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.
(###)