US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 6, October 8, 1990
Title: The UN: World Parliament of Peace
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: Address before the United Nations General Assembly, New
York, New York
Date: Oct 1, 199010/1/90
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Subject: United Nations, Arms Control
[TEXT]
Mr. President, thank you very much. Mr. Secretary General,
distinguished delegates to the United Nations, it is really a great
privilege to greet you today as we begin what marks a new and
historic session of the General Assembly. My congratulations to the
Honorable Guido de Marco on your election, sir, as president of the
General Assembly. And, on a personal note, I want to say that--
having witnessed the unprecedented unity and cooperation of the
past 2 months-- I have never been prouder to have once served
within your ranks and never been prouder that the United States is
the host country for the United Nations.
The UN's Beginnings
Forty-five years ago, while the fires of an epic war still raged
across two oceans and two continents, a small group of men and
women began a search for hope amid the ruins. They gathered in San
Francisco, stepping back from the haze and horror, to try to shape a
new structure that might support an ancient dream.
Intensely idealistic, and yet tempered by war, they sought to
build a new kind of bridge, a bridge between nations, a bridge that
might help carry humankind from its darkest hour to its brightest
day.
The founding of the United Nations embodied our deepest hopes
for a peaceful world. And during the past year, we've come closer
than ever before to realizing those hopes. We've seen a century
sundered by barbed threats and barbed wire give way to a new era of
peace and competition and freedom.
1989's Revolutionary Breeze of Freedom
The revolution of 1989 swept the world almost with a life of its
own, carried by a new breeze of freedom. It transformed the
political climate from Central Europe to Central America and
touched almost every corner of the globe.
That breeze has been sustained by a now almost universal
recognition of a simple, fundamental truth: The human spirit cannot
be locked up forever. The truth is, people everywhere are motivated
in much the same ways. People everywhere want much the same
things: the chance to live a life of purpose; the chance to choose a
life in which they and their children can learn, and grow healthy,
worship freely, and prosper through the work of their hands and
their hearts and their minds.
We're not talking about the power of nations but the power of
individuals-- the power to choose, the power to risk, the power to
succeed.
This is a new and different world. Not since 1945 have we
seen the real possibility of using the United Nations as it was
designed--as a center for international collective security.
The changes in the Soviet Union have been critical to the
emergence of a stronger United Nations. The US-Soviet relationship
is finally beyond containment and confrontation, and now we seek to
fulfill the promise of mutually shared understanding.
The long twilight struggle that for 45 years has divided
Europe, our two nations, and much of the world, has come to an end.
Much has changed over the last 2 years. The Soviet Union has taken
many dramatic and important steps to participate fully in the
community of nations.
And when the Soviet Union agreed with so many of us here in
the United Nations to condemn the aggression of Iraq, there could be
no doubt--no doubt then--that we had, indeed, put four decades of
history behind us.
We are hopeful that the machinery of the United Nations will
no longer be frozen by the divisions that plagued us during the Cold
War, that at last--long last--we can build new bridges and tear
down old walls, that at long last we will be able to build a new
world based on an event for which we have all hoped--an end to the
Cold War.
Two days from now, the world will be watching when the Cold
War is formally buried in Berlin. And in this time of testing, a
fundamental question must be asked, a question not for any one
nation but for the United Nations. The question is this: Can we
work together in a new partnership of nations? Can the collective
strength of the world community, expressed by the United Nations,
unite to deter and defeat aggression? Because the Cold War's battle
of ideas is not the last epic battle of this century.
Iraqi Aggression
Two months ago, in the waning weeks of one of history's most
hopeful summers, the vast, still beauty of the peaceful Kuwaiti
desert was fouled by the stench of diesel and the roar of steel
tanks. Once again the sound of distant thunder echoed across a
cloudless sky, and once again the world awoke to face the guns of
August.
But this time, the world was ready. The United Nations
Security Council's resolute response to Iraq's unprovoked aggression
has been without precedent. Since the invasion on August 2d, the
council has passed eight major resolutions setting the terms for a
solution to the crisis.
The Iraqi regime has yet to face the facts. But as I said last
month, the annexation of Kuwait will not be permitted to stand.
And this is not simply the view of the United States. It is the view
of every Kuwaiti, the Arab League, the United Nations. Iraq's
leaders should listen: It is Iraq against the world.
Let me take this opportunity to make the policy of my
government clear. The United States supports the use of sanctions
to compel Iraq's leaders to withdraw immediately and without
condition from Kuwait. We also support the provision of medicine
and food for humanitarian purposes, so long as distribution can be
properly monitored. Our quarrel is not with the people of Iraq. We
do not wish for them to suffer. The world's quarrel is with the
dictator who ordered that invasion.
Along with others, we have dispatched military forces to the
region to enforce sanctions, to deter and, if need be, defend against
further aggression. And we seek no advantage for ourselves; nor do
we seek to maintain our military forces in Saudi Arabia for 1 day
longer than is necessary. US forces were sent at the request of the
Saudi government. The American people, and this President, want
every single American soldier brought home as soon as this mission
is completed.
Let me also emphasize that all of us here at the United
Nations hope that military force will never be used. We seek a
peaceful outcome--a diplomatic outcome. And one more thing: In
the aftermath of Iraq's unconditional departure from Kuwait, I truly
believe there may be opportunities--for Iraq and Kuwait to settle
their differences permanently, for the states of the gulf themselves
to build new arrangements for stability, and for all the states and
the peoples of the region to settle the conflicts that divide the
Arabs from Israel. But the world's key task--now, first, and
always--must be to demonstrate that aggression will not be
tolerated or rewarded.
Through the UN Security Council, Iraq has been judged--fairly
judged by a jury of its peers, the very nations of the Earth. Today,
the regime stands isolated and out of step with the times,
separated from the civilized world, not by space but by centuries.
Iraq's unprovoked aggression is a throwback to another era, a
dark relic from a dark time. It has plundered Kuwait; it has
terrorized innocent civilians; it has held even diplomats hostage.
Iraq and its leaders must be held liable for these crimes of abuse
and destruction. But this outrageous disregard for basic human
rights does not come as a total surprise. Thousands of Iraqis have
been executed on political and religious grounds and even more
through a genocidal, poison-gas war waged against Iraq's own
Kurdish villagers.
Elimination of Chemical Weapons
As a world community, we must act--not only to deter the use of
inhumane weapons like mustard and nerve gas but to eliminate the
weapons entirely. And that is why, 1 year ago, I came to the
General Assembly with new proposals to banish these terrible
weapons from the face of the Earth.
I promised that the United States would destroy over 98% of
its stockpile in the first 8 years of a chemical weapons ban treaty,
and 100%--all of them--in 10 years, if all nations with chemical
weapons capabilities--chemical weapons--signed the treaty.
We've stood by those promises. In June, the United States and
the Soviet Union signed a landmark agreement to halt production and
to destroy the vast majority of our stockpiles. Today, US chemical
weapons are being destroyed.
But time is running out. This isn't merely a bilateral concern.
The gulf crisis proves how important it is to act together--and to
act now--to conclude an absolute, worldwide ban on these weapons.
We must also redouble our efforts to stem the spread of nuclear
weapons, biological weapons, and the ballistic missiles that can
rain destruction upon distant peoples.
The United Nations can help bring about a new day, a day when
these kinds of terrible weapons, and the terrible despots who would
use them, are both a thing of the past. It is in our hands to leave
these dark machines behind, in the Dark Ages where they belong, and
to press forward to cap a historic movement toward a new world
order and a long era of peace.
A New Partnership of Nations
We have a vision of a new partnership of nations that transcends
the Cold War. A partnership based on consultation, cooperation, and
collective action, especially through international and regional
organizations. A partnership united by principle and the rule of law
and supported by an equitable sharing of both cost and commitment.
A partnership whose goals are to increase democracy, increase
prosperity, increase the peace, and reduce arms.
And as we look to the future, the calendar offers up a
convenient milestone, a signpost by which to measure our progress
as a community of nations.
The year 2000 marks a turning point, beginning not only the
turn of the decade, not only the turn of the century, but also the
turn of the millennium.
And 10 years from now, as the 55th session of the General
Assembly begins, you will again find many of us in this hall, hair a
bit more gray perhaps, maybe a little less spring in our walk. But
you will not find us with any less hope or idealism or any less
confidence in the ultimate triumph of mankind.
I see a world of open borders, open trade, and, most
importantly, open minds. A world that celebrates the common
heritage that belongs to all the world's people taking pride not just
in hometown or homeland but in humanity itself.
I see a world touched by a spirit like that of the Olympics--
based not on competition that's driven by fear but sought out of joy
and exhilaration and a true quest for excellence.
I see a world where democracy continues to win new friends
and convert old foes and where the Americas--North, Central, and
South--can provide a model for the future of all humankind; the
world's first completely democratic hemisphere.
And I see a world building on the emerging new model of
European unity--not just Europe but the whole world whole and free.
This is precisely why the present aggression in the gulf is a
menace not only to one region's security but to the entire world's
vision of our future. It threatens to turn the dream of a new
international order into a grim nightmare of anarchy in which the
law of the jungle supplants the law of nations.
That's why the United Nations reacted with such historic unity
and resolve. And that's why this challenge is a test that we cannot
afford to fail. I am confident we will prevail. Success, too, will
have lasting consequences--reinforcing civilized standards of
international conduct, setting a new precedent in international
cooperation, brightening the prospects for our vision of the future.
There are 10 more years until this century is out--10 more
years to put the struggles of the 20th century permanently behind
us, 10 more years to help launch a new partnership of nations. And
throughout those 10 years, and beginning now, the United Nations
has a new and vital role in building toward that partnership. Last
year's General Assembly showed how we can make greater progress
toward a more pragmatic and successful United Nations. And, for
the first time, the UN Security Council is beginning to work as it
was designed to work.
Now is the time to set aside old and counterproductive
debates and procedures and controversies and resolutions. It's time
to replace polemic attacks with pragmatic action.
We've shown that the UN can count on the collective strength
of the international community. We've shown that the UN can rise
to the challenge of aggression just as its founders hoped that it
would. And now is the time of testing. We must also show that the
United Nations is the place to build international support and
consensus for meeting the other challenges we face.
The world remains a dangerous place, and our security and
well-being often depend, in part, on events occurring far away. We
need serious international cooperative efforts to make headway on
the threats to the environment, on terrorism, on managing the debt
burden, on fighting the scourge of international drug trafficking,
and on refugees and peacekeeping efforts around the world.
But the world also remains a hopeful place. Calls for
democracy and human rights are being reborn everywhere. And
these calls are an expression of support for the values enshrined in
the UN Charter. They encourage our hopes for a more stable, more
peaceful, more prosperous world.
Free Elections and UN Membership
Free elections are the foundation of democratic government and can
produce dramatic successes, as we have seen in Namibia and
Nicaragua. The time has come to structure the UN role in such
efforts more formally. And so today, I propose that the UN
establish a special coordinator for electoral assistance, to be
assisted by a UN electoral commission comprised of distinguished
experts from around the world.
As with free elections, we also believe that universal UN
membership for all states is central to the future of this
organization and to this new partnership we've discussed. In
support of this principle, and in conjunction with UN efforts to
reduce regional tensions, the United States fully supports UN
membership for the Republic of Korea. We do so without prejudice
to the ultimate objective of reunification of the Korean Peninsula
and without opposition to simultaneous membership for the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Bringing the UN Into the 21st Century
Building on these and other initiatives, we must join together in a
new compact--all of us--to bring the United Nations into the 21st
century. I call today for a major long-term effort to do so. We
should build on the success--the admirable success--of our
distinguished Secretary General, my longtime friend and yours--my
longtime colleague, I might also say--Javier Peres de Cuellar. We
should strive for greater effectiveness and efficiency of the United
Nations.
The United States is committed to playing its part--helping to
maintain global security, promoting democracy and prosperity. And
my administration is fully committed to supporting the United
Nations and to paying what we are obliged to pay by our
commitment to the Charter. International peace and security--and
international freedom and prosperity--require no less.
The world must know and understand: From this hour, from
this day, from this hall, we step forth with a new sense of purpose,
a new sense of possibilities. We stand together, prepared to swim
upstream, to march uphill, to tackle the tough challenges as they
come--not only as the United Nations, but as the nations of the
world united.
And so let it be said of the final decade of the 20th century:
This was a time when humankind came into its own, when we
emerged from the grit and the smoke of the industrial age to bring
about a revolution of the spirit and the mind and began a journey
into a new day, a new age, and a new partnership of nations.
The United Nations is now fulfilling its promise as the world's
parliament of peace. I congratulate you. I support you. And I wish
you Godspeed in the challenges ahead. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 6, October 8, 1990
Title: CSCE: The Power of Principle
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: Remarks at the Conference on Security and Cooperation
in Europe (CSCE) Ministerial Meeting, New York, New York
Date: Oct 1, 199010/1/90
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Europe, E/C Europe, Eurasia
Subject: CSCE
[TEXT]
On behalf of the American people, it is my great pleasure to
welcome all of you to the United States. It's especially fitting that
this meeting of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in
Europe [CSCE]--the first ever on American soil--comes at this time
of momentous change. For just as Europe enters a new and
promising era, so too, do America's relations with Europe.
We Americans are bound to Europe by a shared heritage and
history and the common bonds of culture. Through the Atlantic
alliance and the broader partnership that bind our two continents
and peoples together, we have brought about the end of Europe's
division and set our eyes on a new Europe, whole and free. Together,
we can forge a new transatlantic partnership at the CSCE, a
commonwealth of free nations that spans the oceans between us.
A World of Change
In this past year, we would all agree, we've witnessed a world of
change. Moments ago, right here in this building, the foreign
ministers of France and Great Britain, the Soviet Union and the
United States, signed the document suspending all remaining four
power rights and responsibilities in Germany, effective at the
moment of German unification. I must say that just before I left
from the hotel, I saw that on television. For me, and I think for
many of the American people, it was a very moving moment.
Because with those final strokes of the pen really ends an era of
discord and division. The way is now open for a united, sovereign,
and democratic Germany. We rejoice with the German people that
their nation is united once more, and we will soon welcome a united
Germany into the CSCE's community of states.
Germany's long-awaited day of celebration is the culmination
of a year of change that, indeed, transformed a continent. This
transformation is testimony to the power of the principles in the
founding charter of the CSCE--the Helsinki Final Act. There, in the
human rights and fundamental freedoms set down in Helsinki 15
years ago, we find the cause and catalyst of what I refer to as the
"Revolution of '89."
Ordinary People, Extraordinary Acts
In the darkest days of dictatorship, those principles blazed forth a
bright star, inspiring ordinary people to extraordinary acts. Think
of [Lech] Walesa, the father of Solidarity. Of [Andrei] Sakharov and
his unflinching humanity in the face of repression. Of [Vaclav]
Havel, [Tadeusz] Mazowiecki and [Jozsef] Antall--not so very long
ago political prisoners--now president and prime ministers of three
of the world's newest democracies [Czech and Slovak Republic,
Poland, and Hungary.] And [Zaelyu] Zhelev, another ex-political
prisoner, now president of Bulgaria. Think of all the millions of
ordinary men and women, at long last, free to speak their minds,
free to live, work, and worship as they wish.
CSCE shares in this monumental triumph of the human spirit.
Our challenge now is to keep pace with the tremendous political
transformations that have changed the face of Europe, to create a
CSCE that consolidates these great gains for freedom, and bring
East and West together. In Eastern and Central Europe, a CSCE
capable of helping hard-won democratic principles take root and
draw strength; a CSCE that can help secure a firm foundation for
freedom in the new Europe now emerging.
In July at the London summit, the leaders of the Atlantic
alliance put forward a series of proposals aimed at strengthening
the CSCE and channeling its energies in new directions. We urge the
member nations of the CSCE:
To create a center
for prevention of conflict,
to build on the CSCE's success in establishing confidence- and
security-building measures that have done so much to reduce the
risk of war by accident or miscalculation, and to conciliate
disputes;
To establish a small permanent secretariat
to serve the CSCE, one that could support an accelerated schedule of
the CSCE consultations and review conferences;
To create a CSCE elections office
to foster
free and fair elections, the fundamental democratic principle from
which all others follow.
And on behalf of the United States, let me say that I hope that
these new institutions can be situated wherever possible in the new
democracies of Central and Eastern Europe.
Finally, at the London summit we issued an invitation to
member nations to convene an assembly of Europe--a parliament
where the growing family of democracies, old and new, can chart a
common course toward this new Europe, whole and free.
A CSCE Milestone
Today, as we prepare for a summit of the CSCE nations, I urge the
ministers to make this meeting a milestone in the history of the
CSCE.
To this end, let me mention one more area where rapid
progress is critical--the ongoing negotiations of conventional
armed forces in Europe (CFE). An agreement to reduce conventional
forces remains the cornerstone of a new security architecture for
Europe. For that reason, the United States believes a conventional
arms accord is an essential prerequisite to a CSCE summit.
Today, I now call on the negotiators now working in Vienna to
redouble their efforts in the weeks ahead. I can pledge [to] you
[that] the United States will cooperate in every way possible. We
must resolve outstanding issues and reach agreement, so that a
summit can be held this year.
Fifteen years ago, in a Europe divided East from West, the
CSCE offered a vision of a Europe united, whole, and free. Today,
with that new Europe within our reach, the CSCE remains central to
all that Europe can become.
So once again, welcome to the United States. And may the
spirit that has carried Europe forward guide your discussions and
may you meet with every success. Thank you all very, very much.
(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 6, October 8, 1990
Title: CSCE: Building Together for the Future
Baker
Source: Secretary Baker
Description: Remarks at the CSCE Ministerial Meeting, New York City
Date: Oct 1, 199010/1/90
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Europe, Eurasia, E/C Europe
Subject: CSCE
[TEXT]
Colleagues, let me begin by joining President Bush in welcoming you
to the first meeting of the Conference on Security and Cooperation
in Europe (CSCE) ever to be held in the United States of America.
The symbol of our ministerial meeting--the Statute of Liberty's
torch--holds a special meaning for the CSCE. The Statue of Liberty
was given by the French people to the people of the United States
over a century ago. The French advocate of republican democracy,
Laboulaye, originated this gift because he believed that America had
found the balance between liberty and stability that at that time
eluded France.
France, subsequently, found that balance in democracy as did
others. But many of the nations of Central and Eastern Europe have
yet to achieve it. If we all work together, I am confident that the
CSCE process can help them to be successful.
In that context, let me note here the pleasure of my
government that in just over 24 hours, the goal of a united
democratic Germany will be achieved. As every American president,
every secretary of state, and every Congress since the signing of
the 1975 [Helsinki] Final Act have done, the United States here
affirms our strong commitment to the CSCE, to its democratic
aims, and to its development. We believe that this meeting can help
prepare the way for a strengthened CSCE process, one capable of
meeting the challenges that lie ahead in Europe's future.
At this time of dramatic change, all of us are seeing--more
clearly than ever before--that a democratic, prosperous, and
peaceful Europe can only be achieved if Americans and Europeans
work together to build it.
Together, we must build a new Europe:
-- Upon the strong pillars of political legitimacy and the rule
of law;
-- Upon a solid framework of market principles;
-- Upon the foundation of confidence that only a treaty on
conventional armed forces in Europe (CFE) and other key security-
building measures can ensure;
-- Upon the bedrock of security that comes from firm
commitments to peace, to sovereignty, and to self-determination;
and
-- Upon the mutually reinforcing cornerstone of NATO, the
European Community, and CSCE.
Six Core Proposals to Strengthen CSCE
I would like to focus on how CSCE can contribute to the
construction of a whole Europe, a free Europe, a secure Europe. I
want to talk about how together we can build a new European
architecture, different from all the empires and regimes and orders
that have risen and fallen before.
For the past 15 years, CSCE has served as a political bridge
across the East-West divide, fostering the flow of ideas, people,
and information and creating opportunities for peaceful, far-
reaching change. Now, CSCE must deepen and consolidate the very
changes that it has done so much to engender. As I see it, CSCE's
principal challenge now is to help establish genuine processes of
democratic nation-building and cooperation. We must build the
means to ensure that the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe will
always be a part of the mainstream of European life.
To do this, CSCE will need fresh political direction. And it
must develop methods of work that will be effective in Europe's
new political environment. The time has come to strengthen CSCE
both politically and institutionally.
The CSCE summit in Paris could accelerate this effort. Much
of the ground work has already been laid in Copenhagen, in Bonn, in
Sofia, and Vienna. The six core proposals put forward last June at
NATO's London summit are a clear demonstration of the reinforcing
role that NATO can play in CSCE. Their adoption would:
First,
create a constructive and continuing
high-level dialogue during a dynamic time for Europe politically,
economically, and militarily;
Second,
enable CSCE to plan more
systematically for the longer-term through fixed-interval, follow-
up meetings;
Third,
establish a small permanent
administrative secretariat to give our stepped-up activities
support;
Fourth,
create an elections monitoring office
through which established democracies can lend experience and
support to those that are just emerging;
Fifth,
enhance CSCE's parliamentary
dimension as Central and East European nations are forming
representative systems and forms of government; and
Sixth,
establish a conflict prevention center
to promote confidence, predictability, and transparency through
exchanges of military information and discussions of unusual
military activities and to facilitate the conciliation of disputes.
In short, these proposals from the London NATO summit are a
coherent, workable, substantive program for furthering CSCE's
development. They reflect CSCE's lean and flexible character--
assets that I think we would do well to preserve, given the fast
pace of change in Europe. These proposals follow a sound
architectural precept, and that precept is that form follows
function. They would not duplicate, but they would complement, the
work performed by other bodies. This is particularly the case in the
security area, where NATO remains central to collective defense.
I hope these proposals will receive agreement in principle
here and that they will be embraced by our leaders later on in Paris.
If so, we will have prepared CSCE well for the future.
Military Stability
But our hopeful summit designs for a strengthened CSCE must rest
on a durable structure of military stability. To hold a CSCE summit
before we complete a CFE treaty would be foolish, and it would be
building the future on a slipshod, unstable foundation. My
government thus remains convinced that the completion of a CFE
treaty is an essential precondition to holding the CSCE summit.
We must match the political revolution of last fall with a
military revolution this fall. Signing the CFE treaty will mark our
irreversible disengagement from the Cold War, locking in a new
post-Cold War military order.
But even as we disengage as adversaries, CSCE can help us re-
engage as partners united in a common purpose: to free the whole
of Europe from the legacy of Cold War and from the hatreds and
conflicts that preceded it for generations. Two hot wars and
almost half a century of Cold War reinforce the truth embodied in
Helsinki's 10 guiding principles: respect for human dignity and
democratic values is just as critical to lasting peace in Europe as
is military security.
Baltic States
And now let me say just a word about Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.
We reaffirm President Ford's statement at the signing of the Final
Act that that did not change the position of the United States on the
status of the Baltic states. At the Washington summit, President
Bush stressed again our view that a systematic dialogue must be
pursued so that the aspirations of the Baltic peoples can be
achieved.
Conclusion
Like the Statue of Liberty's torch, the Helsinki Final Act lights the
path for democratic, for peaceful, for far-reaching change in Europe.
In the last eventful year, we have traveled far along that path. This
meeting will take us further, and the Paris summit can mark a
major milestone. But many other milestones, of course, have yet to
be reached, and colleagues, I have no doubt that together we will
reach them. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 6, October 8, 1990
Title: Closing Remarks at the CSCE Ministerial Meeting
Baker
Source: Secretary Baker
Description: Jacob Javits Center, New York, New York
Date: Oct 2, 199010/2/90
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Europe, Eurasia, E/C Europe
Subject: CSCE
[TEXT]
We have now concluded our work. That being the case and before
declaring the meeting closed, I would like to share a few thoughts
with you.
This meeting has agreed on two important statements. Our
message on Iraq again tells Saddam Hussein--if any doubt could
possibly remain--that the international community stands squarely
and solidly against his lawless aggression.
We have also briefly stated the conclusions of our meeting
here and paved the way to Paris. From the view of the United States
however, a new military order in Europe must go hand in hand with a
new political order.
Let me be clear, therefore, that the willingness of the United
States to join a consensus for the CSCE summit is based on our
understanding that completion of a CFE treaty is an essential
prerequisite for convening such a summit.
I am also pleased to note that in past days, I think we have
made significant headway toward reaching a CFE agreement.
CSCE has always reflected the times, even as it has fostered
change. The changes underway in Europe are, indeed, unprecedented.
But in another sense, they are somewhat familiar for they proceed
in the direction that we set in 1975 when our nations adopted
CSCE's 10 guiding principles.
These are days that are full of hope for all of us. Yet when the
Final Act was adopted 15 years ago, the times were much less
hopeful. But among those who clearly saw CSCE's potential were
the very men and women whose future seemed the most bleak--the
Helsinki monitors and human rights activists of Central and Eastern
Europe. Their courageous efforts gave this process its heart, its
soul, and its conscience.
Thank God that in the worst of times, there were always those
who dared to hope to plan for a brighter future. In the midst of the
Second World War, the martyred German humanitarian Helmuth
James von Moltke wrote to his beloved wife, Freya. He wrote:
"For us, Europe after the war is less a problem of frontiers
and soldiers, of top-heavy organizations and grand plans, but ... a
question of how the picture of man can be re-established in the
breasts of our fellow citizens."
In ways that von Moltke could not have foreseen, the Helsinki
process has brought that picture and the truth of his words into
focus. For CSCE has helped to replace inhumanity with human
rights, division with community, and hostility with peace.
As we bring this meeting to a close, a new day--and a new
era--is beginning for Germany, for Europe, and indeed, we hope, for
the world. CSCE has hastened its dawning. May all of our peoples be
guided by its light.
I now declare formally closed this meeting in New York of the
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The meeting is
closed.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 6, October 8, 1990
Title: Achievements of the CSCE Ministerial Meeting
Baker
Source: Secretary Baker
Description: Statement at news conference held at the Jacob Javits
Convention Center, New York, New York
Date: Oct 2, 199010/2/90
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Europe, Eurasia, E/C Europe
Subject: CSCE
[TEXT]
As host of the first CSCE [Conference on Security and Cooperation in
Europe] ministerial ever held in the United States, I would like to
start by expressing my appreciation to all involved for their
unstinting efforts. Many people made this meeting a success, and on
behalf of our American delegation and our guests, I want to thank
all of them.
Here in America, I think we've done much to solidify the
European architecture that we outlined previously in Berlin, in
Prague, and in Copenhagen.
First
of all, we've moved the consensus
forward on institutionalizing and strengthening CSCE. We've done
so, I think, in a way which reaffirms the transatlantic alliance of
values that underpins the complementary institutions of the new
Europe: NATO, CSCE, and the EC [European Community]. We are
especially gratified that the proposals first put forward in the
NATO London declaration [July 1990] have attracted very broad
support here at this ministerial.
In particular, we've advanced proposals to institute a high-
level dialogue, to facilitate planning for systematic meetings, and
to establish a small permanent administrative secretariat.
Second,
since the peaceful revolutions of last
fall in Central and Eastern Europe, the United States has fully
supported efforts to consolidate these democratic revolutions in
enduring representative democracies. At this CSCE ministerial, we
have moved forward proposals to create an elections monitoring
mechanism.
Third,
we have taken steps to establish a
conflict prevention center. This center will aim to promote
military predictability, transparency, and confidence and to
facilitate the conciliation of disputes.
It is our position that the conflict prevention center, the
elections monitoring mechanism, and the secretariat should--if
feasible--be located in the new democracies of Central and Eastern
Europe. This would do much to ensure that CSCE remains an all-
European institution, one that includes, not excludes, the peoples of
the East.
Fourth,
we have made some good progress, I
think, toward completing a CFE [conventional armed forces in
Europe] treaty, and I will be meeting with [Soviet] Foreign Minister
Shevardnadze again tomorrow to further these efforts. As I
stressed in my remarks closing this ministerial, it is the view of
the United States that completion of a CFE treaty remains a
prerequisite for convening a CSCE summit.
Finally,
in yesterday's German signing
ceremony, we closed the old book on conflict and opened a new book
on cooperation. Here in New York, in ending the division of
Germany and furthering the construction of the new Europe, we
reaffirmed, I think, what has long been clear, and that is that the
ocean between us is a bridge--not a barrier--and that together
Americans and Europeans can define common interests and shape a
common future.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 6, October 8, 1990
Title: Communique of the CSCE Foreign Ministers
Description: Released at the CSCE Ministerial Meeting, New York City
Date: Oct 2, 199010/2/90
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Europe, Eurasia, E/C Europe
Subject: CSCE
[TEXT]
1. Foreign Ministers of the 35 states participating in the
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe met in New York
October 1-2, 1990 to review progress on preparations for a meeting
of their heads of state and government in Paris. This was the first
meeting of the CSCE ever held in the United States.
2. Ministers attached great importance to the comprehensive
nature of the CSCE process, which brings together the peoples and
governments of Europe, the United States, and Canada. The CSCE
process proved its vitality in the difficult years of East/West
confrontation and mistrust, and has developed into an important
foundation for the new Europe. In the new era of relations among
CSCE states, the objectives set out in Helsinki in 1975 have been
realized to a degree unforeseen even a few years ago. Ministers
agreed that the role of the CSCE must be enhanced to respond to new
opportunities for cooperation.
3. In that connection, Ministers discussed the work of the
CSCE Paris Summit Preparatory Committee, which has been meeting
in Vienna since July 10. Their discussion reflected a convergence
of views regarding the scope and objectives of the Paris Summit
Meeting, and the major new steps which are now possible for the
CSCE process. They expressed the hope that through the elimination
of tension and the growth of cooperation the CSCE countries will be
able to make an even greater contribution to the lessening of
tensions in other parts of the world.
4. Ministers approved the Agenda for the Paris Summit, which
is annexed to this communique. They agreed that the Summit would
take place as planned on November 19-21, 1990. However, they
recognized that it was considered essential that a Treaty on
Conventional Armed Forces in Europe be ready for signature at that
time. They also expressed the hope that the Summit would endorse
a set of substantial confidence- and security-building measures.
5. Ministers welcomed the treaty on the final settlement
with respect to Germany, noting it as a historic step toward a
Europe whole and free. Ministers were unanimous in acknowledging
that German unification is an important contribution to stability,
cooperation, and unity in Europe.
6. Ministers expressed their profound gratitude to the people
and Government of the United States for the excellent organization
of the New York Meeting and the warm hospitality extended to the
participants in the Meeting.
(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 6, October 8, 1990
Title: Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: Europe, E/C Europe
Subject: CSCE
[TEXT]
The Three Baskets
The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe--also known
as the CSCE or the Helsinki process--is an ongoing multilateral
forum involving all the countries of Europe except Albania (33 in
all), plus the United States and Canada. The CSCE actually began in
earnest in the early 1970s, during the period of "detente" between
East and West, culminating in 1975 with the signing of the Helsinki
Final Act.
This document is not a legally binding treaty but is considered
politically binding on each of the signatory states, who, on the
basis of the rule of consensus, agreed to its provisions. These
provisions are divided into what are called "baskets."
Basket I: General Principles and Security Issues
The first basket has two main sections, including a declaration of
10 basic principles of international behavior that the CSCE
participating states agree to observe. These include respect for
territorial integrity, peaceful settlement of disputes, respect for
human rights and fundamental freedoms, equal rights, and self-
determination of peoples.
Basket I is also devoted to security issues. The participants
endorsed a program of confidence- and security-building measures
(CSBMs) to remove some of the secrecy surrounding military
activities. Basket I calls for prior notification of military
maneuvers and other major military movements, as well as an
exchange of observers. These measures, which apply to the whole
of Europe (as defined in the Helsinki Final Act), are militarily
significant, politically binding, and verifiable. The CSCE member
states have also made general pledges with respect to the
importance of arms control and disarmament.
Relevant Meetings:
-- Stockholm Conference (1984)
-- CSBM negotiations (1989, ongoing)
-- Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (1989, ongoing)*
Basket II: Economics, Science and Technology, the
Environment
In Basket II, the CSCE member states placed a wide range of
measures designed to enhance economic cooperation, including
better economic and commercial information and improved business
contacts and facilities. The members also agreed on industrial
cooperation measures such as harmonization of standards and
arbitration of disputes.
This basket also includes joint efforts in the fields of science
(physics, chemistry, meteorology, oceanography, space research)
and technology (energy, new technologies, computer technology).
The Helsinki Final Act also calls for free exchange of information
between member states on these topics and others.
Finally, in Basket II, member states agreed to study bilateral
and multilateral environmental problems and ways to increase the
effectiveness of national and international protection measures.
Areas of interest include air and water pollution, marine
protection, and protection of the Mediterranean environment.
Relevant Meetings :
-- Sofia Environmental Meeting (1989)
-- Bonn Economic Conference (1990)
-- Palma Meeting on the Mediterranean (1990)
Basket III: Humanitarian Issues
This basket has three main components--humanitarian issues,
dissemination of information, and cultural cooperation.
Humanitarian issues focus on improving human contacts within the
member states, setting standards for the approval of visas or
transnational marriages, improving freedom of travel for business
or pleasure, as well as family reunification.
In its information category, the Helsinki Final Act seeks
improved access to all types of information--oral, written, film,
and broadcast--and to improve the working conditions of
journalists. Cultural cooperation goals include enhanced relations
between the member states, student exchange programs and visits,
and ensuring wider access to printed materials.
Relevant Meetings:
-- Human Rights: Ottawa (1985)
-- Cultural Forum: Budapest (1985)
-- Human Contacts: Bern (1986)
-- Conference on the Human Dimension (CHD): Paris (1989)
-- CHD: Copenhagen (1990)
-- CHD: Moscow (1991)
Goals of the CSCE
The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe opened in
Helsinki in July 1973; 35 states now participate. Since the Helsinki
Final Act was signed in 1975, CSCE has served as the focal point of
the multilateral East-West dialogue:
-- Setting important standards of state behavior,
particularly in the area of human rights, to which the West has held
the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern and Central Europe
accountable.
-- Providing a mechanism for keeping discussion going
between East and West even in times of tension.
The Western goal in CSCE has been to bring about fundamental
political and economic change and improved human rights
performance in the East. Recent changes in the Soviet Union and
Eastern Europe indicate the extent to which the West has achieved
its objectives.
An Ongoing Process
The United States accepted a commitment at the last review
conference in Vienna (1986) to 10 inter-sessional CSCE activities
(see accompanying calendar), including a new round of talks on
confidence- and security-building measures (CSBMs), which began
in March 1989. Previous review conferences were held in Belgrade
(1977-78) and Madrid (1980-83).
New Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) talks have
been underway in Vienna since March 1989. These are not CSCE-
mandated talks, but negotiations within the framework of CSCE.
On October 1-2, 1990, CSCE held a ministerial meeting in New
York City, the first CSCE meeting to be held in the United States.
The next CSCE review conference is set for March 1992 in
Helsinki. The meeting would review the results of intersessional
activities since Vienna and give new direction and impetus to the
CSCE process.
* Autonomous, but conducted within CSCE framework. The CFE
includes 23 NATO and Warsaw Pact countries.
CSCE Meetings and Conferences, 1989-90
March 6, 1989:
A new Conference on Confidence-
and Security-Building Measures and Disarmament in Europe (CSBM),
held under CSCE auspices, convened in Vienna. Three days later, the
Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) talks, also pursued within the
CSCE framework, convened in Vienna.
April 18-May 22, 1989:
The first of the
Experts Meetings and fora mandated by the Vienna concluding
document, the Information Forum, met in London. It considered
ways to foster the free flow of information and recognized the role
that the information revolution had played in encouraging reform in
the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
May 30-June 23, 1989:
The first meeting of
the Conference on the Human Dimension (CHD) convened in Paris. It
lauded human rights improvements in Eastern Europe but recognized
the need for further reforms in some states.
Oct. 16-Nov. 3, 1989:
The meeting on the
protection of the environment met in Sofia. This first Basket II
conference produced important new commitments on cooperation to
protect the environment.
Dec. 12, 1989:
Secretary Baker, speaking in
Berlin, proposed that the CSCE play an expanded role in encouraging
political and economic reform in Eastern Europe by pursuing the
CSBM negotiations, helping to liberalize the planned economies of
Eastern Europe, and promoting free, open, multi-party elections.
Jan. 16-Feb. 5, 1990:
In Vienna, the military
chiefs of staff of the 35 CSCE nations attended a military doctrine
seminar of the Vienna CSBM negotiations.
March 19-April 11, 1990:
The CSCE's Bonn
economic conference discussed means of cooperation between the
West and the emerging market economies of Eastern and Central
Europe. The conference adopted a Western proposal for a package of
economic principles guaranteeing private property, market pricing,
and convertible currencies.
May 30-June 3, 1990:
During his summit
meeting in Washington with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev,
President George Bush proposed that the CSCE process be
strengthened as one of nine "assurances" to the Soviets on the topic
of German unification.
June 6, 1990:
Addressing a second meeting
of the CHD in Copenhagen, Secretary Baker reaffirmed his earlier
call for the CSCE to play a larger role in broadening and deepening
European unity in the wake of political, economic, and social change
in the Soviet Union and Eastern and Central Europe. He proposed
specific steps to strengthen the CSCE institutionally and called for
preparations for a CSCE summit later in 1990.
July 10, 1990:
A preparatory committee
meeting convened in Vienna in advance of a CSCE summit to be held
in Paris. October 1-2, 1990: A pre-summit foreign ministers'
meeting was held in New York; the first CSCE meeting to be held in
the United States.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 6, October 8, 1990
Title: A Parliamentary Body for CSCE: "The Assembly of Europe"
Description: Released by the White House at the NATO summit in
London, England
Date: Jul 6, 19907/6/90
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: Eurasia, Europe, E/C Europe
Subject: CSCE, NATO
[TEXT]
Today, following up on a proposal from President Bush, NATO
leaders agreed to support the establishment of a CSCE (Conference
on Security and Cooperation in Europe) parliamentary body, the
"Assembly of Europe," to be based on the existing Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, but including
parliamentarians from all CSCE states.
Last December in Berlin, Secretary Baker called for greater
involvement of parliamentarians from CSCE states in the CSCE
process, including through meetings of their own. Other European
institutions like NATO and the EC have long had associated
parliamentary bodies. However, CSCE has not, largely because many
of its members have not had democratically elected governments.
Fortunately, this is changing.
Over the past several months, while CSCE members have been
considering how to use existing institutions to further the work of
CSCE, the Council of Europe (COE) in Strasbourg has also been
considering how to contribute to the CSCE process.
Twenty-three European democracies currently are members of
the Council of Europe, which was set up in 1949 to "work for
greater European unity, to improve the conditions of life and
develop human values in Europe, and to uphold the principles of
parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and human rights."
The proposed Assembly of Europe could make use of the COE's
building and secretariat. As is the case with the COE, arrangements
could be agreed upon for national parliaments to determine which of
their members could attend the assembly.
The assembly could contribute to democratic institution-
building within the CSCE community by facilitating contacts
between democratic leaders of the participating countries. The
assembly could discuss issues of common concern, including the
implementation of CSCE commitments. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 6, October 8, 1990
Title: Strengthening the CSCE Process
Description: Released by the White House at the NATO summit in
London, England
Date: Jul 6, 19907/6/90
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: Eurasia, Europe, E/C Europe
Subject: CSCE, NATO
[TEXT]
Today in London, alliance leaders agreed to expand the CSCE's
(Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe) role in setting
standards for the establishment and preservation of free societies.
They agreed that a CSCE summit later this year in Paris could
endorse:
-- Principles embodying the right to free and fair elections;
-- Commitments to respect and uphold the rule of law;
-- Guidelines for enhancing economic cooperation, based on
the development of free and competitive market economies; and
-- Cooperation on environmental protection.
The allied leaders then joined in recommending six initiatives
to strengthen the institutions of the CSCE for adoption at a CSCE
summit:
-- Meetings of all 35 CSCE heads of government or foreign
ministers at least once a year, backed by periodic meetings of other
high-ranking officials to prepare the consultations;
-- Full CSCE review conferences every other year;
-- A small CSCE administrative secretariat to coordinate
foreign ministers' meetings and review conferences;
-- A CSCE elections mechanism to monitor free elections;
-- A CSCE Center for the Prevention of Conflict that might
serve as a forum for exchanges of military information, discussion
of unusual military activities and conciliation of disputes among
CSCE member states;
-- A CSCE parliamentary body, the Assembly of Europe, based
on the existing Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in
Strasbourg, but including parliamentarians from all CSCE states, to
discuss issues of common concern involving CSCE matters.
These proposals will now be put forward in the CSCE summit
preparatory committee, which will begin its work on July 10 in
Vienna.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 6, October 8, 1990
Title: Negotiations on Confidence- and Security-Building
Measures (CSBMs)
Date: Oct 8, 199010/8/90
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: Eurasia, Europe, E/C Europe
Subject: Security Assistance and Sales, CSCE
[TEXT]
Background
The process of establishing confidence-and security-building
measures (CSBMs) among the 35 states participating in the
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) began with
the signing of the Helsinki Final Act in 1975. The act embraced a
number of confidence-building measures, including requiring
nations to notify each other of large-scale military activities that
exceed a total of 25,000 troops, and encouraging invitations to
observers from other participating states.
At the follow-up conference in Madrid (1981-83), the CSCE
states agreed to convene negotiations to expand the measures
endorsed at Helsinki. These talks, convened in Stockholm, were
entitled the Conference on Confidence- and Security-Building
Measures and Disarmament in Europe (CDE, January 1984-September
1986).
The measures adopted at the CDE Conference were specifically
designed to reduce misunderstanding or misinterpretation of
conventional force activities in Europe. The CSBMs contained in the
Stockholm Document included 42-day prior notification of certain
military activities above a threshold of 13,000 troops or 300 tanks;
exchange of annual forecasts of notifiable activities; prohibition on
exercises involving more than 75,000 troops unless forecast 2
years in advance; mandatory observation of exercises above 17,000
troops; and on-site inspection (ground and air) as a means of
verification.
At the Vienna CSCE Follow-Up Conference (November 1986-
January 1989) the participating states agreed to build upon and
expand the agreements reached at the Stockholm CDE by convening,
under the Madrid Mandate, follow-on CSBMs negotiations. This
mandate restricts the scope of CSBMs to militarily significant land
activity, within the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountains boundary,
or those air and sea activities which have a functional link to
activities on land.
Tabling a comprehensive package on the opening day of the
Negotiations on Confidence- and Security-Building Measures
(CSBMs, March 1989-present), the West forged its proposal around
three themes: transparency about military organization;
transparency about military activities; communications and
contacts. The initial Western package included these measures:
exchange of information on troop organization and deployment in the
zone; exchange of information on major conventional weapons
deployment programs; random evaluation system; enhanced
information in the annual calendar; enhanced information in
notification; improvements to observation modalities including
lowering of observation thresholds; improvements to inspections;
lowering the threshold for longer notice of larger-scale activities;
improved access for accredited personnel dealing with military
matters; development of means of communications; and equal
treatment of media representatives. Additionally, the Western
states proposed convening a Military Doctrine Seminar in early
1990.
Spearheaded by the Soviet Union, the East continues to
advocate measures which would expand the Stockholm regime to
include independent naval and air activities. As these measures are
inconsistent with the Madrid mandate or unverifiable, they have
hindered progress toward a CSBMs document. Furthermore, the East
continues to support measures that constrain the number, size,
duration, and other aspects of military exercises. On a promising
note, however, some aspects of the Eastern proposal overlap with
those of the West's, namely in the area of information exchanges,
increased contacts among military personnel, and certain
improvements to Stockholm CSBMs.
Developments in the Negotiations
Early in the negotiations, delegations agreed to establish working
groups to oversee measures related to: information and
verification; contacts and communications; observation and
notification; and annual calendar and constraining provisions. The
Neutral and Non-Aligned group (NNA) tabled a set of proposals,
similar to the Western package in its inclusion of an annual
exchange of information and a number of improvements to
Stockholm.
Against the backdrop of dramatic political changes in Eastern
Europe and the Soviet Union, there has been renewed interest in the
CSBMs forum to bring about greater openness and transparency in
the military sphere. In December 1989, Secretary Baker called for
"new substance'' in the negotiations, encouraging bold approaches
that would broaden the CSBMs negotiations.
The January 1990 Military Doctrine Seminar, proposed by the
West, was attended by General Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, and his counterparts from other CSCE states. Three
weeks of candid discussions among military officials and experts
centered on defense budgets, training, and conventional force
postures as they relate to military doctrine. In February 1990, the
West introduced two new measures--one on exchanging military
budgets and another calling for an annual implementation meeting.
The United States hopes to achieve a CSBMs agreement in time
for presentation at the CSCE Summit proposed for later this year.
It is working within the NATO caucus and with other Western
partners toward this goal. A key proposal in this agreement is the
Western-proposed Conflict Prevention Center which, among other
functions, could implement or facilitate several measures. The
West, contributing further to a robust CSBMs package, recently
tabled six new or expanded measures: improved military contacts;
development of a communications network; a proposal on unusual
military activities; reporting/reducing hazardous incidents; visits
to combat air bases to observe routine activities; and information
exchange on infrastructure upgrading. As the Western approach
shifts toward addressing a broad range of inter-state security
concerns, measures such as the mechanism for discussing unusual
military activities will assume increasing importance in Europe's
future security. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 6, October 8, 1990
Title: London Declaration, North Atlantic Council,
July 5-6, 1990
Date: Jul 6, 19907/6/90
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: Eurasia, Europe, E/C Europe
Subject: International Law, Military Affairs
[TEXT]
The London declaration includes initiatives to set a new course for
the North Atlantic alliance and help shape the new Europe. They fall
into four broad categories.
1. Reach out to old adversaries:
-- Pledge "never in any circumstance" to be "the first to use
force;"
-- Propose a joint declaration of NATO and Warsaw Pact
member states making a commitment to non-aggression, open to
other CSCE [Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe]
states;
-- Invite President Gorbachev and other Eastern leaders to
address the North Atlantic Council;
-- Invite Warsaw Pact member governments to establish
regular diplomatic liaison with NATO; and
-- Intensify military-to-military contacts, including visits
by NATO military commanders to Eastern capitals.
2. Change character of conventional defense:
-- Keep CFE [conventional armed forces in Europe
negotiations] in session until treaty is done;
-- Pledge that follow-on talks will include measures to limit
military manpower in Europe and, with this goal in mind, a
commitment will be made at the time of the CFE signing concerning
the manpower levels of forces of a united Germany;
-- Look beyond CFE to a new conventional arms control
negotiations which will seek "further far-reaching measures in the
1990s to limit the offensive capability of conventional armed
forces in Europe, so as to prevent any nation from maintaining
disproportionate military power on the continent;"
-- Move away from "forward defense" and field smaller and
restructured active forces that are more flexible, scaling back
readiness of active units, reducing the number of exercises, and
relying more heavily on the ability to build up larger forces if and
when they might be needed; and
-- Rely increasingly on multinational corps made up of
national units.
3. Adopt a new NATO nuclear strategy:
-- Adopt a new nuclear strategy;
-- Propose to eliminate all NATO nuclear artillery shells
from Europe, once SNF [short-range nuclear forces] negotiations
begin, if the Soviet Union will reciprocate; and
-- Modify "flexible response" to reduce reliance on nuclear
weapons and adopt a new strategy making nuclear forces truly
weapons of last resort.
4. Help build a Europe whole and free through strengthening
the CSCE:
-- Agree that a CSCE summit should endorse new standards
for free societies on free elections, the rule of law, economic
cooperation, and environmental protection;
-- Set up regular consultations at ministerial or head of
government level at least once each year;
-- Schedule major review conferences at least once every
two years;
-- Establish a secretariat to coordinate the meetings and
conferences;
-- Set up a mechanism to monitor elections;
-- Create a center for the prevention of conflict; and
-- Form a CSCE parliament, the Assembly of Europe.
(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 6, October 8, 1990
Title: Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: Remarks at the transmittal letter signing ceremony
September 25, excerpts from the President's transmittal
letter to the Senate dated September 25, and full texts of
the treaty and agreed minute signed September 12, 1990
Date: Sep 25, 19909/25/90
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Eurasia, Europe
Country: USSR (former), United Kingdom, Germany, France
[TEXT]
The President's Remarks
Secretary [of State] Baker, distinguished visitors here, I'm
delighted to welcome all for this historic occasion.
In a few minutes , I'll be signing a letter to the United States
Senate asking its advice and consent to the ratification of the
treaty on the final settlement with respect to Germany. This treaty
is the culmination of 6 months of negotiation among its six
signatories--two German states, along with the United States,
Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. More than that, it is a
culmination of more than four decades of Western resolve and
determination--from the darkest hours of the Cold War to the
bright, new horizons that now stretch before us.
This agreement will end the artificial division of German and
Berlin. And it will restore to Germany sovereignty over all its
territory and end all remaining Four Power rights and
responsibilities. This agreement clears the way to achievement of
the goal we Americans have long shared with the German people--a
united, democratic, and sovereign Germany.
I congratulate Chancellor Kohl and the German people in both
East and West Germany and in Berlin, so long divided, for keeping
their national dream of self-determination ever alive. Together
with our other partners in the Atlantic alliance, we Americans are
proud to have stood beside you during your long vigil and proud,
especially during this past year, to have worked with you in common
cause toward the goal of German unity.
Our policy, our commitment, never wavered as this goal drew
nearer. Today, Germans and Americans share the fruit of our
friendship, and we join our German friends in looking to the future
with hope and confidence to the new beginning this treaty will make
possible.
On behalf of the American people and the American presidents
before me who sustained our joint resolve, I am pleased to sign this
letter transmitting this historic document to the Senate for its
advice and consent.
I want to express my appreciation to Secretary Baker who
worked so hard on this and, once again, say that it has been a
pleasure for me to work with Chancellor Kohl and others from
Germany on this very important question.
And now for the signing.
The President's Letter
To the Senate of the United States:
I submit herewith, for Senate advice and consent to
ratification, the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to
Germany and a Related Agreed Minute, signed by the United States,
the Federal Republic of Germany, the German Democratic Republic,
the French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Moscow on
September 12, 1990. I transmit also, for the information of the
Senate, a report of the Department of State with respect to this
Treaty.
The Treaty that I am submitting today is the culmination of 6
months' negotiation among its six signatories in what has come to
be called the "Two-plus-Four" forum, established for this purpose
at Ottawa in February 1990. This agreement will end the artificial
division of Germany and Berlin; it provides for the full withdrawal
of all Soviet forces over the next 4 years; and it terminates all
remaining Four-Power rights and responsibilities for Berlin and for
Germany as a whole. It thus creates the basis for the emergence of
a united, democratic, and sovereign Federal Republic of Germany,
capable and ready to assume a full and active partnership in the
North Atlantic Alliance, the European Community, and in the many
other fora for international cooperation to which the Federal
Republic of Germany has already contributed significantly.
The Treaty makes clear that the current borders of the Federal
Republic of Germany and German Democratic Republic shall be the
final and definitive borders of a united Germany. All the provisions
relating to Germany's border with Poland were worked out with the
participation and approval of the government of Poland.
The Treaty specifies that the right of a united Germany to
belong to alliances with all the rights and responsibilities arising
therefrom shall not be affected by any of its provisions.
The Treaty provides for the withdrawal of all Soviet troops
from the territory of a united Germany by the end of 1994. The
Treaty also provides for the continued presence of British, French,
and American troops in Berlin during the interim period at the
request of the German government. During this period the German
government shall have complete freedom regarding the stationing of
territorial defense units of its own armed forces within the
territory of the former German Democratic Republic, and these
armed forces shall remain outside the integrated NATO military
command structure. Following the departure of Soviet troops by
1994, there shall be no remaining limitations regarding the location
of German armed forces throughout Germany and their integration
with NATO structures. Non-German Allied forces and nuclear
weapons systems shall not be stationed or deployed within the
territory of the present German Democratic Republic. The Agreed
Minute, for which I am also seeking your advice and consent,
provides a special rule for application of the term "deployed."
The Treaty contains a number of assurances provided by the
Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic on
behalf of a united Germany. Among these are a reaffirmation of
their renunciation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and
their stated undertaking to reduce the personnel strength of the
German armed forces to 370,000 within 3 to 4 years.
Finally, the Treaty provides for the termination of all
remaining Four-Power rights and responsibilities for Berlin and
Germany as a whole. . . .
Treaty and Agreed Minute
The Federal Republic of Germany, the German Democratic Republic,
the French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United
States of America,
Conscious of the fact that their peoples have been living
together in peace since 1945;
Mindful of the recent historic changes in Europe which make it
possible to overcome the division of the continent;
Having regard to the rights and responsibilities of the Four
Powers relating to Berlin and to Germany as a whole, and the
corresponding wartime and post-war agreements and decisions of
the Four Powers;
Resolved in accordance with their obligations under the
Charter of the United Nations to develop friendly relations among
nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-
determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to
strengthen universal peace;
Recalling the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on
Security and Cooperation in Europe, signed in Helsinki;
Recognizing that those principles have laid firm foundations
for the establishment of a just and lasting peaceful order in Europe;
Determined to take account of everyone's security interests;
Convinced of the need finally to overcome antagonism and to
develop cooperation in Europe;
Confirming their readiness to reinforce security, in particular
by adopting effective arms control, disarmament and confidence-
building measures; their willingness not to regard each other as
adversaries but to work for a relationship of trust and cooperation;
and accordingly their readiness to consider positively setting up
appropriate institutional arrangements within the framework of the
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe;
Welcoming the fact that the German people, freely exercising
their right of self-determination, have expressed their will to bring
about the unity of Germany as a state so that they will be able to
serve the peace of the world as an equal and sovereign partner in a
united Europe;
Convinced that the unification of Germany as a state with
definitive borders is a significant contribution to peace and
stability in Europe;
Intending to conclude the final settlement with respect to
Germany;
Recognizing that thereby, and with the unification of Germany
as a democratic and peaceful state, the rights and responsibilities
of the Four Powers relating to Berlin and to Germany as a whole
lose their function;
Represented by their Ministers for Foreign Affairs who, in
accordance with the Ottawa Declaration of 13 February 1990, met
in Bonn on 5 May 1990, in Berlin on 22 June 1990, in Paris on 17
July 1990 with the participation of the Minister for Foreign Affairs
of the Republic of Poland, and in Moscow on 12 September 1990;
Have agreed as follows:
Article 1
1. The united Germany shall comprise the territory of the Federal
Republic of Germany, the German Democratic Republic and the whole
of Berlin. Its external borders shall be the borders of the Federal
Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic and shall
be definitive from the date on which the present Treaty comes into
force. The confirmation of the definitive nature of the borders of
the united Germany is an essential element of the peaceful order in
Europe.
2. The united Germany and the Republic of Poland shall
confirm the existing border between them in a treaty that is binding
under international law.
3. The united Germany has no territorial claims whatsoever
against other states and shall not assert any in the future.
4. The Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and
the German Democratic Republic shall ensure that the constitution
of the united Germany does not contain any provision incompatible
with these principles. This applies accordingly to the provisions
laid down in the preamble, the second sentence of Article 23, and
Article 146 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany.
5. The Governments of the French Republic, the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the United States of America take formal note
of the corresponding commitments and declarations by the
Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German
Democratic Republic and declare that their implementation will
confirm the definitive nature of the united Germany's borders.
Article 2
The Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German
Democratic Republic reaffirm their declarations that only peace
will emanate from German soil. According to the constitution of
the united Germany, acts tending to and undertaken with the intent
to disturb the peaceful relations between nations, especially to
prepare for aggressive war, are unconstitutional and a punishable
offence. The Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and
the German Democratic Republic declare that the united Germany
will never employ any of its weapons except in accordance with its
constitution and the Charter of the United Nations.
Article 3
1. The Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the
German Democratic Republic reaffirm their renunciation of the
manufacture and possession of and control over nuclear, biological
and chemical weapons. They declare that the united Germany, too,
will abide by these commitments. In particular, rights and
obligations arising from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968 will continue to apply to the united
Germany.
2. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, acting
in full agreement with the Government of the German Democratic
Republic, made the following statement on 30 August 1990 in
Vienna at the Negotiations on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe:
"The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany
undertakes to reduce the personnel strength of the armed forces of
the united Germany to 370,000 (ground, air and naval forces) within
three to four years. This reduction will commence on the entry into
force of the first CFE agreement. Within the scope of this overall
ceiling no more than 345,000 will belong to the ground and air
forces which, pursuant to the agreed mandate, alone are the subject
of the Negotiations on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. The
Federal Government regards its commitment to reduce ground and
air forces as a significant German contribution to the reduction of
conventional armed forces in Europe. It assumes that in follow-on
negotiations the other participants in the negotiations, too, will
render their contribution to enhancing security and stability in
Europe, including measures to limit personnel strengths."
The Government of the German Democratic Republic has expressly
associated itself with this statement.
3. The Governments of the French Republic, the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the United States of America take note of
these statements by the Governments of the Federal Republic of
Germany and the German Democratic Republic.
Article 4
1. The Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany, the German
Democratic Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
state that the united Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics will settle by treaty the conditions for and the duration
of the presence of Soviet armed forces on the territory of the
present German Democratic Republic and of Berlin, as well as the
conduct of the withdrawal of these armed forces which will be
completed by the end of 1994, in connection with the
implementation of the undertaking of the Federal Republic of
Germany and the German Democratic Republic referred to in
paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the present Treaty.
2. The Governments of the French Republic, the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States
of America take note of this statement.
Article 5
1. Until the completion of the withdrawal of the Soviet armed
forces from the territory of the present German Democratic
Republic and of Berlin in accordance with Article 4 of the present
Treaty, only German territorial defence units which are not
integrated into the alliance structures to which German armed
forces in the rest of German territory are assigned will be
stationed in that territory as armed forces of the united Germany.
During that period and subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of
this Article, armed forces of other states will not be stationed in
that territory or carry out any other military activity there.
2. For the duration of the presence of Soviet armed forces in
the territory of the present German Democratic Republic and of
Berlin, armed forces of the French Republic, the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America
will, upon German request, remain stationed in Berlin by agreement
to this effect between the Government of the united Germany and
the Governments of the states concerned. The number of troops and
the amount of equipment of all non-German armed forces stationed
in Berlin will not be greater than at the time of signature of the
present Treaty. New categories of weapons will not be introduced
there by non-German armed forces. The Government of the united
Germany will conclude with the Governments of those states which
have armed forces stationed in Berlin treaties with conditions
which are fair taking account of the relations existing with the
states concerned.
3. Following the completion of the withdrawal of the Soviet
armed forces from the territory of the present German Democratic
Republic and of Berlin, units of German armed forces assigned to
military alliance structures in the same way as those in the rest of
German territory may also be stationed in that part of Germany, but
without nuclear weapon carriers. This does not apply to
conventional weapon systems which may have other capabilities in
addition to conventional ones but which in that part of Germany are
equipped for a conventional role and designated only for such.
Foreign armed forces and nuclear weapons or their carriers will not
be stationed in that part of Germany or deployed there.
Article 6
The right of the united Germany to belong to alliances, with all the
rights and responsibilities arising therefrom, shall not be affected
by the present Treaty.
Article 7
1. The French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United
States of America hereby terminate their rights and
responsibilities relating to Berlin and to Germany as a whole. As a
result, the corresponding, related quadripartite agreements,
decisions and practices are terminated and all related Four Power
institutions are dissolved.
2. The united Germany shall have accordingly full sovereignty
over its internal and external affairs.
Article 8
1. The present Treaty is subject to ratification or acceptance as
soon as possible. On the German side it will be ratified by the
united Germany. The Treaty will therefore apply to the united
Germany.
2. The instruments of ratification or acceptance shall be
deposited with the Government of the united Germany. That
Government shall inform the Governments of the other Contracting
Parties of the deposit of each instrument of ratification or
acceptance.
Article 9
The present Treaty shall enter into force for the united Germany,
the French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United
States of America on the date of deposit of the last instrument of
ratification or acceptance by these states.
Article 10
The original of the present Treaty, of which the English, French,
German and Russian texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited
with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, which
shall transmit certified true copies to the Governments of the other
Contracting Parties.
Agreed Minute to the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to
Germany of 12 September 1990
Any questions with respect to the application of the word
"deployed" as used in the last sentence of paragraph 3 of Article 5
will be decided by the Government of the united Germany in a
reasonable and responsible way taking into account the security
interests of each Contracting Party as set forth in the preamble.
(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 6, October 8, 1990
Title: Opening of US Embassy Office in Berlin
Boucher
Source: State Department Deputy Spokesman Richard
Boucher
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Oct 2, 199010/2/90
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Europe
Country: Germany
Subject: State Department
[TEXT]
The Department of State announces that, effective October 3, the
status of the present United States Embassy to the GDR and of the
present United States Mission Berlin are being changed. The two
missions are being closed and replaced by a single representation,
which, under the title "United States Embassy Office Berlin," will
function as an integral part of the US Embassy to the Federal
Republic of Germany. The embassy will continue to have its primary
working location in Bonn.
The principal officer of the United States Embassy Office
Berlin will be Minister-Counselor Harry J. Gilmore, who is currently
chief of the US Mission Berlin. He will report to Vernon A. Walters,
Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany. The new embassy
office will function chiefly from the present chancery of the US
Embassy to the GDR, located at Neustaedtische Kirchstrasse 4-5,
telephone number (37) (2) 220-2741. During a transition phase,
some functions, including consular services for Berlin and the
territory of the former GDR, will also be carried out at the location
of the present United States Mission at Clayallee 170, telephone
number (49) (30) 832-4087. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 6, October 8, 1990
Title: Federal Republic of Germany Will Cease to Exist
Barkley
Source: Ambassador Richard C. Barkley
Description: US Embassy, Berlin, Germany
Date: Sep 21, 19909/21/90
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Europe, E/C Europe
Country: Germany
Subject: Democratization
[TEXT]
Text of cable from Ambassador Richard C. Barkley, US
Embassy Berlin (Unclassified)
1. SUMMARY:
On November 9, 1989, the Berlin wall
fell to the forces of democratic revolution in East Germany. A
revolution, peaceful and democratic, swept the communist
government from power and led to the first freely elected
government in the German Democratic Republic. That democratic
government received from the people the mandate to unify Germany.
On October 3, 1990, the GDR will accede to the basic law of the
Federal Republic of Germany and will cease to exist as a separate
state. Consequently, effective October 3, 1990, the United States
Embassy to the GDR will close. A successor to Embassy Berlin --
Embassy Office Berlin, an integral part of Embassy Bonn -- will
open October 3. END SUMMARY.
2. September 4, 1974, the Government of the United States and
the Government of the German Democratic Republic established
diplomatic relations. The two governments agreed to promote
relations in economic, cultural and other fields and to enter into
negotiations for the settlement of claims and property questions.
The relationship was launched by former U.S. Senator John Sherman
Cooper, who presented his credentials as the first U.S. ambassador
to the GDR on December 28, 1974.
3. Throughout the sixteen years of bilateral contacts, our agenda
remained much the same. A claims agreement was negotiated,
but not concluded. Development of economic and cultural relations
was pursued on our part, welcomed by the people but limited by a
communist government which rejected most U.S. efforts to open
East Germany to the West.
4. The 1989 peaceful Democratic Revolution which swept the
communist government from power, breached the Berlin wall, led to
elections and a democratically elected government has now made
German unification possible. Despite the often dismal prospect,
America has remained steadfast in its commitment to a united,
democratic sovereign Germany and has succeeded in its postwar
goal of seeing the establishment of freedom and democracy in all of
this nation. We, like free men everywhere, share in the sense of
accomplishment Germans have in reunifying their country. At the
stroke of midnight, October 2, 1990, the German Democratic
Republic will accede to the Federal Republic of Germany. The GDR
will cease to exist. October 3, 1990 marks the beginning of a
unified sovereign Germany.
5. It is with a sense of pride in the professionals who served at
Embassy Berlin that I, as the final U.S. Ambassador to the GDR, end
this chapter of German-American relations and close the United
States Embassy to the German Democratic Republic, effective at
midnight October 2, 1990. --Barkley
(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 6, October 8, 1990
Title: Defense Equipment for Saudi Arabia
Bartholomew
Source: Reginald Bartholomew, Under Secretary for
International Security Affairs
Description: Statement before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, US Congress, Washington, DC
Date: Oct 4, 199010/4/90
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Saudi Arabia
Subject: Military Affairs
[TEXT]
We have come before you this morning to discuss the
administration's plans to proceed expeditiously with an important
sale of defense equipment to Saudi Arabia. As you know, 2 weeks
ago we began consultations with members of the Congress on Saudi
Arabia's urgent requests for defense equipment. Following those
consultations, the President directed us to proceed with the sale in
two phases, the first of which we notified last week.
This morning, we will ask you to consider, as we have, how
this sale bears on US interests and objectives in the current gulf
crisis and beyond, not only vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia but also for the
region as a whole. In that context, the administration believes that
this sale is but one step--an important step--in assisting the
nations of the area in the current crisis and in building lasting
stability in the region.
In his remarks to the United Nations General Assembly on
October 1, President Bush delineated the objectives and stakes that
led to the dispatch of major US military forces to the gulf. As the
President said:
". . . the present aggression in the gulf is a menace not only to
one region's security but to the entire world's vision of our future.
It threatens to turn the dream of a new international order into a
grim nightmare of anarchy in which the law of the jungle supplants
the law of nations. That is why the United Nations reacted with
such historic unity and resolve. And that is why this challenge is a
test we cannot afford to fail. I am confident that we will prevail."
The Iraqi aggression is a watershed. Even after Iraqi
aggression is undone, it will be necessary to take steps to establish
and maintain a stable balance--to deter and defend against
aggression and to ensure the security and confidence of our friends
in the gulf regardless of the fate of Saddam Hussein. We must work
with our friends to achieve this objective.
This will require more planning and consultation. But we
know already that lasting security in the gulf should not depend on
the long-term presence of US forces. Nor should it depend solely on
a willingness to repeat Desert Shield. Ultimately, lasting regional
stability will require that our friends in the region do more to help
themselves in close cooperation with the United States.
We seek through this sale to:
-- Help build an increased capability to deter and defend
against potential aggressors;
-- Buy more time, in the event deterrence fails, for
mobilization of support from friendly governments;
-- Develop the interoperability that will allow the US and
other friendly forces to reinforce the Saudis more effectively
should that ever again be necessary; and
-- Help contribute to stronger and more stable post-crisis
security arrangements.
Neither the states in the region nor we think that they can
build, by themselves, the full range of force that in itself can deter
and defeat potential aggressor states--states which have a far
larger population base than our Desert Shield partners enjoy.
Support by the United States and others for security relationships
in the gulf is now and will continue to be an element essential to
the success of any such endeavor.
But Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states themselves must
collectively serve as the principal partners in any such security
arrangement. They must have the defensive strength to raise the
initial costs to an aggressor high enough to help deter aggression
and, if deterrence should fail, they must be able to delay an
aggressor until help arrives. This would be a marked improvement
upon the situation that prevailed on August 2.
The Saudis and the other GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] states
have made clear to us that they want to do more in their defense,
both in the current crisis and in the long term. Their troops have
been deployed in the front lines since the early days of the crisis.
In the ensuing 2 months, we and the Saudis have discussed what
was needed and available to enable them to assist in defending
against the Iraqi threat. The first Saudi arms package, announced in
August, partially met those needs by providing 24 F-l5C/D air
defense aircraft, Stinger missiles, M60A3 tanks, and M833 depleted
uranium ammunition. But, important as that sale was, it was only
an initial response.
We are now proposing a larger response, in phases, to bolster
Saudi Arabia and its GCC partners as they continue to face armor
and air attack threats. The items in Phase I address specific Saudi
requirements:
-- For air defense:
We propose to bolster
Saudi capabilities, against both aircraft and short-range ballistic
missiles, by providing six Patriot missile combat fire units.
-- For anti-armor:
We propose a significant
enhancement of Saudi armor capabilities by making available 150
MlA2 Abrams tanks, 200 Bradley fighting vehicles, support vehicles,
150 TOW 2A launchers with 1,750 missiles, and 12 Apache
helicopters with 155 missiles. In addition, we are planning to
furnish 27 M60A3 tanks to the Bahrainis, who also have forces in
Saudi Arabia.
-- For fire support:
We plan to provide the
Saudis nine Multiple-Launch Rocket System (MLRS) launchers with
2,880 rockets.
-- For logistical support:
We intend to
provide 10,000 tactical wheeled vehicles, 7 KC-130 aerial tankers,
10 C-130H airlift aircraft, and 8 UH-60 Blackhawk medical
evacuation helicopters.
-- For command control and communications:
We propose to provide an upgrade of Saudi naval communications.
Phase II, which we are planning to submit for your
consideration in January, would continue the improvement of Saudi
and gulf state abilities to defend against Iraqi or other aggressor-
state threats. While we expect its components to evolve with
circumstances in the area, we anticipate it also would focus on
meeting armor and air-attack threats.
What we have proposed to sell to our friends in the gulf and
what we will propose to sell them constitute the elements of a
force that can provide a basic, defensive capability and can be
absorbed. This will not provide the Saudis or other gulf states with
a major offensive capability. Rather, by providing a substantially
strengthened deterrent, that defensive capability will meet the
need for a better balance of regional forces in the Persian Gulf--a
need that has been underscored by Iraq's aggression.
Let me reassure you on one particularly important point. As
we always do, we have considered the potential impact of this sale
on the security of Israel. Though the President and the members of
his cabinet have underscored this point in recent days, it bears
repeating here today: This administration's commitment to the
security of Israel is unshakable. A crucial part of this is our
commitment to help maintain Israel's qualitative superiority over
its potential adversaries. We do not believe that enhancing the
deterrent and defensive capabilities of our Saudi and gulf partners
will detract from this fundamental commitment. We believe that
security and stability in the gulf region will support Israel's
security as well.
In conclusion, what the President proposes with these sales is
to take a step--an important step--toward the security and
stability that we want to help create in the region. That will mean
strengthening existing bilateral ties and working with the countries
in the region to support realistic, effective security arrangements.
While the will and commitment that those arrangements imply must
come first and foremost from Saudi Arabia and the GCC states, it
must also be backed by capability. In this regard, we have a crucial
role to play as a reliable supplier and a supporting partner willing
to back our friends. The proposed sales the President has submitted
for your consideration are a necessary key to that enhanced
capability.
We must begin to provide for this capability now. Some of the
items we have proposed for sale will be available quickly and will
contribute on the ground to the Desert Shield mission. But even
those items not available immediately can contribute to our efforts
today. They demonstrate our commitment to a mutual effort, not
only to our friends who look to us to help in their self-defense, but
also to those who might be tempted to prolong the crisis to test our
resolve. They demonstrate our commitment to a lasting solution to
instability in the region, a solution that is indigenous to the region
rather than one imposed from the outside. And, in so doing, they
will protect crucial American interests and advance the cause of
peace.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 6, October 8, 1990
Title: CSCE Statement on the Crisis in the Gulf
Description: Released by the CSCE Foreign Ministers at the
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe Ministerial
Meeting, New York, New York
Date: Oct 2, 199010/2/90
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Subject: CSCE, Military Affairs
[TEXT]
Consistent with the principles contained in the Helsinki Final Act,
which guide our mutual relations, we, the Foreign Ministers of the
Participating States of the Conference on Security and Cooperation
in Europe (CSCE), meeting in New York, join the United Nations in
condemning Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait. These actions
jeopardize the just and peaceful world order to which more
cooperative European relations are making an important
contribution.
We call upon the Government of Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait
immediately and without conditions. Seeking a peaceful solution,
we support fully all of the relevant resolutions adopted by the
United Nations Security Council and are determined to ensure their
full and effective implementation.
We express our support for those countries that have
particularly suffered because of the crisis created by Iraq and
reaffirm our determination to work together to ensure that the
burdens of standing against aggression are shouldered equitably by
all.
We wish to contribute to the security and welfare in the area,
in order to foster peace, tolerance, stability, and economic
cooperation and development, and therefore we are determined to
support efforts aimed at resolving the conflicts there and attaining
a just, comprehensive, and lasting peace in compliance with the
relevant resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.
(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 6, October 8, 1990
Title: Free Trade Unions and Worker Rights
Category: Policy Briefs (Gist)
Subject: Human Rights
[TEXT]
Background
Support for democratic governments and political pluralism,
including trade union rights, is a major US foreign policy objective.
In remarks before the Conference on Security and Cooperation in
Europe (CSCE) Conference on the Human Dimension in Copenhagen on
June 6, Secretary Baker listed some of the "key building blocks of
freedom--genuine elections, political pluralism, and the rule of
law." The US labor movement shares this commitment to free and
democratic institutions .
Worker Rights and Democracy
The right to form free and independent trade unions is an essential
element of a democratic system. The right of workers to form such
unions is an important test in determining whether a country is
truly democratic. The United States long has been a strong advocate
of worker rights and of free, independent trade unions around the
world. Free labor has played a key role in the emergence of
democratic government in many countries, including the new
democracies of Central and Eastern Europe, where Poland's
Solidarity led the way; the struggle against apartheid; and the
building of democracy in Latin America.
US Support for Worker Rights
Several major US international trade laws contain provisions that
support worker rights. These include legislation covering the
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation (OPIC), the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI),
and the Omnibus Trade Act of 1988. In general, the laws require
that countries trading with the United States take steps to provide
the following five basic worker rights:
-- Freedom of association--the right of workers and
employers to form and join organizations of their choosing without
previous authorization.
-- Freedom to organize and bargain collectively--the right of
workers to be protected against anti-union discrimination and to
engage in collective bargaining with their employers.
-- Prohibition of forced labor.
-- Minimum age for employment--establishment of a
minimum age for employment consistent with achievement of the
fullest physical and mental development of young people.
-- Right to acceptable conditions of work--establishment of
minimum wages, working hours, and occupational safety and health
standards.
The United States monitors worker rights developments
around the world. They are highlighted in two annual Department of
State reports to Congress: Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices and Country Reports on Economic Policy and Trade
Practices. The Agency for International Development provides
grants under Section 116e of the Foreign Assistance Act to help
countries improve compliance with human and worker rights. The
United States also has proposed that worker rights be added to the
agenda of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade talks.
Most direct US government support in the labor area is for
technical assistance to labor ministries and labor-management-
government programs. Much of this work is carried out through the
US Department of Labor and the International Labor Organization
(see box).
In addition, the US government supports efforts by the
American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations
(AFL-CIO) to promote trade unions around the world. The American
labor movement is in the forefront of working to develop free and
independent unions. AFL-CIO assistance to democratic unions in
Central and Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America
supports training, communications, and other aspects of union
development.
The Citizens Democracy Corps, which will function as a
clearinghouse for American private-sector assistance in Central
and Eastern Europe, contains an important labor dimension. As
President Bush noted in his May 12 announcement of the Corps,
"individual Americans [have] much to contribute. We can help [newly
democratizing nations] build political systems . . . that allow free
associations--trade unions, professional groups, political parties--
the building blocks of a free society."
For more information on US policy and activities in the field of
international labor, contact:
Office of the Special Assistant to the Secretary of State and
Coordinator of International Labor Affairs
Department of State
Washington, DC 20520-7538
Tel: 202-647-3662
The International Labor Organization
The International Labor Organization (ILO) is a UN specialized
agency headquartered in Geneva. It was created in 1919 to bring
together governments, employers, and workers to promote social
justice. The groups meet on equal terms in the ILO.
US values are prominent in the ILO structure and programs,
which are aimed at enhancing individual liberty and human rights,
improving living and working conditions for all individuals, and
promoting the ideals of democratic and pluralistic society.
US representatives to the ILO support and actively participate
in the organization in establishing, monitoring, and enforcing
compliance with international standards of worker rights--such as
freedom of association, abolition of forced labor, equality of
opportunity and treatment, wages, hours of work, minimum age, and
worker's compensation--and by assuring autonomous representation
for labor and management.
Recently, the US government, in cooperation with the
Congress, has achieved ratification of several ILO conventions.
Among these are conventions on tripartite consultation, labor
statistics, and standards for merchant shipping. Ratifications of
other ILO conventions, such as one on forced labor, are expected in
the near future.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 6, October 8, 1990
Title: Sub-Saharan Africa and US Policy
Date: Oct 8, 199010/8/90
Category: Policy Briefs (Gist)
Region: Subsaharan Africa
Country: South Africa, Angola, Mozambique
Subject: Democratization, Human Rights, Trade/Economics
[TEXT]
The United States is committed to fostering more open, democratic
political systems and sustainable economic development in Sub-
Saharan Africa. Over the past 2 years, significant progress has been
made toward resolving major regional political and economic
problems. Following the US-brokered tripartite agreement signed
by Angola, Cuba, and South Africa in December 1988, Namibia gained
its independence on March 21, 1990. South Africa has taken steps
toward post-apartheid democracy. There are good prospects for
solving the internal conflicts in Angola and Mozambique. Resolution
of other problems remains a high priority for the United States.
Resolution of Regional Conflicts
Angola and Mozambique.
The US-mediated accords
that led to Namibian independence in March 1990 also promoted
conditions for reconciliation and a negotiated end to the civil war
in Angola between the Popular Movement for the Liberation of
Angola (MPLA) and the National Union for the Total Independence of
Angola (UNITA).
US policy in Angola is to support a negotiated settlement to
the conflict. The US will continue to support UNITA until national
reconciliation, leading to free and fair elections, is achieved. The
United States looks forward to normal relations with a freely
elected government in Angola. Until then, we will not recognize or
establish diplomatic relations with any Angolan government.
US-Mozambican relations have expanded rapidly as the
government of Mozambique has moved to establish greater
democracy and a more pro-Western orientation since 1986. The
United States is facilitating national reconciliation and peace
talks, which are taking place between the government and the
Mozambican National Resistance (RENAMO).
Horn of Africa.
The prospects for peace in
other areas are not as encouraging. Civil war drags on in Ethiopia,
Somalia, and Sudan. These conflicts generate large numbers of
refugees and exacerbate drought-induced hunger. The United States
is a major donor of food and medical assistance and is are prepared
to contribute diplomatic resources to peacemaking and internal
reconciliation in the Horn.
Liberia.
In Liberia, US policy supports
achievement of a cease-fire and calls on the parties involved to end
atrocities in the ongoing civil war. The United States also calls for
free, internationally monitored elections along with additional
political and economic reforms leading to a more open,
participative society and marketplace.
Dismantling Apartheid in South Africa.
The
South African government has taken significant steps toward
creating a non-racial society and government. These include the
release of black nationalist leader Nelson Mandela and other
political prisoners, the unbanning of the African National Congress
(ANC) and other key political organizations, permission for peaceful
antiapartheid demonstrations and rallies, and the lifting of the 4-
year national state of emergency (excluding Natal). More recently,
the ANC suspended armed struggle. The United States welcomes
these steps
and is committed to promoting peaceful negotiations between the
South African government and credible black representatives
leading to a nonracial, democratic South Africa.
Economic Reforms
State-controlled economies have stifled growth in many Sub-
Saharan African countries. Natural disaster and political
instability have compounded the problem.
Structural adjustment.
The region's fragile
economic
situation demands a structural adjustment process that promotes
conditions through which sustainable long-term growth is achieved.
Paramount among these conditions is the operation of market
forces. Structural adjustment often entails painful short-term
economic sacrifice.
Governments undertaking such programs take considerable
political risks and need support from the United States and other
aid donors to assure their success. More than 30 countries have
International Monetary Fund (IMF)- or World Bank-supported
structural adjustment programs. The common objectives of
structural adjustment programs are to:
-- Establish realistic exchange rates;
-- Reduce or eliminate government price controls;
-- Reduce government budget deficits;
-- Reform parastatal organizations; and
-- Achieve realistic interest rates.
Debt relief.
The Sub-Saharan African
countries bear a heavy burden of foreign debt owed chiefly to
official creditors (i.e., foreign governments and international
financial institutions). In 1989, this debt had reached $143 billion,
which is equivalent to 115% of the region's gross domestic product
and 369% of foreign exchange earnings from exports of goods and
services. Annual scheduled debt repayments in 1989 were about
$18 billion, or about 46% of the region's total earnings of foreign
exchange. Rescheduling and other measures lower this ratio by 28%.
In July 1989, the US addressed this problem with a major
initiative which has forgiven $852 million in US economic
assistance loans to African countries adhering to IMF or World Bank
structural adjustment programs.
Human Rights and Democratization
The global movement toward democracy is strongly felt in all
African countries, including South Africa. Both governments and
citizens are participating in these movements. The belief is
spreading that respect for fundamental rights and more responsive
political systems are a vital corollary of economic progress.
The US supports these efforts toward democracy in the belief
that human rights cannot be secured in Africa without political
pluralism. The US encourages economic and political pluralism in
Africa through funding projects that promote the administration of
justice and rule of law. We also attempt to secure private funding
for projects and encourage the European Community to make such
projects a priority on its foreign assistance agenda.
Environment
The environment is a central concern for the United States in its
development assistance strategy for Africa. For example, the US
Agency for International Development's Plan for Supporting Natural
Resources Management in Sub-Saharan Africa aims to strengthen
African countries' capacity to manage natural resources. The US
also is an important contributor to multilateral agencies and
programs in support of the environment. The US supports the
efforts of the International Tropical Timber Organization to develop
a plan for sustainable forest management and is interested in
negotiating a global forestry agreement. The recent establishment
of a financial mechanism in the Montreal Protocol to assist
developing countries in addressing ozone depletion was a valuable
contribution to cooperation between the developed and developing
countries.
Protecting Endangered Species.
Wildlife
preservation is another important goal of US policy. The US was an
original party of the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) signed in
Washington in 1973. The convention remains the centerpiece of US
conservation policy abroad, and it has special relevance for Africa.
The US takes a leading role in protecting the African elephant.
In 9 years, Africa's elephant population has fallen, due to poaching,
from an estimated 1.3 million to 600,000. In October 1988,
Congress enacted the African Elephant Conservation Act,
establishing an African elephant conservation fund. In June 1989,
the administration banned the import of ivory. And in October 1989,
all CITES members agreed to halt all trade in ivory, providing for
its resumption only under a secure system in the future for
countries with a healthy and well-managed elephant population.
Major US Development Assistance Goals in Africa
(chart)
-- Better management of economies;
-- Stronger competitive markets and private-sector growth
-- Increased long-term agricultural and industrial
productivity gains; and
-- Improved food security.To encourage these changes, the US
provides about $1.5 billion annually in bilateral and multilateral
aid.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 6, October 8, 1990
Title: Speaking for the Children of the Earth
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: Remarks at the Opening Ceremony of the World Summit for
Children, New York City
Date: Sep 30, 19909/30/90
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Subject: United Nations, Human Rights
[TEXT]
In recent days, the world community has acted decisively in
defense of a principle: that small states shall not become
souvenirs of conquest.
It was just 3 weeks ago that I spoke to the American people
about a new world order--a new partnership of nations, freer from
the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, more secure
in the quest for peace.
Today, we are holding this unprecedented world summit to
work for the well-being of those who will live in, and lead, this
new world. Their voices are still faint and unheard. So we have
come together, more than 70 strong--presidents, prime ministers,
and kings--to speak for the children of the earth.
But first, we should acknowledge that for many children, the
only blessing they will ever know is their innocence. So before we
speak, perhaps we should listen.
Saint-Exupery, the French author of The Little Prince, spoke
for all children when he wrote: "Grown-ups never understand
anything but themselves, and it is tiresome for children to be
always and forever explaining things to them."
If we listen, our own children will remind us that there is
magic and mystery and laughter in everyday life. If we listen, they
will also teach us of a child's need to be nourished, in body and
spirit. And from the bewildered, hollow looks of the most helpless,
we learn a primal truth: The first need of a child is to survive.
The facts are as stark as they are oppressive. There are
almost 3 billion young people on earth today--and more than 14
million of them will die this year.
In the next hour alone, 1,000 babies will perish. But we are
here to defy cold statistics. We have seen children with swollen
bellies. We have seen the pleading eyes of starvation. We have
heard the cries of children dying of disease.
So let us affirm, in this historic world summit, that these
children can be saved.
Living Up to Our Responsibilities
They can be saved when we live up to our responsibilities--not just
as an assembly of governments--but as a world community of
adults, of parents.
In my time as president, I have heard the heart-rending cries
of AIDS babies. I have stood helpless over infants born addicted to
cocaine, their tiny bodies trembling with pain. But I have also been
to many classrooms across America, where the influence of love
and well-being can be seen instantly--in bright faces and wondering
eyes.
Last year, I went to Warsaw, where I presented baseball
equipment to Poland's first Little Leaguers. I saw children eager to
learn the value of sportsmanship, generosity, and teamwork--
lessons so central to life. And I saw in these Polish children how
millions of lives open up when a nation opens itself to the world.
From all these experiences, I have learned that our children
are a mirror, an honest reflection of their parents and their world.
Sometimes, the reflection is flattering. At other times, we do not
like what we see. But we must never turn away.
So let me tell you what the American people intend to do.
This month, our Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Louis
Sullivan, announced ambitious new health objectives that we as a
nation--citizens, families, business, and government--hope to
reach by the year 2000. We seek to reduce infant mortality and
low-weight births, increase child-immunization levels, and improve
the health of both mothers and children. And we want to see the day
when every American child is part of a strong, stable family.
Eliminating Child-Killing Diseases
We are working in partnership with other governments and
international organizations to eliminate child-killing diseases. Our
global effort has already sent smallpox to the graveyard of
eradicated diseases. By century's end, we can bury polio. And the
same must come true for measles.
The United States, through the Agency for International
Development [AID], has launched a worldwide assault against this
deadly disease with a $50 million, 5-year initiative. Let us work
for a 95% reduction in measles deaths by 1995. Let us wipe this
scourge from the faces of our children and off the face of the earth.
We also hope for the development of a single-dose "children's
vaccine." But even if such a vaccine remains elusive, better
vaccines for children are not. The United States already offers
technical advice and assistance to the World Health Organization.
We are inspired by private-sector lifesaving efforts. And we will
do even more. I have directed our Department of Health and Human
Services and AID to focus even more of their research on children's
vaccines. And we urge the private sector to join in this lifesaving
effort.
Many diseases are but a manifestation of an even more basic
disorder--malnutrition. To combat world starvation, the United
States will continue to help food production in many countries. And
we will send almost 150 million metric tons of food abroad this
year.
There is still another child-killer loose in the world that
knows no cure: AIDS. And nowhere is this killer taking more lives
than in Africa. So I've asked Dr. Sullivan and Dr. Ronald Roskens,
administrator of AID, to go to Africa to see what else America and
the world can do to advance child survival across that continent and
across the world.
So far, I have spoken of the most urgent issues of survival.
But simple survival is not enough for a child lacking in health or
learning or denied the love of family and time for play.
One year ago I met with the governors of my country on a
single topic of national importance. We agreed to set ambitious
education goals for the year 2000. For America, this is a stiff
challenge, self-imposed. I see among us today many leaders who
should take pride in giving the world examples of educational
excellence--examples the next generation of Americans will not
leave unchallenged.
But, of course, education is a mystery to the 100 million
children not in school. It is an outrage that so many spend their
childhood in mines, in factories, in the twilight world of the
streets. The United States outlawed most forms of child labor
decades ago. Let us strive together to make education the primary
work of all children.
A Chance for a Healthy Life
So all children must be given the chance to lead happy, healthy,
productive lives. Let me be the first to say that the United States
can learn from many nations represented here today. But what my
countrymen have learned from hard experience is that progress
begins when we empower people, not bureaucracies.
We must not become like the monarch in The Little Prince,
sitting on a majestic throne, clad in royal purple, issuing one
pronouncement after another, all to no effect whatsoever.
Programs can best enhance the welfare of children by
strengthening the mutual responsibilities of public institutions and
individual families. We should also look to the private sector as an
essential partner. Public efforts on behalf of children should
encourage experimentation among neighborhoods and local
governments--not stifle it.
So when it comes to improving the welfare of children,
empowerment should begin first with their parents.
In the end, we can empower our children by living up to the
great aspiration of our times--the quest for freedom. As the world
turns to free markets and less bureaucracy, this will bring
prosperity, the surest antidote to disease and starvation for any
society. Freedom to learn, to pick a vocation, to speak one's mind,
to worship, to choose a government--all this means opportunity, the
broadest education of all.
So our new partnership of nations doesn't have to become a
coalition of powers that merely shares self-interests. Let it be a
true partnership, a partnership between people, a partnership
between opportunity societies.
Saving one child is a miracle. As world leaders, we can
realize such miracles--and count them in the millions.
(###)