additionally, concrete decisions were taken to reform the system of support-cost payments, bringing it more in line with the unitary UN concept.
US Criticism of FAO Operations
The Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO} has lagged behind other UN organizations in responding to US desires for improvements in program and budget processes to enhance value for money spent. Despite limited improvements in the preparation and presentation of its budget, FAO has continued to expand its budget and failed to eliminate marginal and unproductive activities. The FAO conference ignored the concerns of the United States and other major contributors and approved an excessive budget. I indicated in my letter to FAO Director General [Edouard] Saouma that we are interested in maintaining active US membership in FAO and supporting its work, but that further reforms were necessary to ensure that this could happen. The FAO has taken the lead in dealing with the very serious problem of infestation of the new world screwworm fly in North Africa. The International Fund for Agricultural Development is working with FAO to generate donor support for an eradication program currently estimated to last 2 years and to cost about $117 million.
American Citizens Underrepresented
Another area of concern remains the continued underrepresentation of US citizens on the staffs of many UN agencies. Having our fair share of Americans in these organizations is a critical and integral part of our interests in the United Nations. We are working with all agencies, but especially FAO, ILO, UNIDO [UN Industrial Development Organization], ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization], and UNHCR [UN High Commissioner for Refugees], to encourage them to recruit and hire a fair share of Americans for their professional staffs. For the past 7 years we have opposed General Assembly resolutions on information because they contained language calling for the establishment of a new world information and communications order (NWICO). This spring, through tenacious commitment to First Amendment values, we were able to join consensus on the two information-policy resolutions that will be brought to the General Assembly for action. The resolutions do not call for the establishment of the NWICO. Rather, they reaffirm the principles of freedom of the press and freedom of expression and speak favorably of the independence and diversity of the media, private as well as public. We will work vigorously to have this consensus hold during the General Assembly. Since Secretary Baker's report on the activities of UNESCO [UN Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization] was submitted to Congress last April, several of Director General [Federico] Mayor's proposals on restructuring and personnel, the so-called "Green Notes," have been severely criticized by executive board members. This debate has left legitimate questions unresolved for a number of UNESCO member states as well as for us. We are convinced that our firm stand on the need for additional reform will lead to successful results. We will continue to monitor developments at UNESCO closely--most immediately, next month's session of the executive board--and to work with Director General Mayor and others to promote reform. Without meaningful reform, we cannot justify to Congress or to the American taxpayers the heavy cost of rejoining the organization. The UN over the past year, and particularly during the past 6 weeks, has clearly moved in the direction US policy has been consistently pushing it for the past decade. While we are greatly heartened by the newfound effectiveness of the UN and the willingness of its members to unite together for international cooperation as envisioned by the UN's founders 45 years ago, I believe that we must continue to firmly adhere to the policies that have brought us to this hopeful juncture. They are just now beginning to produce the results which we will need to confront the international issues before us as we enter the post-Cold War era. The UN can provide a locus of stability as the international order continues to evolve, but only if it remains faithful to the principles contained in its charter and to the vision and intent of its founders. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 5, October 1, 1990 Title:

The United States and the United Nations

Date: Oct 1, 199010/1/90 Category: Fact Sheets Region: North America Country: United States Subject: United Nations [TEXT]
Background
. The UN membership meets annually in the General Assembly (UNGA) from mid-September through mid- December. The 45th regular session of the UNGA will begin on September 18. The UNGA has seven committees, each of which handles agenda items related to specific areas: disarmament, special political issues, economics, social and humanitarian issues, trusteeships and decolonization, budget, and legal issues. The agenda for the 45th session includes some 150 items that will be assigned to its committees.
The General Assembly
. All 160 UN members belong to the UNGA, but it has not accepted the credentials of delegations from South Africa since 1970. Thus, South Africa is a UN member state but is not allowed to attend the UNGA. President Bush follows the tradition set by many US presidents by addressing the 1990 UNGA (on October 1). Secretary of State James A. Baker, III, like his predecessors, will accompany the President to consult with his counterparts on bilateral questions and on global issues coming before the UN. The most important issues at the 45th UNGA will be regional conflicts (Iraq-Kuwait and Cambodia especially), the budget, and transnational problems such as terrorism, narcotics, human rights, and refugees.
The Security Council
. The UN Charter authorizes the Security Council to facilitate the peaceful settlement of disputes among members of the UN. The 15-member Council meets whenever necessary. The Charter gives a special role to the five "permanent members" (China, France, United Kingdom, US, and USSR), any of which can veto a resolution. The UNGA elects the 10 non-permanent members to serve overlapping 2-year terms. The five members elected for 1989-90 are Canada, Colombia, Ethiopia, Finland, and Malaysia; the five for 1990-91 are Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Romania, Yemen, and Zaire.
UN Successes
. The United States takes special satisfaction in recent UN successes. Bilaterally, the US helps set the stage for productive UN peacemaking efforts. The Security Council's rapid, unanimous decisions in August 1990 to condemn Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, to demand the immediate withdrawal of all Iraqi forces, to declare Iraq's annexation of Kuwait null and void, to demand that Iraq free all detained foreigners, and to impose sanctions on Iraq are the most recent examples. The most visible contributions of the UN system are its efforts to advance peace and freedom. It played a critical role in helping formulate the 1988 Geneva accords, which provided for the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. The UN also continues to search for a viable political settlement that will allow Afghan self-determination. It leads international efforts to care for about 5 million Afghan refugees and to assist in their eventual return to Afghanistan and the country's reconstruction. The UN, along with the Organization of American States, helped oversee this year's elections in Nicaragua and the transition to a government elected by the Nicaraguan people, which contributed greatly to the prospects for regional peace and stability in Central America. America's strategic objectives also were served by UN mediation of the Iran-Iraq conflict, which took the dispute from the battlefield to the negotiating table. In Southern Africa, the UN helped to implement the Agreements for Peace in Southwestern Africa. Those agreements, which the US mediated in December 1988, were a blueprint for Namibian independence, which became a reality on March 21, 1990, when the president of Namibia was sworn in by UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar.
US Support
. No other country has supported the United Nations more generously in political, moral, and financial terms than the United States. The United States remains by far the single largest contributor to the UN, its affiliated agencies, and its voluntary programs. This year alone, US payments to the UN system (including the UN and specialized agencies and programs but not the World Bank) will total about $700 million. The Bush Administration, demonstrating its commitment to an effective multilateral system, requested appropriations from Congress for FY 1991 for full funding of our UN assessments and payment of our arrears. The United States supports UN efforts to help governments address global problems and challenges that transcend national borders and require concerted international action. Under UN auspices, the US is working with other countries to address issues of worldwide concern. Ongoing activities concerning the environment, refugee assistance, and drug abuse and trafficking contribute significantly to international cooperation. In fields as diverse as nuclear non-proliferation, AIDS research and monitoring, and international terrorism, UN specialized agencies have helped governments take concerted international action.
UN Limitations
. Effective multilateral diplomacy within the UN framework, however, requires a realistic look at the world organization's capabilities and limitations. Troublesome questions persist about its ability to live up to its founding principles, values, and democratic ideals. The problems of double standards, politicization, and bloc voting continue to afflict the UN and compromise its capacity to act. The UN must be approached in a comprehensive fashion, what the US calls a "unitary United Nations" concept. A primary objective of a "unitary United Nations" is to rationalize the UN system to eliminate the proliferation of committees, conferences, and meetings that cover essentially the same issues.
Prospects for the Future
. The United States is committed to addressing global issues through the UN and has a great financial, moral, and political stake in the UN. US policy aims to enhance the UN's effectiveness by promoting an atmosphere of unity and consensus. President Bush, a former ambassador to the UN, signaled our commitment after he became president by inviting the UN Secretary General to the White House before any other world leader and by asking the Congress for full funding for UN assessments. Countries around the world welcomed those actions, which, together with the major improvement in US-USSR relations, created a positive atmosphere for last year's UN General Assembly. With the momentous changes that have occurred in Central and Eastern Europe and in Central America during the past year, and after the five unanimous votes of the Security Council concerning the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the prospects for more international cooperation in the UN General Assembly this year are good. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 5, October 1, 1990 Title:

The World Summit for Children

Date: Oct 1, 199010/1/90 Category: Fact Sheets Subject: United Nations, Human Rights [TEXT] President Bush and Secretary Baker will attend the World Summit for Children, which will be held in UN headquarters in New York City, September 29-30, 1990. The results of the summit will be the signing of a summit declaration and a plan of action.
Background
. In December 1988, the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) proposed the summit to address problems and opportunities for children and to rally the political will and resources to meet their needs. In August 1989, the heads of state/government of Canada, Egypt, Mali, Mexico, Pakistan, and Sweden agreed to convene such a summit. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of Canada and President Moussa Traore of Mali will co- chair the summit. The US government has supported the concept of a summit that would result in actions to benefit children directly in areas such as health and education. At the invitation of the summit initiators, representatives of the United States and other countries have participated in the planning and preparation for the summit. Peter B. Teeley, the President's personal representative, has led US participation on the summit planning committee, which first met in January 1990.
Summit Discussions
. The summit discussions will cover four themes: -- Ensuring child survival; -- Protecting children; -- Enhancing child development; and -- Implementing and following up commitments and efforts to help children. President Bush will make the lead presentation on the first theme, ensuring child survival. The planning committee has drafted a summit declaration and a plan of action, which should be issued at the conclusion of the summit. The summit is not expected to be a financial pledging meeting.
Participants
. In addition to President Bush, more than 70 heads of state/government have agreed to attend the summit. UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar will also participate. On behalf of the six initiators, he issued invitations to all UN member states to attend the summit.
Financing
. Although the summit will be held in the UN headquarters, it is not a UN conference. At the request of the six initiators, the UN is providing support services, and UNICEF is providing the summit secretariat. The summit is funded through voluntary contributions that supplement regular contributions to UNICEF. The budget for the summit is $3 million. The budget for mobilization activities related to the summit is $2 million. By mid-September, governments had pledged more than $2 million toward the summit budget. Additionally, national committees for UNICEF and governments had pledged more than $1.5 million toward the mobilization activities budget. The US government, through the Agency for International Development, contributed $150,000 to the summit budget. The private sector US National Committee for UNICEF contributed more than $300,000 in support for summit-related mobilization activities and for cooperating with other non-governmental organizations in planning summit-related activities. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 5, October 1, 1990 Title:

Generalized System of Preferences

Date: Oct 1, 199010/1/90 Category: Fact Sheets Country: United States Subject: Trade/Economics, United Nations [TEXT]
Background
The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) eliminates duties on a range of products imported into the United States from designated beneficiary countries. It assists economic development by promoting trade rather than aid. By eliminating US import duties on about 4,100 product categories, the GSP makes products more competitive in the US market. In 1989, imports of $10 billion entered the United States duty free under the GSP. This represents about 4% of total US imports. Several product groups legally are excluded from the US GSP, however. These include textiles and apparel, certain footwear, leather goods, and certain electronic, steel, and glass products. Discussions about a system of tariff preferences began in 1964 at the first UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Authority was obtained in 1971 to establish preferences under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). In 1976, the United States became the 19th developed market-economy country to implement a GSP program. The first US program ran from January 1976 to January 1985. In 1984, Congress extended the US program until July 4, 1993. The other major preference givers--the European Community and Japan--also have renewed their programs into a second decade.
Importance to United States
The GSP is important in US relations with the developing countries. By increasing their export opportunities, it helps stimulate industrialization, employment, and economic growth. This also benefits the United States because the additional foreign exchange earnings allow those countries to buy more US exports and to repay international debts. The GSP symbolizes the US commitment to economic development and demonstrates that the United States shares with other developed countries the costs of promoting development.
Eligibility
President Bush has designated 106 countries and 26 dependent territories as eligible. The law requires that the President determine that a country has satisfied seven criteria before a country can become a beneficiary. Disqualifying criteria involve such issues as expropriation, terrorism, inadequacies in worker rights, and membership in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The existence of fair market access for US products and adequacy of protection of intellectual property rights also affect eligibility. Additional criteria apply if a communist country is to receive GSP. Based on worker rights, Nicaragua and Romania lost GSP status; Chile, Paraguay, Burma, the Central African Republic, and Liberia were suspended from the program. Several of these countries have recently petitioned to have their status reviewed.
Competitive Need Limits
The law places two automatic competitive need limits on GSP eligibility so that some competitive advantage goes to countries that are relatively new and small suppliers of a product. During the preceding year, if any beneficiary has supplied more than 50% of the total US imports of a product or more than a certain dollar figure ($88 million in 1989) of that product, the President must withdraw its eligibility. In addition, as required under the 1984 legislation renewing the GSP program, the President completed a 2-year general review in January 1987. More than $3 billion of GSP imports--based on 1985 trade figures--were found sufficiently competitive. They were thus subject to lower competitive need limits of 25% of total US imports of a product or more than a certain dollar figure ($35 million in 1989) of that product. The President can waive these lower limits, and the law exempts least developed countries from them.
Graduation
If a country's per capita GNP exceeded $8,500 in 1985 or subsequent years, its benefits are automatically terminated after a 2-year phaseout. (The ceiling is indexed to growth in US GNP.) By this criterion, in July 1988, Bahrain, Bermuda, Nauru, and Brunei Darussalam "graduated" from the program. In addition, the President has the authority to graduate beneficiaries that have reached such a level of economic development and competitiveness that they no longer need preferences to compete in the US market. On this basis, in January 1989, Hong Kong, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan also left the program.
Annual Review
The US Government reviews the program each year beginning June 1 to assess modifications in the product and country eligibility. Interested parties, including beneficiaries, can ask that products be removed or added to the list of eligible items. They also can request a review of the beneficiary status of any designated country on the basis of the statute's trade, investment, and worker rights criteria. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 5, October 1, 1990 Title:

Individual Choice and Economic Growth

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Remarks delivered to the IMF-World Bank annual meeting, Washington, DC Date: Sep 25, 19909/25/90 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Subject: Trade/Economics [TEXT] It's a particular pleasure today to welcome the new members here from Bulgaria, the Czechoslovak Republic, and Namibia, and, of course, the special invitees from the Soviet Union. Your presence here reminds us all of how events of the past year are producing a new partnership of nations, a fundamental--indeed inspiring-- change in the world's political and economic order. The movement toward democratic rule, already strong throughout the 1980s, accelerated during what I call the Revolution of '89. The rights of the individual have been reaffirmed with greater adherence to the rule of law. The freedom to choose political leaders--and even political systems--has triumphed in countries that only a year ago were ruled by single-party regimes. And hand in hand, new economic freedom has begun to emerge as well. Today, leaders around the world are turning to market forces to meet the needs of their people. And, of course--and I understand this--change has not come easily. But as I said last year at this same meeting, the jury is no longer out. History has decided. Today, the results of that global experiment are unmistakable. Today, the consensus is this: Governments by themselves cannot deliver prosperity. Rather, the key to economic growth is setting individuals free--free to take risks, free to make choices, free to use their initiative and their abilities in the marketplace. We are seeing this, for example, in the restoration of private ownership in countries where the state once controlled every single aspect of economic life. And for efficient production, private ownership is still the most powerful incentive known to man. Matched by the rejuvenation of markets, the ability to make individual economic choices is the fastest, most effective way to achieve and sustain broad-based economic growth. And that is why leaders everywhere are undertaking difficult economic reforms, building stronger, more versatile private sectors, improving efficiency, and making governmental decision-making much more rational. That process takes time. Economic adjustment is often difficult. And in recent months, a new challenge has arisen which could hinder this process of change. Of course, I'm talking about Iraq's illegal and unprovoked aggression against the sovereign nation of Kuwait. Clearly, the greatest harm is to Kuwait and its people. When the Saudi border was opened, Kuwait's newest refugees brought fresh tales of cruelty and horror inflicted on the Kuwaiti people and foreign nationals as well, by the occupying forces of Saddam Hussein. Today, other countries, already facing painful economic and political transformations, must now deal with additional hardships. Serious challenges have emerged for countries rocked by unpredictable tides in the flow of oil, trade, displaced workers, and--God bless them--the refugees. This staggering burden, which is pressing upon these most seriously affected countries, calls for a generous response from the world community. Toward that end, we have already begun to mobilize financial resources for the front-line states to ensure responsible sharing among creditors. The initial response to that effort has been impressive. Now, in order to transform commitments into concrete contributions, I am pleased to announce the formation of a gulf crisis financial coordination group under the chairmanship of Secretary Nicholas Brady, our Secretary of the Treasury, with the aim of achieving effective, timely, and sustained financial support to these most seriously affected countries. But let us not forget, an even larger group of countries represented here will suffer from higher oil prices and other economic dislocations. While world attention has rightly focused on those countries closest to the situation and bearing the heaviest economic burden, I can tell you that the rest of the world is certainly not forgotten and never will be. This gathering of world financial leaders gives us an opportunity to discuss how we can work together to address the special financial burden of this crisis--and do so in a way that will sustain the dramatic worldwide transition to free markets. The IMF (International Monetary Fund) and World Bank, given their central role in the world economy, are key to helping all of us through this situation by providing a combination of policy advice and financial assistance. The political leadership of the UN must be matched by the economic leadership of the IMF and the World Bank. Secretary Brady will be making some specific suggestions in his remarks for possible means of utilizing current IMF and World Bank programs more effectively. But let me say it again: We are determined not to allow the brutal behavior of one aggressor to undermine the historic process of democratic change or to derail the movement toward market-oriented economic systems. Let me continue more broadly with a vision of the role of the United States and of a world economy we can all share. First, we believe that the United States should contribute to economic stability and growth. And perhaps the greatest contribution that the United States can make to the health of the international economy is to get our own house in order. Our budget deficit must be brought under control and reduced. Second, the United States is strongly committed to promoting development and growth in the newly emerging democracies of Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe, Africa, and Asia. We are working in all four regions to ease debt burdens under the Brady Plan. In this hemisphere, where debt overhang holds back progress- -impedes progress--we announced the Enterprise for the Americas initiative to promote economic growth by expanding trade and investment, to reduce debt owed to the United States government, and to provide funds for needed local environmental projects. In Eastern Europe, where massive restructuring is needed, we are working with other nations to provide billions of dollars in assistance to the newly emerging democracies. And in Africa, where underdevelopment hangs on so stubbornly, many of the lowest-income countries have already benefited from reductions in debt owed to the United States. Third, the United States is committed to the central role of the IMF and World Bank in helping bring about economic reforms. Reform efforts can only be successful if countries carry through on their responsibilities. And that means regulatory reform and privatization, sound macroeconomic and structural policies, and open borders for trade and investment. This is why your work here in Washington this week is so important. For more than 40 years, the fund and the bank have quietly been enlisting the talents and the energies of the developed and developing world in a global struggle against poverty. And today, in a world where ideology no longer confronts and big-power blocs no longer divide, the bank and the fund have become paradigms of international cooperation. Indeed, we especially appreciate your efforts in carrying out a study of the Soviet economy that is unprecedented in its scope. This study will produce recommendations for economic, financial, and structural reform. As the coming week unfolds, part of your task will also be to plan for the future of your two great institutions. And I pledge the continued support of the United States for a World Bank and IMF which so clearly advance our common struggle to improve the quality of life for all people everywhere. For this reason, we strongly support the IMF quota increase and the strengthening of the IMF arrears policy. We would also like to challenge both institutions to intensify their focus on building dynamic private sectors in member countries--one of the most important stimulants for energizing these new market economies. We would also ask the World Bank to place a high priority in three other issues vital to sound and sustained economic [growth]. -- First is protecting the environment. As I said here last year, environmental destruction knows no borders. -- Second, eradicating poverty must continue to be a central mission of the Bank. -- And third, we strongly support greater efforts to integrate women into the development process. Finally, as we plan for the future, we must work together for success in another important international economic institution-- the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.) As we meet today, less than 70 days remain in the 4-year Uruguay Round of global trade talks. Lasting reform is essential for developed and developing countries alike. And it's the key to a successful round which establishes new rules and opportunities for all countries. These negotiations are one of the world's greatest economic opportunities of the decade. But much remains to be done. The round is not just a trade issue, it is a growth issue. And it's not just an exercise for bureaucrats in Geneva. The trade talks are the last train leaving the station, and countries throughout the world must jump aboard. It can be the engine of economic growth that carries us into the 21st century. The round promises to remove barriers in four crucial areas, areas untouched in previous rounds: services, investment, intellectual property and agriculture. As a matter of fact, agricultural reform remains a major stumbling block. Indeed, it threatens to bring down the rest of the round. We must let farmers compete with farmers, instead of farmers competing with the deep pockets of government treasuries. We need a successful resolution of the agricultural issues if we are to have an agreement. If countries around the globe don't muster the political courage to face these tough issues in the time remaining, we will forfeit new markets for our businesses, impose higher prices on our consumers, and forgo new jobs and higher incomes for workers in all countries. Worst of all, we will endanger a vital, proven framework of international cooperation. A collapse of the round will inevitably encourage increased protectionist pressure and political instability. And that, frankly, is something we can ill afford as we forge a new partnership of nations against aggression in the Persian Gulf. I urge you to work actively within your governments to ensure success. And I urge my counterparts around the world--as we did at the Houston economic summit--to instruct your negotiators to bring all the components of the Uruguay Round to a successful conclusion by December. In all these efforts, there is so much at stake. Almost 35 years ago, President Eisenhower first appeared at an IMF-World Bank meeting, and he spoke of the lessons that he learned while waging a war that brought together so many different soldiers from so many different lands. Ike noted, as I do now, that there were people in the audience who were our allies in that grand effort. And he said: "We early found one thing. Without the heart, without the enthusiasm for the cause in which we were working, no cooperation was possible. With that enthusiasm--subordinating all else to the advancement of the cause--cooperation was easy." As the unity of the nations has demonstrated in the past two months, the worldwide enthusiasm for today's noble cause--the cause I've described as a new partnership of nations--is not only unprecedented, but truly remarkable. And I urge you to seize that enthusiasm in your meetings this week, to forge the new levels of cooperation needed to succeed. Thank you very much for coming to Washington, DC. I hope you feel welcome, because you are. Good luck this week in the meetings ahead and God speed you in your travels home. Thank you all very, very much. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, NO 5, October 1, 1990 Title:

South Africa: Toward a New Reality

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Remarks made following his meeting with South African President Frederick W. de Klerk at the White House Date: Sep 24, 19909/24/90 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Subsaharan Africa Country: South Africa Subject: Human Rights [TEXT] To our friends from South Africa, once again, welcome to the White House. We've just come from an extraordinarily useful meeting. President de Klerk and I have conversed on the phone several times in the past, but it was a great pleasure to hold this face-to-face meeting with the first South African leader to visit the United States in more than 40 years. President de Klerk described for me in detail what he is trying to accomplish in South Africa--the process of ending apartheid and negotiating a new political reality for all. We talked of this very promising, sometimes difficult situation, especially the recent violence. And I think all Americans recognize that President de Klerk is courageously trying to change things. After all, we have seen in other parts of the world the culture of political violence overwhelm the culture of dialogue. And this must not happen to South Africa. The government has a special responsibility to maintain order, but all political parties and groups have a special responsibility to support the process of peaceful transition. One thing is apparent in this process of change: The move away from apartheid toward a new political reality is indeed irreversible. And much has already happened. Leading political figures, including Nelson Mandela, have been released from prison. The government and the ANC--the African National Congress--have reached an agreement on a plan for the release of the remaining political prisoners. Political organizations banned for years are now free to conduct peaceful political activities, and restraints on the media have largely been removed. A framework has been agreed to between the ANC and the government to lead to negotiations over the political future of the country. Other groups are invited to join in. Except for the beleaguered Natal, the nationwide state of emergency has been lifted through the country. Who among us only a year ago would have anticipated these remarkable developments? Clearly, the time has come to encourage and assist the emerging new South Africa. The United States clearly endorses the principle of constitutional democratic government in South Africa. And I'm here to tell you that I have enormous respect for what President de Klerk and Nelson Mandela are trying to achieve together in pursuit of this principle. And it is not simply this President. I believe, sir, it's the entire American people that feel that way. South Africa needs a constitutional system based on regular and free elections with universal suffrage--a civil society where authority is responsible in every sense of the word. South Africa needs an unvarying respect for human rights and equal opportunity for all its citizens. And we would also like to see an economic system that's based on freedom and individual initiative and market forces. We believe that only a society that opens equal opportunity to all can remedy the social and economic deprivations inflicted on so many people for so many years by apartheid. And President de Klerk agrees with this principle of equal opportunity for all. It is in such a context that the issue of sanctions often arises. Although our meetings today were not about sanctions, obviously, we discussed it; the topic did come up. And let me just say a quick word. As I stated, we believe the process of change in South Africa is irreversible--a fact that we'll bear squarely in mind as we consider specific issues in the future. Our goal must be to support the process of change. And, of course, I will consult fully with the Congress on these issues. As you know, all the conditions set in our legislation have not yet been made, in spite of the dramatic progress that we salute here today. But let me emphasize that these conditions are clear-cut and are not open to reinterpretation. And I do not believe in moving the goalposts. Finally, we will be in touch with our traditional allies in Western Europe and elsewhere on what we can do to help build democracy in South Africa. It is only in this way that South Africa can again be fully accepted into the wider international community. Apartheid has long hindered South Africa from within, depriving it of the talent and very dreams of millions of men and women. Little wonder then that the end of apartheid holds the promise of unleashing the creative energies of the restless millions. And that's why the end of apartheid can really mean the beginning of a greater South Africa. Mr. President, if you're successful in this effort, South Africa around the world will become a beloved country, not for one people, but for all. And for that--your efforts, your courage--you leave with our gratitude, our appreciation, and a hearty Godspeed. Good luck to you, sir, in this wonderful endeavor. We're pleased you're here. Very pleased, indeed. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 5, October 1, 1990 Title:

Country Profile: South Africa

Date: Oct 1, 199010/1/90 Category: Country Data Region: Subsaharan Africa Country: South Africa Subject: History, International Organizations, Trade/Economics [TEXT] Official Name: Republic of South Africa
Geography
Area: 1,233,404 sq. km. (472,359 sq. mi.)--including the enclave of Walvis Bay in Namibia--almost twice the size of Texas. Cities: Capitals: (population from the 1985 South African Government census) Administrative--Pretoria (850,000); Legislative--Cape Town (1.9 million); Judicial--Bloemfontein (232,000). Other cities: Johannesburg (1.7 million), Soweto (est. 2 million), Durban (1 million) Terrain: plateau, savanna, desert, mountains, coastal plains. Climate: moderate
People
Nationality: Noun and adjective--South African(s). Population: 37.5 million (1988 estimate). Ethnic groups: African (black)--28 million; white--5.4 million (Afrikaners-2.9 million; English-speaking and others--2.5 million); "colored" (mixed-race)--3.2 million; Asian (Indian)--1 million. Avg. annual growth rate (1979-89): overall--2.3%; African--2.5%; white--0.85%; "colored"--2.4%; Asian--1.89%. Languages: English and Afrikaans (both are official languages), Zulu, Xhosa, North and South seSotho, seTswana, others. Religions: predominantly Christian; also traditional African, Hindu, Muslim, and Jewish.
Government
Type: Executive-president; under the 1984 constitution, tricameral parliament with one chamber each for whites, "coloreds," and Asians. Independence: The Union of South Africa was created on May 31, 1910, became a sovereign state within British Empire in 1934, became a republic on May 31, 1961, left the British Commonwealth in October 1961. Political parties: White--National Party, Conservative Party, Democratic Party (merger of Progressive Federal Party, Independent Party, and National Democratic Movement). "Colored"--Labour Party, Freedom Party, People's Progressive Party, Reformed Freedom Party, New Convention People's Party. Asian--National People's Party, Solidarity, Progressive Independent Party, National Federal Party, National Democratic Party. Suffrage: Whites, "coloreds," and Asians 18 and older.
Economy
GDP (1988): $83.5 billion. GDP growth rate (1988): 3.2%. GDP per capita (1988): $2,256. Inflation (1988): about 12.5%. Unemployment (1988): estimated 25-30% for blacks; less than 2% for whites. Exports: Total exports (1988) f.o.b.-- $20.9 billion. Principal exports: gold, platinum group metals, ferrochromium, uranium compounds, diamonds, coal, agricultural products. Major markets-- Japan, West Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, Switzerland. Imports: Total imports (1988) f.o.b.-- $14.3 billion. Principal imports--machinery, mining equipment, transportation equipment, computers, aircraft parts, rice, and office machinery parts. Major suppliers: Japan, West Germany, the United Kingdom. Official exchange rate: South Africa has a dual exchange-rate system. All capital funds leaving South Africa may be transferred only through the medium of the financial rand. South Africans use commercial rands for most other commercial transactions. As of May 1989, financial rand exchange rate (1 rand/$US): 0.23; commercial rand exchange rate (1 rand/$US): 0.38.
International Affiliations
UN and many of its specialized and related agencies, International Monetary Fund (IMF), General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), INTELSAT, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (South Africa's voting rights in the UN General Assembly have been suspended since 1974.)(###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 5, October 1, 1990 Title:

Focus on Central and Eastern Europe: 10/1/90

Date: Oct 1, 199010/1/90 Category: Focus on Emerging Democracies Region: E/C Europe Country: Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Germany, Yugoslavia (former) Subject: Media/Telecommunications, Cultural Exchange, Trade/Economics [TEXT]
International Media Fund Created
Marvin Stone, former Deputy Director of the US Information Agency (USIA), has been named chairman of the board of the new International Media Fund. The Media Fund is the result of a commitment by Secretary Baker to create a nongovernmental organization to foster independent media in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The Media Fund will draw on US media organizations and individual journalists, editors, and others to help independent broadcasting and print media in the CEE region. In a press conference held on August 30, 1990, in the Department of State, Stone explained that the Media Fund had been incorporated in the District of Colombia as a non-profit organization. It will be overseen by a board of directors acting independently of the US government. The board will set policy priorities, authorize projects for creating and supporting media enterprises in the region, and act as a coordination point and clearinghouse for media projects of other institutions related to the media. Media Fund programs will give priority to broadcasting, although support also will be provided to newspapers and news periodicals. For additional information about the International Media Fund, call its Executive Director, Aurelius Fernandez at 202-296-9787.
Germany
Unification
. On October 3, 1990, at 12:01 am. in Germany, the German Democratic Republic (GDR) will cease to exist and will become part of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG).
Property Claims
. On July 27, the GDR took the first step to implement a June 15 joint declaration of the GDR and the FRG in which the two governments announced their intention to return to private ownership (or pay compensation for) property expropriated by the GDR. The law provides for the registration of individuals' and corporations' claims (including claims of non- German nationals) to property expropriated or placed under state administration by the communist GDR government. The filing deadline is October 13, 1990, in order to settle property issues quickly -- a prerequisite to economic development in the eastern part of a unified Germany. Later laws will provide standards for adjudicating claims and the mechanism by which the claims will be considered. The US government has pursued a lump-sum settlement of certain claims of US citizens against the GDR and will continue to pursue a settlement. Nevertheless, all individuals with property claims may wish to consider filing under the new German law. For more information, including information on how to file a claim, contact the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Washington, DC 20579, Attn: David Bradley, Chief Counsel (tel: 202-653-5883), or the Assistant Legal Adviser for International Claims and Investment Disputes, 2100 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20037-7180 (tel: 202-632-5040).
Investment Mission
The US Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) has scheduled an investment mission to the eastern part of a unified Germany for US business representatives October 21-24, 1990. OPIC tailors such missions to provide US companies with crucial country and business information and assists them in developing their investment strategies. Experts from the German government and private sector will meet with the investment mission in Berlin to discuss incentives and procedures for investing. Sectors in which there are opportunities for investment include: Advertising, Automobiles and parts, Beverages, Ceramics, Communications, Construction, Consumer durables, Food processing, Machine tools, Musical instruments, Optical equipment, Plastics, Pollution control, Publishing, Real estate, Retailing, Robotics, Tourism. For additional information, call Christopher Meyer in OPIC at 202-457-7092; fax: 202-331-4234.
Exchange Students
. Six East German students who arrived in the US in August are the first East Germans to participate in a USIA-sponsored year-long high school exchange program (the Samantha Smith Memorial Exchange Program). Four more German students from the eastern part of a unified Germany will arrive in January 1991 to participate in half-year high school exchanges.
Poland
Conference on Cooperatives
. The US Overseas Cooperative Development Committee will sponsor an international conference on "Cooperatives in Poland's Transition to a Market Economy" on October 9, 1990, in Washington, DC. The conference will examine Poland's new democracy, its market economy, and the problems and opportunities of cooperative development in a Polish context. Polish and US experts will explain the latest developments in Poland, and Congressman David Obey (Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and a Democrat from Wisconsin) will be the keynote luncheon speaker. Other speakers will discuss US cooperative assistance initiatives, such as: -- Sending up to 150 farmer-to-farmer volunteers to advise new cooperative leaders in creating private cooperatives; -- Undertaking two-way study missions and establishing consumer credit unions; -- Training cooperative and farm managers through hands-on experience in US systems; -- Initiating pilot rural telephone cooperatives; -- Exploring innovative cooperative housing approaches; and -- Undertaking investments, joint ventures, and trade by US cooperatives. For additional information about the conference, call Sacha Peterson at 202-857-4835; fax: 202-857-4863.
Management Training
. The Polish Deputy Minister of Education, Tadeusz Diem, met with USIA, Agency for International Development, and other US government officials recently to discuss his strategy for a three-part program to create a management and business education program for Poland. The program would have the following components: -- Executive training courses in Poland; -- An academic year and internship in the US for Polish graduate students who would then move into professorial positions in Poland; and -- Televideo linkages between the US and Poland to be used both as an educational tool and as a way to exchange information at the professional level.
Liberalizing Foreign Investment
. The Polish government has approved recommendations of the Polish-US Economic Council to liberalize its foreign investment rules. The Council comprises Polish and US business leaders and is an affiliate of the US Chamber of Commerce. The government accepted 24 changes to open the country to more foreign investment, including: -- Permitting foreign companies to repatriate all of their profits rather than 15%; -- Reducing the maximum corporate income-tax rate from 40% to 20%; -- Establishing accounting procedures similar to those in the United States and other Western countries to eliminate the need for double accounting; -- Eliminating minimum foreign investment levels in joint ventures; and -- Ending most government screening of foreign investors. Thaddeus C. Kopinski, Executive Director of the Council, said that "If legislation to adopt these changes is approved by the Polish parliament, it would make that country one of the most attractive investment sites in Europe." Additional information on the Polish government's action and copies of the Council's proposals are available from Mr. Kopinski (tel: 202-463-5460).
Cleveland Workshop
The Cleveland World Trade Association (CWTA) is sponsoring a workshop on November 8, 1990, to provide up-to-date information on trade and investment opportunities in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland. Speakers will include commercial attaches from those three countries, a representative of the Polish Ministry of Ownership Transformation, former US Congressman Charles Vanik, and a panel of US business people with recent experience in Central and Eastern Europe. For information and registration, call Mr. Richard Kirby, CWTA Director, at 216-621-3300.
Hungary
Linguistics Seminar
. From August 12-24, three US academic specialists conducted the first applied linguistics seminar for Hungarian university and college English teachers. The seminar, which was held in Veszprem, Hungary, provided an intensive graduate-level course of study requested by the Hungarian English-teaching community.
Bulgaria
Exchange Student Enters US Law School. Angelina Galiteva, a Bulgarian participant in a youth-exchange project funded by the St. Louis private sector, has been accepted as a student by Pace University Law School in White Plains, New York. Galiteva is probably the first Bulgarian degree candidate to attend law school in the United States. Her presence in the law school is another contribution to the rule-of-law component of President Bush's Central and East European initiatives.
Romania
Institute for Romanian Media Studies
. California State University at Chico has created an Institute for Romanian Media Studies. The new institute will support continued cooperative training of Romanians with USIA and local private- sector initiatives such as the donation of a printing press by a Chico city newspaper and US efforts to develop Romanian-language desk-top publishing software. A 3-week workshop for Romanian opposition editors, organized by USIA's International Training Center at the Voice of America (VOA), was held July 17-August 3 on the university campus and in VOA headquarters in Washington, DC.
Economic Update on Romania
Economic Trends
-- GNP fell about 1.5% in 1989. The downward trend continues with the economy still reeling from the effects of the December revolution. First quarter industrial production dropped 20% compared to the first quarter of 1989, and there are no signs of recovery. -- Inflation is not yet a problem but could soar if price controls are lifted. -- Unemployment was estimated at 5-7% at midyear and rising.
Hard Currency Trade and Debt
-- Draconian policies by the communist government nearly eliminated foreign debt by the end of 1989. By midyear 1990, gross debt was only some $500 million but growing with rising imports of medicine and other needed consumer and capital goods. -- To bolster domestic supplies after the revolution, hard currency exports were cut 40% by March 1990 compared to the first quarter of 1989; imports rose 75%.
Status of Economic Reform
-- The newly elected government of former communist officials is slowly loosening central controls over the economy but has not announced a comprehensive economic reform program. There are no plans for currency convertibility. -- On July 31, 1990, the parliament passed a law on privatization that requires most state-owned companies, including farms, to transfer 30% of their assets to a newly created National Privatization Agency. The government envisions 70% of the economy to be in the private sector in 3 years but intends to retain control over "strategic" sectors of the economy (e.g., arms, energy, rail transport, and communications). -- Uncertainty about the government's commitment to real democracy means that the political environment necessary for market-oriented reforms to take root and flourish is still a long way off.
USIA Youth Exchange Projects
Ten young entrepreneurs from Central and Eastern Europe arrived in the US on August 23 for the second of five USIA youth exchange projects. Through site visits, workshops, and practical experience, they are studying US small business development and the role of entrepreneurship in a free-market economy.
National Forum Foundation Interns
In September, 18 young leaders in business, politics, and the media in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland began a 3-month internship in the United States sponsored by the National Forum Foundation and partly funded by USIA. This is the third such group sponsored by the National Forum Foundation. Internship venues include congressional offices in Washington, DC, the Library of Congress, National Public Radio, and American Security Bank. (###)