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. (###)