US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 11, November 12, 1990
Title: Economic Challenges in the US-Japan Relationship
McCormack
Source: Richard McCormack, Under Secretary for Economic
Affairs
Description: Remarks before the North Carolina-Japan Forum, Raleigh,
North Carolina
Date: Nov 1, 199011/1/90
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: East Asia
Country: Japan
Subject: Trade/Economics, Democratization
[TEXT]
I am pleased to have the opportunity to open this conference, which
addresses a number of key topics affecting the US-Japan economic
relationship. Both countries face economic challenges. The way we
respond to them will have a significant impact on the world
economy and our two countries. I hope that in these next few days,
you will be able to thoroughly explore the problems--and the
opportunities--our two countries face and begin to identify
productive solutions as well.
On the US side, we have had to deal with two major
difficulties since the summer--the conflict in the gulf and the
budget crisis. Our diplomatic and military responses have moved
smoothly and rapidly to meet the Iraqi challenge. However, on the
domestic side, our ability to deal with the budget has been anything
but smooth and rapid. Our success in solving both challenges will
define the country we will be--and the world we will live in-- as
we move into the 21st century.
Today, I would like to discuss the challenges Japan is now
facing in its economic and political affairs. On the economic side,
Japan is facing a new kind of economic adjustment. It is struggling
to find ways to allow consumers to share the benefits of the
phenomenal post-war growth and wealth increases. Japanese
citizens have supported the industrial successes by hard work, high
savings, and postponed increases in living standards. Many Japanese
feel it is now their turn for a greater share in the results.
Economic challenges are nothing new to the Japanese, and though
there may be some rough spots in the short term, experience shows
that the Japanese economy often emerges from difficulties, like the
1970s oil shocks, in an even stronger position. This is partly
because when the Japanese government and business establishment
believe change is necessary, a plan is developed, and it is
implemented.
Japan's International Challenge
What is new today is the international political challenge Japan is
now facing. The Persian Gulf crisis is challenging the Japanese to
go quickly beyond their economic role in the world to a political
one. Their response to the crisis has, therefore, forced the
Japanese to confront some very basic issues--about themselves and
the kind of country they would like to be.
In the early days of the crisis, Japan acted quickly--before
the UN resolution--to impose economic sanctions on Iraq and freeze
Kuwaiti assets in Japan. Our government then sought to work with
Japan and other countries to develop a true multinational effort in
the Persian Gulf. Japan is in a position to make important economic
contributions to the gulf effort, and it also is considering how it
can provide some forms of non-combat personnel support.
They have decided to provide a total financial contribution of
$4 billion, including $2 billion to the multinational defense force
for transport, housing, and purchases--[to be procured] largely from
US sources-- of other non-military goods for use by US and other
multinational troops in Saudi Arabia. Also they have pledged $2
billion in economic assistance to "front-line states"--Egypt,
Turkey, and Jordan--and approximately $22 million in aid to
refugees stranded in Jordan.
This Japanese contribution is substantial and second only to
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in size. Yet Japan has been repeatedly
criticized by the Congress, the public, and even by [the cartoon
strip] Doonesbury for not contributing enough to the defense of its
economic interests. A large part of the problem is, I think, that
Japan's announcement of its contribution came too slowly for many
Americans who value swift and decisive action. It took 6 weeks
from the time of the Iraqi invasion for Japan to announce its full
package. During that time, congressional impatience grew, and
Congress passed a harsh resolution against Japan. Unfortunately,
the timing of the congressional action and the timing of the
Japanese announcement only reinforced the perception in this
country that harsh action and pressure are the only ways to move
the Japanese.
How Japan responds to the crisis in the Persian Gulf has broad
implications for Japan's international role and the world's view of
Japan. The Japanese are now in the process of defining their role in
an interdependent world. They must decide on Japan's future and
the kind of country Japan wants to become. Japan is a country
which rightfully should be a player in world affairs, not a spectator
or merely a financial underwriter. We support its active
participation in world affairs and look forward to developments
over the next few months.
Economic Problems
Turning to the economic side, I note that Japan's economy is facing
some strains and problems. Given Japan's heavy dependence on
imported energy, the crisis in the gulf may add to existing
inflationary pressures. Since the first oil shock of 1973, Japan has
taken steps to decrease its dependence on oil from 77% to less than
60% of total energy needs. But of this oil, 68% comes from the
Middle East, and 53% is shipped through the Strait of Hormuz. With
appropriate economic policies, the consensus view is that Japan's
economy can take prices at $30-$40 per barrel in stride.
Latest projections following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait show
that [Japan's] GNP growth will remain at 5.1% this year, falling to
3.9% in 1991; projections show that inflation will increase slightly
due to higher energy prices but will remain relatively low at 2.8%
for 1990 and 1991.
In addition to solid projections of continued growth, Japan has
two economic cushions: a trade surplus and budget surplus, each
equal to 2% of GNP. Japan's strong economic performance, combined
with its dependence on imported oil, leads naturally to high
expectations with respect to Japan's contributions to multinational
efforts in the Persian Gulf.
In spite of the solid growth of the Japanese economy, the
financial structure in Japan has been a source of concern,
particularly the prices of corporate stocks and land. Land prices in
Japan have exploded to the point that the total market value of all
the small mountainous islands of Japan is, I am told, ten times the
total value of all the land in the entire United States. The small
estate of a few acres in Tokyo where the Emperor has his palace is
worth, in pure square yardage, more than the entire state of Florida.
A single yard of land can cost a quarter of a million dollars. The
price of land continues to rise. The latest figures show that land
costs in September were up more than 13% [over] the previous year.
To young families, the stratospheric price of land means that
affordable housing is almost impossible to find. Japanese birth
rates are collapsing as young couples are increasingly unwilling to
raise children in present cramped conditions. Many Japanese spend
hours commuting each day, and yet, in the face of an excruciating
shortage of land, there are still thousands of acres of land being
used to grow rice within the Tokyo metropolitan area. These
stratospheric Japanese land prices are almost entirely the result of
artificial shortages created by archaic tax and zoning regulations
coupled with a speculative fever unlike anything that has been seen
in my lifetime.
During the 1920s, however, the United States had an
overheated stock market. There were booms and busts in land--for
example in Florida--which wiped out thousands of investors. Last
year, it became clear that Japan was running the risk of repeating
the US experience of 1929. The Bank of Japan and the Ministry of
Finance have begun to take steps to limit the speculative excesses
and let the air out of the stock market and land bubbles before they
burst in an uncontrollable fashion with economic damage extending
far beyond Japan. The easy flow of financing has been somewhat
tightened. The stock market, which had risen to levels that bore no
relationship whatsoever to price/earning ratios, has now fallen
about 35% since its high at the beginning of the year, erasing nearly
$2 trillion from the market's collective value.
The difficulty, as I have mentioned, is to let air out of the
bubble without it bursting, with potentially great damage to the
economy. Since banks own stocks, their assets decline with the
stock market. Because of the recent fall in stock prices, there are
indications that many banks will not now meet new capital
adequacy requirements by 1993. Banks will have to face up to a
liquidity crunch by selling assets, raising new capital, and cutting
back on lending.
Capital Outflow Slows
On the heels of these developments came the gulf crisis, bringing
with it uncertainty over higher oil prices and increased inflationary
expectations. These developments exacerbated banking-sector
problems and are further affecting Japanese patterns of financial
investment. Although the market has not yet digested all these
changes, the Japanese enthusiasm for investments in foreign
financial instruments has been dampened. Some funds invested
abroad have been pulled back to Japan to cover stock loans and to
seek higher interest rates. One possible implication for the United
States is upward pressure on interest rates; the same holds for
many Japanese borrowers, including the manufacturing sector.
Some companies, for example some major automobile
manufacturers, have built up large cash reserves which will provide
a competitive edge as capital costs rise.
The outflow of Japanese capital is definitely slowing down.
There are obvious reasons: Japan's global current account surplus
declined from a peak of $87 billion in 1987 to $49 billion in 1989
and moved to $22.6 billion in the first 7 months of this year.
Japan's interest rates are rising, and previous exchange rate risks
further decreased the attractiveness of some US holdings.
The Japanese did not actively participate in recent Treasury
bill auctions. There are reports that Japanese institutions were net
sellers of American securities this year. They are now moving more
to direct investment, which is aimed at industries here and in
Europe that can strengthen their competitive position.
This brings me to the second part of my speech. Japan has
become a domestic issue in the United States. We see polls which
label Japan as a greater threat to this country than the Soviet Union
is. Part of the reason for this is the correct perception that the
Soviet military threat has decreased. But it also reflects a twofold
concern about our economic position: apprehension that the United
States is in decline and that the Japanese have gained economic
strength against us.
We see fears of Japanese investment despite the fact that
European purchases of US companies are still considerably higher
than those of Japan. Japan now owns $55 billion in US assets--a
small sum compared to the close to the $8 trillion total. What
catches attention and generates fear is the idea that this
investment is concentrated in leading-edge technology companies,
or in famous American companies, the so-called trophy
investments. If we go beyond the surface exchanges, a hard
question is why such assets are for sale, and why American
companies are not willing or able to make these purchases
themselves. It may be that the Japanese are taking the longer term
view more into account than Americans who are tied to short-term
profit accountability.
Both countries are undergoing structural change, and much of
the tension in our relationship can be attributed to the new
realities of the relationship and the difficulties in adjusting to it.
Japan and the United States must make changes in our domestic
economies--the United States to make our economy more
competitive and the Japanese to make their markets more open to
the world.
Japan has benefited greatly from the open world trading
system and is also now a financial superpower. But we believe
Japan still has not provided a reciprocal degree of openness in its
trade and financial systems. While some are fixated on the amount
of our trade deficit with Japan--about $40 billion last year alone--
the real problem is not merely the number but the degree of access
foreigners have to Japanese domestic markets. The Japanese
system still is not nearly as open as ours. The former West
Germany also has a large global trade surplus, greater in 1989 than
Japan's, though Japan's GNP is twice as large. Yet West Germany
has not been subject to the same kinds of criticism as Japan
receives. People have different perceptions about the openness and
fairness of the two countries, and facts indicate that this view may
be valid.
For example, foreign direct investment in West Germany
accounted for 17% of its assets. The same figure in Japan is 1%--
and acquisitions are not getting any easier. German cars are highly
competitive, yet 30% of the autos sold in Germany are imports. In
Japan, the figure is 4%, and, incidentally, a large majority of the 4%
are German cars. The question is access and fairness. Americans
believe that they are getting access to the German market and that
they are getting a fair deal there.
A Many-Sided Relationship
The United States has a many-sided relationship with the Japanese-
-cooperation in aid, in multilateral forums, on political issues, and
in terms of their contributions to US forces in Japan. But the
weakness in our relationship has, for years, been in trade and
economic matters. Unless our economic relationship is on a sound
footing, our two countries cannot have a true partnership,
especially in an era when economics and the importance of markets
are crowding out the Cold War as mass-based issues of concern.
Our deficit with Japan is coming down, but a $40 billion trade
deficit with Japan is still politically unsustainable.
Our trade policy toward Japan has several parts. A main
emphasis is coordination in multilateral fora, with successful
conclusion of the Uruguay Round next month our major concern.
A second part of our economic strategy is coordination of
macro-economic policies to foster improved economic balance,
bilaterally and multilaterally. This coordination is likely to gain
importance given the uncertainties we all face due to oil price
increases and supply disturbances, threat of inflation, and possible
recessionary pressures.
A third part of our strategy is negotiations on specific
market
access problems. In the last few months, we have had successful
resolution of several Super 301 cases on satellites, wood products,
and supercomputers, and other agreements on amorphous metals and
telecommunications. Our trade negotiators have a solid record of
progress on market access problems, and we will continue to press
for resolution of problem areas.
Finally, the US government is working with the Japanese on
questions of structural changes that will identify and remove
barriers to market-determined trade and investment flows. We
need to reduce Japan's export orientation and free up access for
imports. A major part of this policy is the Structural Impediments
Initiative (SII). In June, the United States and Japan concluded a
year of intensive talks with a joint report which commits both
countries to comprehensive measures to reduce structural
impediments to the flow of trade and investment and which will
help foster balance-of-payments adjustment. The report is not an
end in itself but the beginning of an ongoing process. It contains a
blueprint for action that must be fully implemented by both
countries before we can claim success for this diplomatic exercise.
SII is a two-way street. On the US side, we are committed to
addressing our budget deficit, low savings rate, and educational and
worker training questions. The Japanese have committed to change
in six areas of structural impediments: savings and investment
imbalance, the distribution system, land use policies, keiretsu
[hierarchy], exclusionary business practices, and pricing.
As someone who has spent his life in the political side of US
foreign policy, at the White House, Treasury, State Department, and
Congress, I have observed that every decade or so political parties
must look at themselves and the world around them and ask if their
program is still suitable for a changing external environment. The
Reagan administration, and now the Bush administration, have made
a conscious effort to broaden the constituency of the Republican
Party, include new groups, and address new issues and concerns.
Many observers believe that the Liberal Democratic Party of
Japan faces a similar challenge, to address the needs and interests
of the new generation of Japanese urban voters. In any political
system, changes can come from the bottom up or from the top down.
However, statesmanship at the top is easier and less socially
wrenching than the alternative.
Many Japanese believe that it is not a sustainable situation
politically for a country like Japan--one of the richest nations on
earth--to have its wealth so unevenly deployed that less than half
of Japanese homes are hooked to a sewer system. Japanese pay 40%
more than Americans for the same goods traded between the two
countries. The Japanese people have worked long and hard to build
up their country and wealth. This massive wealth should, in the
view of many Japanese, produce more benefits and a better life for
the Japanese people. More internal consumption will also encourage
Japanese imports and reduce trade imbalances in the international
economy. That is what we are trying to achieve in the Structural
Impediments Initiative talks.
Today, I have surveyed some of the important facets of our
relationship with Japan--the constructive Japanese response to the
crisis in the Persian Gulf, our close economic ties, and the need for
better balance in our economic relations. Through the Structural
Impediments Initiative and other bilateral and multilateral
contacts, we have been working toward this better balance. For us
to achieve the economic and foreign policy goals that our countries
share, both of our countries--the United States and Japan--will
have to make a major sustained effort throughout the decade of the
1990s.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 11, November 12, 1990
Title: US Increases Troop Commitment In Operation Desert Shield
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: Opening remarks at a news conference at the White
House, Washington, DC
Date: Nov 8, 199011/8/90
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait
Subject: Military Affairs
[TEXT]
On August 6th, in response to the unprovoked Iraqi invasion of
Kuwait, I ordered the deployment of US military forces to Saudi
Arabia and the Persian Gulf to deter further Iraqi aggression and to
protect our interests in the region. What we've done is right, and
I'm happy to say that most Members of Congress and the majority of
Americans agree.
Before the invasion in August, we had succeeded in the
struggle for freedom in Eastern Europe, and we'd hopefully begun a
new era that offered the promise of peace. Following the invasion, I
stated that if history had taught us any lesson, it was that we must
resist aggression or it would destroy our freedom.
Just ask the people of Kuwait. And the foreign nationals in
hiding there. And the staffs of the remaining embassies who have
experienced the horrors of Iraq's illegal occupation, its systematic
dismantling of Kuwait, and its abuse of Kuwaitis and other citizens.
The world community also must prevent an individual clearly
bent on regional domination from establishing a chokehold on the
world's economic lifeline. We're seeing global economic stability
and growth already at risk as, each day, countries around the world
pay dearly for Saddam Hussein's aggression.
From the very beginning, we and our coalition partners have
shared common political goals: the immediate, complete, and
unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, restoration
of Kuwait's legitimate government, protection of the lives of
citizens held hostage by Iraq both in Kuwait and Iraq, and
restoration of security and stability in the Persian Gulf region.
To achieve these goals, we and our allies have forged a strong
diplomatic, economic, and military strategy to force Iraq to comply
with these objectives. The framework of this strategy is laid out
in 10 UN resolutions, overwhelmingly supported by the UN Security
Council. In 3 months, the US troop contribution to the multinational
force in Saudi Arabia has gone from 10,000 to 230,000 as part of
Operation Desert Shield. General Schwarzkopf [Commanding
General, US forces in Saudi Arabia] reports that our forces, in
conjunction with other coalition forces, now have the capability to
defend successfully against any further Iraqi aggression.
Increasing the Size of US Forces in the Gulf
After consultation with King Fahd [of Saudi Arabia] and our other
allies, I have today directed the Secretary of Defense to increase
the size of US forces committed to Desert Shield to ensure that the
coalition has an adequate offensive military option should that be
necessary to achieve our common goals. Toward this end, we will
continue to discuss the possibility of both additional allied force
contributions and appropriate UN actions.
Iraq's brutality, aggression, and violations of international
law cannot be allowed to succeed. Secretary Baker has been
consulting with our key partners in the coalition. He's met with the
Amirs of Bahrain and Kuwait, King Fahd, President Mubarak [Egypt],
as well as the Chinese Foreign Minister, President Ozal [Turkey],
[Soviet] Foreign Minister Shevardnadze, President Gorbachev [USSR].
He also will be meeting with Prime Minister Thatcher [UK] and
President Mitterrand [France]. I've been heartened by Jim's
appraisal of the strong international solidarity and determination
to ensure that Iraq's aggression does not stand and is not rewarded.
But right now Kuwait is struggling for survival. And along
with many other nations, we've been called upon to help. The
consequences of our not doing so would be incalculable because
Iraq's aggression is not just a challenge to the security of Kuwait
and other gulf nations, but to the better world that we all have
hoped to build in the wake of the Cold War. And, therefore, we and
our allies cannot and will not shirk our responsibilities. The state
of Kuwait must be restored or no nation will be safe, and the
promising future we anticipate will, indeed, be jeopardized.
Let me conclude with a word to the young American GIs
deployed in the gulf. We are proud of each and every one of you. I
know you miss your loved ones and want to know when you'll be
coming home. We won't leave you there any longer than necessary. I
want every single soldier out of there as soon as possible. And
we're all grateful for your continued sacrifice and your
commitment.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 11, November 12, 1990
Title: State Department Gulf Crisis Information
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait
Subject: Democratization
[TEXT]
Emergencies
: 202-647-0900 (24 hours)
Questions or comments about the administration's gulf policy: 202-
647-6575 or 6576, Monday-Friday, 8:30 am-5 pm (Eastern
Standard Time)(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 11, November 12, 1990
Title: Country Profile: Bahrain
Category: Country Data
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Bahrain
Subject: History, Trade/Economics,
International Organizations
[TEXT]
Official Name: State of Bahrain
Geography
Area: 692 sq. km. (267 sq. mi.); about four times the size of
Washington, DC. Bahrain is an archipelago consisting of 33 islands,
only five of them inhabited.
Cities: Capital--Manama (1985 est.)--pop. 122,000. Other city--Al
Muharraq.
Terrain: Low interior plateau and hill
on main island.
Climate: Hot and humid from April-October, temperate from
November- March.
People
Nationality: Noun and adjective--Bahraini(s).
Population (1989 est.): 500,000 (66% indigenous).
Ethnic groups: Arab 73%, Iranian 9%, Pakistani, Indian.
Religions: Shi'a Muslim (over 60% of the indigenous pop.; Sunni
Muslim (about 30%).
Languages: Arabic (official), English, Farsi, Urdu.
Education: Attendance--73%.
Literacy: About 74%.
Work force (1989 est.): 190,000. About 44% indigenous, 56%
expatriate. Agriculture-- 4%; Industry and commerce--74%;
Services--19%; Government--3%.
Government
Type: Traditional emirate (cabinet-executive system).
Independence: August 15, 1971.
Constitution: May 26, 1973.
Branches: Executive--amir (chief of state), prime minister (head of
government), council of ministers (cabinet). Judicial--independent
judiciary with right of judicial review.
Subdivisions: Six towns and cities.
Political parties: None.
Suffrage: None.
Central government budget (1986-87): $2.6 billion.
Defense (1986): $134.4 million, or 9% of the published budget.
Flag: Three-fourths red field with serrated line separating white
field on staff side.
Economy
GDP (1988 est.): $3.6 billion.
Real growth (est.): 2%.
Per capita income (1988 est.): $8,495.
Avg. inflation rate (1985): 0.3%.
Natural resources: Oil, associated and non-associated natural gas,
fish.
Agriculture (1.5% of GDP): Products-- eggs, vegetables, dates.
Industry (36% of GDP): Types--oil aluminum, ship repair, natural
gas, fish.
Services (62% of GDP): Banking, real estate, insurance.
Trade (1987 est.): Exports--$2.4 billion: oil, aluminum, fish. Major
markets-- Japan, Saudi Arabia, UK, US. Imports-- $2.7 billion:
machinery, industrial equipment, motor vehicles, foodstuffs,
clothing. Major suppliers: Japan, UK, US.
Official exchange rate: 0.38 Bahraini dinar=US $1.
Economic aid received: Significant budgetary support and project
grants from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates.
Membership in International Organizations
UN and most of its specialized agencies, Arab League, Organization
of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC), Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC).(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 11, November 12, 1990
Title: Remarks to US Troops
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: Remarks by President Bush at Hickam Airfield, Pearl
Harbor, Hawaii
Date: Oct 28, 199010/28/90
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait
Subject: Military Affairs
[TEXT]
Today in the Persian Gulf, the world is once again faced with the
challenge of perfect clarity. Saddam Hussein has given us a whole
plateful of clarity, because today, in the Persian Gulf, what we are
looking at is good and evil, right and wrong. And day after day,
shocking new horrors reveal the true nature of the reign of terror in
Kuwait. In one hospital, dialysis patients were ripped from their
machines and the machines shipped from Kuwait to Baghdad. Iraq
soldiers pulled the plug on incubators supporting 22 premature
babies. All 22 died. The hospital employees were shot, and the
plundered machines were shipped off to Baghdad.
But you cannot pull the plug on a nation. The invasion of
Kuwait was without provocation. The invasion of Kuwait was
without excuse. And the invasion of Kuwait will not stand.
Iraq's invasion marks an outrageous breach of the peace, a
broad-faced violation of the UN Charter. And by its actions, the
Iraqi regime has shown its contempt for the very principles on
which the United Nations was founded. Saddam Hussein plundered a
peaceful neighbor, held innocents hostage, and gassed his own
people. And all four of those crimes are punishable under the
principles adopted by the Allies in 1945 and unanimously
reaffirmed by the United Nations in 1950.
Two weeks ago, I made mention the Nuremberg trials.
Saddam Hussein must know the stakes are high, the cause is just,
and today, more than ever, the determination is real.
If you look into history, America never went looking for a
war. But in World War II, the world paid dearly for appeasing an
aggressor who could have been stopped. Appeasement leads only to
further aggression and, ultimately, to war. And we are not going to
make the mistake of appeasement again.
One of the other mistakes--one of the other lessons, rather--
that America, like it or not, was part of the whole; that was the
lesson. Hitler rejoiced at the news--if you remember your history
books--rejoiced at the news from Pearl Harbor. Adolf Hitler called
the attack on Pearl Harbor the turning point of the war. And he was
right. But not in the way he thought. Pearl Harbor changed the
world and America's role in it for all time.
You here know that. During the past 3 months, men and
women like you from all 50 states have helped to launch what
history will judge as one of the most important deployments of
allied military power since 1945. But make no mistake: the
decision for this deployment was not made by the men in Baghdad.
We are the ones who are standing up for civilized values, standing
up for a principle that's almost as old as our republic.
Franklin Roosevelt put it clearly in a fireside chat, just after
Pearl Harbor. He said, "Together with other free people, we are now
fighting to maintain our right to live among our world neighbors in
freedom and in common decency without the fear of assault."
Harry Truman understood this lesson. Almost 10 years after
Pearl Harbor he, too, spoke to the nation, and he could almost have
been talking about Kuwait. "Korea is a small country," he said,
"thousands of miles away. But what is happening there," said
Truman, "is important to every American." He called the
unprovoked invasion a "direct challenge to the efforts of the free
nations to build the kind of world in which men can live in freedom
and peace."
Since that time, allied strength and resolve have been tested
many, many times. But when we look back on that history of valor
and sacrifice, it is clear that the strength of our arms and the
strength of our will is up to the challenge that we all face today in
the Persian Gulf.
We are not alone--remember this: we are not alone. The UN
Security Council has passed eight major resolutions setting the
terms for solving this crisis. A majority of the Arab League is with
us. The Soviet Union and China are with us. And NATO's resolve has
never been more firm. Today it is not Iraq against Kuwait, but it is
Iraq against the rest of the civilized world. And that message, we
must say it over and over again.
So this unprecedented unity is a result of hard work and
favorable winds--not the winds of war but the winds of change.
From these magnificent Pacific islands, it's easy to see how, with
skillful hands at the helm, these winds can carry us toward a future
of vast horizons--a dynamic new Asia and a new partnership of
nations where free peoples and free markets look to our shore for
partnership and security and leadership.
The world is still a dangerous place. Those in uniform will
always bear the heaviest burden. Perhaps I know something of what
you endure--the waiting, the uncertainty, the demands of family and
professional life. We want every single American home. No
American will be kept in the gulf a single day longer than
necessary, but we will not walk away until our mission is done.
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 11, November 12, 1990
Title: Remarks to the Troops
Baker
Source: Secretary Baker
Description: US troops in Saudi Arabia
Date: Nov 4, 199011/4/90
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait
Subject: Military Affairs
[TEXT]
Men and women of the first team, let me say that we appreciate
your willingness to have us stop by to say hello today at the
beginning of our trip to eight countries in 7 days.
This is a long, long way from home, but I think that Americans
are home wherever our principles are. And that's really what this
crisis is all about. It's about the defense of the values that made
the United States of America the finest and greatest country in the
world. All nations have a right to be free; free from aggression--
small nations as well as large nations. It's an important principle, I
think, that unprovoked aggression should not be rewarded,
unprovoked aggression should not be permitted to succeed, and the
world made a terrible mistake in the 1930s when we were unable or
refused to stand up to unprovoked aggression. Today, we are facing
the first real crisis of the post-Cold War era. We have an
opportunity to participate in and establish a new international
order. And we don't want to make the same mistakes that were
made in the 1930s.
You members of the first team are out here on the front lines,
and we understand that, and we appreciate the sacrifice that's
involved in being here. We appreciate as well the sacrifice that
your families are making in order for you to be here. Before leaving
Washington yesterday, I spoke to your commander in chief. And I
bring you his best wishes and his greetings, and as you know, he
will be spending Thanksgiving somewhere here perhaps with you,
perhaps with others who are here just like you in the area.
But I want you to know that you are constantly on the minds of
the leadership of the US government as you do your part here to
uphold the principles in which we believe so very, very strongly.
We appreciate what you are doing, we are grateful for what
you're doing, and your nation is grateful to you for what you're
doing. We are extraordinarily proud of you, and I must tell you that
the United States, in leading this effort, would never have been able
to do so without the willingness of people like you to make the
kinds of sacrifices that you are making. We are very, very proud.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the finest and
greatest nation on the face of the earth. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 11, November 12, 1990
Title: Key Challenges Facing South Asia
Kelly
Source: John H. Kelly, Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern
and South Asian Affairs
Description: Statement before the Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific
Affairs, House Foreign Affairs Committee, Washington, DC
Date: Nov 2, 199011/2/90
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: South Asia
Country: Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka
Subject: Democratization
[TEXT]
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss developments in South
Asia at a time of change and turmoil.
Before discussing each of the South Asian countries in turn, I
would like to reflect on the key challenges facing us in South Asia.
First and most important is the search for regional peace and
stability. You are familiar with our efforts to reduce the risk of
conflict over [the province of] Kashmir last spring. I am pleased to
note that tensions between Pakistan and India have eased since that
time. Both countries continue to maintain diplomatic and military
contacts. We continue to urge both countries to adopt confidence-
building measures, and we remain ready to work with them if they
should find that helpful.
Bitterness and violence continue to plague the Kashmir Valley,
however. A cycle of violence and repression has set in, retarding
the ability of Indians, Kashmiris, and Pakistanis to address the
underlying issues. The human rights picture is a disturbing one.
The Kashmiri militants have exacerbated this situation through
tactics we find repugnant. But the Indian authorities have a special
responsibility not to depart from due process of law and to
maintain law and order in a humane manner.
Closely related is our interest in reducing the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction. The crisis in the gulf and the high
tensions last spring over Kashmir have made us and our friends in
South Asia acutely aware that these weapons present a real danger,
not just an abstract one. US-Soviet progress in nuclear arms control
and the groundbreaking US-Soviet agreement to destroy the vast
majority of chemical weapons stockpiles is another positive step
toward ridding the world of potentially devastating weapons. It
would be ironic if our success in reducing the arms race were
accompanied by an acceleration of this wasteful competition
elsewhere. We will continue to work on these issues with the
countries of the region and others whose interests are strongly
engaged.
As you are aware, our continuing review of the issues relating
to the Pressler amendment certification for Pakistan is part of this
effort. In keeping with our longstanding friendship, we expect to
engage the new Pakistani government early on in discussions of
these issues. Meanwhile, we have complied with the law and
suspended all military assistance and new economic aid to Pakistan
because of the absence of certification at the beginning of the new
fiscal year.
Maintaining and advancing democracy in the region is a
challenge for the countries of the region themselves but we have a
strong interest in their efforts. Pakistan's recent elections arose
in circumstances that strained the fragile democratic system in
that country. In its preliminary assessment, the 40-member
international observer team announced that it found the elections to
have been generally open, orderly, and well administered. A new
government should be formed shortly. Peaceful transfer between
the roles of government and opposition is part of the democratic
process, and we hope that the roots of democracy will continue to
deepen in Pakistan.
India's government is dealing with stubborn social and
political controversies that have led to tragic loss of life and to the
breakup of the government coalition. India's strong democratic
traditions augur well for constitutional resolution of this crisis,
but uncertain times lie ahead. Sri Lanka continues to try to
maintain its democratic tradition in the face of a challenge to its
national integrity by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
The stress has taken its toll in the form of human rights violations
by both sides. Debate continues in Nepal over aspects of the new
democratic constitution, which we believe will be promulgated
soon.
Opposition political activity appears to be picking up in
Bangladesh. Bangladesh and Nepal continue to move toward more
representative institutions, with our encouragement.
All the countries in the region face the challenge of economic
development. For most, their economic difficulties are magnified
by the impact of the gulf crisis and their decisions to maintain
sanctions. Development assistance is an important element in our
relationship with most of the countries of the region. But they will
have to rely on their own efforts to evolve sound economic policies
and unleash the productive power of the private sector.
Finally, and most generally, the United States faces the
challenge of maintaining friendly relations throughout the region.
We have sought over the years to free our ties in South Asia, and
especially with India and Pakistan, from the "zero sum" mentality
which suggests that strong relations with one must come at
another's expense. This will continue to be our goal as we move
into the post-Cold War period.
Pakistan
In recent months, Pakistan has been preoccupied with elections for
the National Assembly. These were held as scheduled on October 24
with the IJI [Islami Jamhuri Ittihad] winning 105 seats and the PPP
[Pakistan People's Party] winning 45 seats.
The National Democratic Institute-sponsored 40-member
international observer delegation said the elections were generally
open, orderly, and well-administered. They observed some flaws in
the voting, which in their judgment were not of sufficient
magnitude to alter the overall results. Other observer groups,
including the Canadians, provided similar assessments.
Based on the information available now, the national election
seems to us to have given the Pakistani people a generally fair
opportunity to choose their government. It was not without flaws
or controversy, but the process of dealing with irregularities and
controversies is critical to a functioning democracy. We will
review all available information to implement the recently enacted
requirement to certify the election as condition for certain US aid.
As you are aware, charges were filed against former Prime
Minister [Benazir] Bhutto and members of her government. Court
proceedings have begun. We hope that the process will be marked by
fairness and judicial independence.
History's final judgment of the process will take into account
how complaints are dealt with and the process of accountability.
We hope the government formation process will move forward
peacefully and that the Pakistanis can put this difficult political
period behind them and begin addressing the very serious challenges
facing the country. We expect the National Assembly to be convened
shortly, elect a speaker and deputy speaker, and then select a prime
minister.
The United States places great value on its longstanding
relationship with Pakistan. Pakistan and the United States continue
to share important interests in regional peace and stability and in
an honorable political settlement in Afghanistan. We also are
partners in a common enterprise in trying to reverse the effects of
Iraq's aggression in the gulf. Pakistan has contributed to that
effort, sending over 2,000 troops and upholding the UN sanctions.
We have faced challenges in our relationship before and will do so
again; our aim is to build on this solid base of shared interests.
India
A year ago, India held elections which peacefully replaced the long-
dominant Congress (I) Party with a minority government led by
Prime Minister V. P. Singh. The new government weathered a
series of domestic and foreign challenges. Since early August,
violent demonstrations have swept through northern and eastern
India over the government's decision to pursue a broad "affirmative
action" plan, reserving about half of all government jobs for the
lower castes. The drastic reduction in job opportunities for other
groups has led to bitter political protest, with 63 deaths and more
than 150 attempted suicides.
More recently, the Bharatiya Janata Party [BJP] withdrew its
support from the governing National Front coalition. This decision
resulted from a longstanding religious conflict centered on the BJP
campaign to build a Hindu temple dedicated to the Hindu god Ram on
a site which houses a 16th-century mosque. The government has
insisted that temple construction await a decision by the Uttar
Pradesh high court. The BJP insisted on beginning work on October
30. BJP leader L.K. Advani has led a month-long, 6,000-mile chariot
procession through northern India to gain support for this endeavor.
Singh attempted to reach a compromise but failed. Advani's arrest
on October 23, intended to prevent potentially violent communal
confrontation, led to the BJP withdrawal of support from Singh's
coalition.
At this point, the government has neither resigned nor been
asked to resign by President Venkataraman. The president has,
however, called parliament into session on November 7 to test the
government's strength. The next step could be formation of a new
government, if one can command a parliamentary majority, or new
elections.
In addition to the government crisis, unrest and violence
persist in Punjab and Kashmir. We have expressed our concern about
human rights abuses in both states.
In Punjab, continuing violence has taken nearly 3,500 lives so
far this year and has dashed hopes for new state assembly
elections. In early October, parliament extended the president's
rule, which has been in effect since 1987, for an additional 6
months. No date has been set for new elections.
India's support for UN Security Council sanctions against Iraq
is one example of an opportunity for convergence between Indian
and US policies. We seek to continue in this direction as the world
adjusts to the end of the Cold War. We place particular importance
on the evolution of India's economic and trade policies, and we hope
that economic liberalization policies will continue in spite of the
present uncertain political environment.
Indo-Pakistani Relations
One of our key goals in South Asia is to reduce tensions and promote
regional stability. The 40-year Indo-Pakistani rivalry has been a
primary threat to peace in the area. Tensions over Kashmir have led
to two wars, and since last December that troubled area has again
been the focus of concerns. Within Kashmir, the Indian
government has had little success in establishing a political
dialogue with Kashmiris. Attacks by militants against security
forces often provoke retaliatory action that harms civilians.
In early October, fires destroyed hundreds of dwellings in
Srinagar and surrounding areas. Jammu and Kashmir Governor
Saxena has acknowledged the possibility of the security forces'
responsibility for some of these blazes and promised to investigate.
We expressed to the government our concern over security force
excesses and the use of "collective punishment" against unarmed
civilians.
Last spring, the conflict in Kashmir escalated Indo-Pakistani
tensions to an alarming level. American diplomacy was actively
engaged on this issue. Following the May mission to both countries
by Deputy National Security Adviser Robert Gates, the two sides
initiated a series of talks at the foreign secretary level designed to
improve government-to-government communications and explore
ways of reducing tensions.
The immediate risk of conflict between India and Pakistan has
subsided, but tensions remain high. We hope that the two
governments will continue their contacts through diplomatic and
military channels and will institute other confidence-building
measures to reduce the risk of conflict. We will continue to urge
implementation of the 1988 India-Pakistan agreement prohibiting
attacks on each other's nuclear facilities. Finally, we encourage
both sides to discuss other ways to limit the risk of proliferation
and the possibility of conflict on the subcontinent.
We intend to work with other interested parties, such as the
Soviet Union and China on this issue.
Bangladesh
Bangladesh faces presidential and parliamentary elections in the
next 21/2 years. The opposition has not yet agreed to contest the
elections, but we hope that they and the government will be able to
agree on a set of arrangements which will encourage full
participation. Meanwhile, at least eight people have been killed in
scattered violence related to an anti-government protest movement
that began October 10. We hope Bangladesh will follow the lead of
the new democracies in Eastern Europe, Nicaragua, and elsewhere by
leaving the past and searching in good faith for a peaceful way to
make its elections free, fair, and representative.
In August, Bangladesh agreed to an IMF [International Monetary
Fund] enhanced structural adjustment agreement designed to
address its deteriorating macroeconomic situation. The country has
made progress in privatization and liberalization of trade, but
additional steps must be taken to make it competitive in the world
market.
Bangladesh has been fully supportive of international efforts
in the gulf. The government has sent 2,300 troops to Saudi Arabia,
adhered to sanctions, and condemned Iraq despite the presence of
over 100,000 of its citizens in Iraq and Kuwait. Their remittances
totaled more than 40% of the country's import capital. The gulf
crisis has further aggravated Bangladesh's poverty. The
administration estimates the cost of the crisis to Bangladesh for
the rest of 1990 at about $350-375 million.
Nepal
Nepal continues its transition to democratic government. The
constitutional reforms commission presented a draft constitution
to King Birendra September 10. An extensive cabinet review, which
resulted in some changes, was completed on October 11. Since
then, the interim government has been considering additional
changes proposed by the king. Tensions in Kathmandu deepened
during this third phase in the constitutional reforms process. On
October 25, however, the palace announced that the constitution
would be promulgated on November 9. This step will pave the way
for elections, which are tentatively scheduled for spring 1991.
From the drafts we have seen, the new constitution appears to
represent fundamental political change. It charters a multi-party
parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy in place of
the previous "partyless" [panchayat] system, which recognized the
king as the sole source of political power. The constitution also
guarantees many fundamental rights. We believe it is a major step
forward in the process to develop democratic institutions, which
are essential to a workable, thriving democratic system.
The United States has encouraged and supported Nepal's
democratic transition from its beginnings last spring in Kathmandu.
Through the Democratic Pluralism Initiatives program, we provided
more than $800,000 in FY 1990 to support constitutional reform and
the development of pluralistic democratic institutions. We will
continue to offer our experience of democratic systems in whatever
way the Nepalese find useful as the political transition continues.
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka embodies one of South Asia's starkest paradoxes. On the
one hand, Sri Lanka takes pride in a strong, democratic tradition and
dynamic economic policies that brought a 6% annual growth rate for
the first half of 1990.
But Sri Lanka's continuing separatist strife has placed strains
on the political system and the economy. It also has raised
troubling human rights issues. Since the revival of fighting with
the LTTE last June, we estimate that over 4,700 people have been
killed. The military picture is still ambiguous.
We are deeply concerned by alleged abuses by all parties to
Sri Lanka's conflict--Tamil separatists, the JVP (a Maoist
revolutionary group apparently subdued in 1989), and government
security forces. The United States continues to insist, clearly and
unequivocally, that human rights and humanitarian law must be
respected by all. We have underscored this point on many occasions,
including at the donor consultative group meeting in Paris on
October 25. Other delegations, including the European Community,
expressed similar concerns in their statements. Sri Lankans
themselves--Sinhalese, Muslims, and Tamils--hold the key to peace
and thus to a brighter future.
Afghanistan
Our efforts to lay the groundwork for a political settlement have
made some progress. We are continuing our discussions with the
Soviets on a transition process, which would allow the Afghan
people to determine their own future. The United States and the
Soviet Union believe that there should be a transition period,
culminating in self-determination, to select a government for a
non-aligned Afghanistan. Our principal difference with the Soviets
concerns the Najibullah regime's transition role and the powers of a
transition mechanism. The fundamental decisions and
responsibilities for restoring peace ultimately rest with the
Afghans themselves.
Within the Afghan resistance, mujahidin commanders have
recently demonstrated increasing willingness to cooperate across
party, ethnic, and religious lines. The most notable example of this
trend was the October 9-13 meeting of several major
commanders near the Pakistan- Afghanistan border.
Over the past month, resistance groups have increased
military pressure on the government, taking the provincial capital
of Tarin Kot (Oruzgan Province) in early October through a
combination of military attack and induced defections. Another
provincial capital, Qalat (Zabul Province), is under siege, with a
small garrison holding only the town's central fort.
We welcome increased resistance unity and military
effectiveness. So do the Pakistanis, as evidenced by the high-level
reception given to Masood by Pakistani leaders when he visited
Islamabad October 16. However, we have no favorites in the
resistance, and we continue to consult closely with resistance and
Pakistani leaders. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 11, November 12, 1990
Title: Global Professionals of the Future
Perkins
Source: Edward J. Perkins, Director General of the Foreign
Service and Director of Personnel
Description: Address before Executive Women International,
Washington, DC
Date: Oct 10, 199010/10/90
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Subject: State Department
[TEXT]
You represent one of the important but less appreciated elements in
our diverse society; you are change agents of the highest order. As
such, I am pleased and honored to be involved in this seminar with
you this evening.
A colleague of mine, asked to comment on the "downside of
the peace dividend," thought the very idea provocative in the context
of challenges to modern society. Similarly intrigued, I've put
together a list which I am brave enough to share with you as a kind
of gospel for tonight's discussion.
I start by noting that greater global competition could be seen
as a downside. Next, diminishing resources and financial problems
tend to undermine the positive effects of reduced commitments
overseas--an enormous downside. The decline or redefinition of the
meaning of superpower status and the increasing multi-polarity vs.
bi-polarity of the world might be a downside, at least
psychologically. The fact that some leaders, such as Saddam
Hussein, might see the lessening of superpower tensions and the
consequent re-evaluation of defense spending as creating a vacuum,
leaving the world vulnerable to their ambition, is a serious problem.
But as I looked at this list, I saw something else emerging.
Greater global competition means greater demand for well-trained,
talented, and well-motivated people to meet that challenge, thereby
focusing greater attention on our educational system. Diminishing
resources means greater demand for imaginative and creative
thinking permitting all of us to do more with less, thereby
increasing organizational receptivity to different opinions and
diversity of the workforce. Multipolarity means a greater demand
for diversity--one of America's greatest strengths--something we
talk about but don't utilize enough. And these latest threats to
peace in the Middle East are once again a timely reminder that the
world is interdependent--politically as well as economically.
The decade we are entering--far from being a period of
relaxation--will be a period in which our character and fiber as a
nation could be tested as never before. So, in my view, the
downside of the peace dividend is at once the upside.
It seems to me that the approach we at the Department of
State are taking to meet this challenge bears some discussion,
particularly to this audience. First off, "diplomacy" means, in the
sense that [diplomat-historian] Harold Nicolson defined it, the
"implementation of foreign policy," meaning almost any
professional activity, for all have a role to play. In this sense, the
members of Executive Women International are in the forefront as
revolutionaries of change--including in foreign affairs.
Our Historic, New Prospects
The developed, democratic nations of the world now stand at one of
history's dividing lines between past and present. One of the great
issues of our century has been the conflict between totalitarianism
and democracy. The roots of this conflict go back very far--perhaps
even to the 4th and 5th centuries BC--but not until our own century
was the conflict between these two ideologies so clearly defined
and decisively engaged. World War II rid the world of one
totalitarian system--national socialism; today, it's clear that the
other, communism, and its derivatives are collapsing as ideologies
and working political models.
What is left? Can we say that a 2,500-year-long debate about
the nature of man and society has been resolved in our favor? Does
it smack too much of American "particularism" to say that from
1760 to 1800, we inaugurated a revolutionary era in which the
modern democratic state came into being--and to add that in the
world of today, our having created history's first and only multi-
ethnic, democratic state of continental proportions is more
relevant to mankind's needs than ever?
It looks as though our history offers a social, political, and
economic message to the world of the future--and to ourselves as
well, since every experience is an individual and a national learning
experience. But we also must understand the major features of that
future world, so that in it we can advance and protect the national
interests and security of the United States. As the definition of
power grows broader, those nations which best link an attractive
value system to the organizational and material bases of power will
become the world leaders of the future.
The subject matter of future diplomacy may seem at once
traditional and radically new--a combination of the 19th and 21st
centuries. Our national interests will be more precisely and
narrowly defined; competition for trade and resources could return
to its central place in American foreign policy.
India is emerging as a major power in its region. Medium-
sized players exist in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America and
among the ASEAN [Association of South East Asian Nations]. The
potential for vicious local conflicts, even chaos, may increase.
Within the Soviet Union and along most of its borders, there
runs a geopolitical faultline with dozens of points of tension,
friction, and likely breakdown. India has similar problems and so do
the Middle East and Africa. South Africa, Angola, and Mozambique
are all struggling to sort out problems that present deadly perils to
modern, productive nations.
Consider a possible future where health and nutrition in
Africa have declined from the levels of the great 1983-85 famine;
where the sky is more ozone hole than layer; where wildlife
conservation is limited mostly to zoos; where Haiti and Nepal have
worn down to bedrock; and where the populations of India, Egypt,
and China threaten to implode. Such a world could threaten
democracy as severely as the totalitarian world we have just put
behind us.
The World of the Future
It is fairly clear to me that we are moving from a world of two
superpowers to one composed of a larger number of power centers.
These will include the European Community, USSR, China, and Japan
as well as the United States (plus Canada and perhaps Mexico) to
name a few. There will be others--based largely on the economics
of scarce commodities--forcing the United States and other
Western nations to once again use our powers of inventiveness.
A diplomacy of maneuver and shifting coalitions will emerge
in place of one grand alliance in an overriding security and
ideological crusade. The practice of international relations will be
open, rapid, and fluid as never before: Governments will have to
compete with a host of other actors; interested parties will deal
with each other instantly, across borders, and often without
reference to foreign ministries and embassies. The impact of
technology will be pervasive.
Foreign policy must, and will, encompass a wide range of
critically important developmental and ecological issues, many of a
scientific cast. To deal with this future, you as professionals, as
well as our diplomats, will have to possess a wide range of
attributes and skills--some old, some new. Inventive and
revolutionary organizations such as yours will be even more
important in the future in contributing to a new era in which all
resources are put to use in pursuit of the greater consideration of
domestic and foreign policy.
A New Prototype of the Professional
I've been asked often to describe my concept of the professional of
the future. I'd like to try and look at the attributes of the future
professional: Professional people, whatever their country, or
whether career diplomats or others, must reflect the philosophy of
that country and at the same time be internationally minded--not
because it is chic, but because you have no other choice save to opt
out.
Able professionals of the future will reflect the full ethnic
and geographic variety of the nation. They will communicate well,
orally and in writing, be open to other languages--but more
importantly, they will be open to international, indeed global,
influences and opportunities.
In this sense, our emerging China policy, for example, fits
right in. As Deputy Secretary Eagleburger has said, through five
administrations, representing both parties, the United States has
pursued a consistent set of policy objectives with regard to China.
First, we have sought to nurture a strategic relationship with
China aimed at drawing the Chinese out of their isolation and
encouraging their cooperation on major international issues.
Second, we have sought to encourage China to use its
influence in the East Asian region to reduce tensions and to promote
stability.
Third, we have sought to engage the Chinese in a wide variety
of exchanges and other activities that will bolster political and
economic reforms and the promotion of human rights.
Fourth, we have sought to increase economic and commercial
relations with China, so as to advance the movement toward a
market-oriented economy.
The impulse to building these relationships was the
realization that, historically, the Chinese political process has
performed unevenly; that is to say, that China has been subject to
episodic convulsions, that these convulsions have sometimes
directed Chinese energies inward and sometimes outward, and that
there is no guarantee of consistency or evenness in our relations
with the Chinese. It was precisely with these considerations in
mind that those who normalized US-China relations sought to
develop quickly as many interrelationships--economic, political,
educational, scientific, cultural, athletic, and social--as possible.
Contacts and relationships such as these could only help
promote reform within China and enhance respect for human rights.
Such contacts and relationships could also help to shorten the
periods of tension between China and the United States that
experience suggests will likely occur from time to time.
And that's where you--as global professionals--come in. The
Chinese--a people who historically have harbored within
themselves a struggle between internationalist forces seeking
contact with these outside world and nativist, xenophobic forces
inclined toward isolationism--have exhibited a strong tendency to
take two steps forward and then one step back. Our effort always
has been to try to shorten the time required for China to work its
way through its internal crises.
No matter how much the current critics of our policy may try
to portray it otherwise, the issue has never been whether or how
fervently we support reform and respect for human rights in China.
Of course we support those objectives and with as much fervor as
our critics.
Rather, the issue is how best to transform rhetoric into
reality. Do we seek to isolate China and cause it to turn inward or
do we seek to facilitate its return to reform and openness by
continuing to pursue the contacts and ties that encouraged such
reform in the first place? The answer to that question is one that
you, as global professionals, will answer.
Our emerging relationship with a dramatically changed Soviet
Union is based on similar principles. The Soviets want to be where
they think we are now. They have asked for our help in banking,
economic, and financial analysis--even setting up a stock exchange
and the other structural elements of a market economy.
Information and how to use it will be the key to this historic
enterprise. For you who will undertake it, computer literacy and an
understanding of economics are essential tools. The new
relationship between East and West in this era of glasnost and
perestroika creates vast opportunities throughout the
communications and information fields. There are still areas of
fundamental differences with the Soviet Union in economic matters.
Nonetheless, a vast number of new projects and joint ventures can
go forward in the new spirit of mutual cooperation. Western firms
are already actively pursuing opportunities, including proposals for
large, bold, and imaginative projects by such industrial giants as
AT∧T [American Telephone and Telegraph], IBM [International
Business Machines], and General Motors.
The climate is right for expanding such activity. Recent
bilateral economic initiatives include a US-Soviet commerce and
trade agreement, the ongoing US-Soviet program of technical
economic cooperation, and bilateral investment and tax treaties
now being negotiated.
For example, the first ever "Silicon Summit" took place last
June in Santa Clara, California, bringing together for the first
time leading Soviet and US high-technology business leaders for
the purpose of establishing trade links between US and Soviet high-
technology programs.
In another area, the Soviets have declared their target is to
practically triple the capacity of their telephone system, including
offering customers access to services such as telephone networks
for data transmission and telefax, teletex, videotex, video-
telephone, video conferencing, and database acquisition. Over the
next 5 years, the Soviets plan to double investment in
telecommunications in order, among other things, to install 5-6
million new telephone lines each year. And, of course, they're
looking for investors. I leave the possibilities to your imaginations.
Vision and inventiveness must be second nature to the future
global professionals. They must devise creative solutions not yet
thought of and apply skills of conflict resolution, development
administration, economic aid, and social science.
Whether in the boardroom, on the battlefield, or in the
community, this spirit of creativity must be uppermost as we seek
and manage change--in Eastern Europe as in the rest of the world.
The global professional of the future must understand and be
willing to look for our greater advantage in international trade and
development--whether it be in finding openings into established but
resistant markets like Japan or China or creating totally new
opportunities in areas not yet thought of or properly explored, such
as southern Africa.
For many years after World War II, our margin of superiority
on the world stage was so great that, often, our policies were
helped to success simply because of our perceived weight as the
world power. But the world is no longer a pushover, if it ever was
one.
Deputy Secretary Eagleburger noted that:
"Our economic health and our ability to trade competitively on
the world market may be the single most important component of
our national security as we move into the next century."
Role of Women and Minorities
I can think of no better qualified group to meet the challenges to
modern society than minorities and women from across this nation.
As professionals, minorities and women have been doing just that
for years, but the credit and the power have yet to accrue to them in
proportion to their promise and potential.
The United States can no longer afford this type of resource
exclusion. President Bush and Secretary Baker have charged me
with the task of increasing the Department's percentage of women
and minorities. Executive Women International is uniquely well
placed to help this effort by sharing the information that we seek
to improve the diversity of our workforce and to find qualified
minorities and women who desire to serve our country in the area of
foreign affairs.
The Changing Work-Family Environment
American society is changing with uncommon rapidity--moving far
away from practices considered typical in the 1940s through the
1960s. But even today, women (and minorities) are still under-
represented at the senior levels of the Foreign Service. That
picture is changing and will continue to change. Although only about
24% of our Senior Foreign Service is female, that number is double
the percentage of 10 years ago.
The single career woman is no longer the norm in our society.
That is manifested mightily in our Foreign Service. This, too,
evokes the image of the new global professional and is a positive
element, assuring both fully used resources and fully satisfied
individual aspirations.
Half of our female FSOs [Foreign Service officers] are married.
Many of those are married to fellow FSOs, but well over 200 have
spouses who are not US government employees--certainly a slow
move toward total "wholism" in our society, but at the moment the
realities of Foreign Service life make customary American two-
career family arrangements difficult.
About 6% of the service is comprised of what we call tandem
couples, in which both partners are full-time regular members of
the Foreign Service. They may be specialists or generalists and in
the State Department or in [the Department of] Agriculture, US AID
[US Agency for International Development], or USIA [US Information
Agency]. While this solution to the two-career family issue
provides some answers, it also raises questions of assignments
equity--determining whose career has priority--and the strong
possibility of extended periods of leave without pay.
The family member employment issue rates as one of the
major concerns of the Secretary of State and is one of my top
priorities. If we are to be successful as a nation in the future, we
must move from the dawn of this impediment into the sunshine of
innovation, ingenuity, boldness, and a prejudice-free society.
We have done it before. We are a revolutionary nation and
society used to solving problems. Our political democratic
liberation, our industrial and labor rights upheavals, our civil rights
struggles and continual fight for sexual equality all manifest our
spirit as a change-oriented society. Each revolution has
strengthened us as a people, as a nation, and as institutions.
Conclusion
To sum up, the post-World War II status quo is rapidly disappearing
and with it must go any false notions of complacency. The world of
foreign relations we are now entering is going to be more
competitive, not less competitive, in the coming years.
All professionals, whether working in business, in politics, in
government or international activities must be wholistic in makeup.
Such people will manifest a new renaissance of economic literacy,
interest in trade policy, conflict resolution, development
administration, "community capitalism," and education around the
globe. Community capitalism means a community role in business
generation and disposition of income and realization that neither
[economists] Adam Smith nor Harold Laski will represent the model
which finally emerges as the paradigm for economic-commercial
activities in emerging societies, such as South Africa.
We need every individual resource we can muster to meet the
challenges of a more competitive international environment. In an
atmosphere of diminishing resources at home and ever keener
competition overseas, we can no longer afford the luxury of a
fractionated foreign policy. Neither can we afford to leave the
intellectual domination of foreign policy to one group of
professionals; it is the growing responsibility of all citizens.
We must learn to understand and make creative use of the
techniques of peaceful competition as a substitute for war among
nations if we are to continue to be a constructive player in this new
game of post-containment diplomacy. Issues such as debt, the
environment, access to natural resources and food, refugees, trade
and development, and drug trafficking will increasingly drive US
foreign policy concerns in this new decade.
Executive Women International has a role to play in this
emerging new decade because the United States must proactively
rise to these challenges, and, to do so, we need all the creativity,
vision, inventiveness, and flair for problem-solving that have made
our country great.
But more than anything else, we are going to need the kind of
broad experience and adaptable outlook that is the product of
diversity and of dynamic intellectual and cultural cross-
fertilization if we are to meet the challenges of a multi-polar
world. And here we are lucky because it is diversity that is our
nation's greatest strength.
That our strength comes from diversity was an idea we took
for granted in the 19th century--when we needed all kinds of people
to fill the great empty space that was America--but that has
become a bit of a truism in the 20th. Perhaps we lost sight of its
importance somewhere in the middle of "the American century"
because our place in the world was obvious and maybe a little too
self-assured.
We are facing another great challenge to our resourcefulness
as a people and as institutions representative of that people. We
need to recruit people who possess the qualities required to live
and work successfully in a diverse and changing environment. But I
am convinced that if we make the effort to look, we will find them,
because the kind of people we need are the kind of people we are.
(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 11, November 12, 1990
Title: Focus on Central and Eastern Europe: 11/12/90
Date: Nov 12, 199011/12/90
Category: Focus on Emerging Democracies
Region: E/C Europe
Country: Czechoslovakia (former), Hungary, Poland,
Romania, Yugoslavia (former)
Subject: Trade/Economics, Media/Telecommunications,
Science/Technology
[TEXT]
Citizens Democracy Corps
Secretary Baker Addresses Executive Committee. On October 31,
Secretary of State James A. Baker, III, hosted a luncheon in the
Department of State in honor of the recently named Executive
Committee of the Citizens Democracy Corps (see Focus #27 or
Dispatch #9 for a list of the committee members). The following
excerpts are from Secretary Baker's remarks at that luncheon:
". . . It's only right, I think, that the best of our private and
public sectors should join in meeting this major new challenge in
Eastern Europe -- the challenge of building democratic institutions
and market economies after decades of communist oppression and
after decades of centrally planned devastation, as far as the
economies of these countries are concerned.
It's only right, too, for the citizens of one of the world's
oldest democracies to help the citizens of Europe's newest
democracies to recover normal lives in normal countries. As new,
freely elected leaders work to transform the old systems in Central
and Eastern Europe, there's an increasing need, as I know most of
you know, for initiative and enterprise that the private sector of
the Western world and particularly that the private sector of the
United States can provide. . . .
As the United States adapts its assistance programs for
Eastern Europe, we believe it's important to maintain the policy of
democratic differentiation that has served us and, we think, has
served the citizens of Eastern Europe so very well. We will
continue to target our assistance to promote democracy, to promote
free markets, respect for human rights, and the rule of law.
I want to close with a word about the important part that
America can play in the countries that the Citizens Democracy
Corps is trying to help. And I mean America, not only as a nation
but really as an idea that is much alive in the minds of men and
women across Central and Eastern Europe and, frankly, is very much
alive in the minds of men and women in the Soviet Union today.
Those of you who have been to the area within the past 12 months, I
think probably know what I'm talking about.
But let me give you one early, recent example. The night that
they were having the parliamentary elections in Bulgaria this June,
more than 100,000 citizens were gathered in the capital awaiting
the election results and there was rumor or word of a dispute in the
fairness of the official vote count that was passing through this
rather large crowd. Some people in the crowd spotted some US
election observers standing nearby. The crowd spontaneously began
chanting, "USA SOS."
The official count in that election was eventually set
straight. But I think the point remains, and that is that America had
played a key role in the support of democracy in Bulgaria, much as it
had in other countries of Central and Eastern Europe during an
historic election. Almost everybody, if not everybody, in that crowd
knew it.
There are many such opportunities, small and large, whereby
the democratic freedoms of the peoples of Central and Eastern
Europe and the Soviet Union can prosper. With the strong leadership
of the Citizens Democracy Corps that's represented here today, we
can be confident, I think, that America will not miss those new
opportunities. And, of course, it is critical that the reform efforts,
both political and economic, that have been undertaken by these
countries in Central and Eastern Europe succeed. The world is
watching. . . ."
USIA/TV Assistance
Hungary. A satellite dish provided by the US Information Agency
(USIA) has been operating since late September at the Hungarian
private television station, NAP TV, which began using USIA's
Worldnet broadcasts in early October.
Poland. Polish TV ran a 28-minute interview with former
National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in September. The
interview had been arranged and recorded by USIA/TV's Foreign
Broadcasters Support Unit.
USIA/TV's first cooperative production with Polish TV
completed a 10-day shooting schedule in Chicago, New York, and
Washington, DC, on September 29. The subjects were how the US
financial system works, the Polish-US Enterprise Fund, housing,
local authorities, US aid programs to Poland, and the World
Bank/International Monetary Fund.
Romania. A satellite dish donated by USIA to Romanian TV has
been operating since September. Due in part to the availability of
the satellite dish, Romanian TV is now using considerable USIA/TV
material, including in recent weeks the programs "Growing a
Business," "The Constitution: A Delicate Balance," and "Science
World."
Yugoslavia. Yugoslavian TV aired almost 12 hours of USIA's
Worldnet programs during September, including installments of the
"First Business," "American History," "American Literature," and
"Science World" series, among others.
Journalism
Interns. A group of seven media interns from Central and Eastern
Europe visited USIA on October 4 as part of the initial phase of a 6-
month USIA media-training program. The program will include a
month-long orientation to US media, emphasizing reporting and
relations between the media and government; a 22-week internship
at a newspaper; 2 weeks of academic study at a university; and
visits to magazine and newspaper companies in New York and
Washington, DC.
Poland. Rutgers University professor Jerome Aumente went to
Poland in October to prepare for a professionals-in-residence
program that is scheduled to begin in March 1991. Professor
Aumente is also advising Polish universities on curriculum
development in journalism.
Czechoslovakia
US To Provide Medical Supplies. Department of Defense spokesman
Pete Williams announced on October 23 that the Defense Department
would provide 65 tons of excess medical equipment and supplies to
Czechoslovakia on October 25. It is the first donation of US medical
supplies to that country. The excess supplies were collected from
US medical facilities in Europe. The donation includes such things
as gauze, bandages, dressings, medical and surgical instruments and
equipment, and laboratory supplies.
The US embassy in Prague and the Czechoslovakian government
arranged for the shipment through the Defense Department's Office
of Humanitarian Assistance. During the past 5 years, in addition to
Czechoslovakia, that office has arranged for donations to Bulgaria,
Hungary, Poland, and Romania. A total of 40 countries, including 13
in Africa, have received excess property from the Department of
Defense.
Hungary
Prime Minister Jozsef Antall made an official visit to Washington,
DC, October 17-19. On October 18, White House press secretary
Marlin Fitzwater released the following fact sheet on US assistance
to Hungary:
Food Aid
-- To help meet Hungary's grain needs during the current
drought, the US government offered $47.5 million in new credits and
loan guarantees for Hungary; $40 million of the total consist of
official US guarantees for
7-year commercial credits for US commodities, and $7.5 million are
long-term credits on highly concessional items. These credits,
taken together, should meet more than half of Hungary's estimated
grain shortfall of 800,000 tons.
-- The US government will also be working closely with the
Group of 24 industrialized countries (G-24) to meet Hungary's food-
assistance needs.
Energy Assistance
-- The US government is asking the International Monetary
Fund to increase its lending to Central and East European countries
by as much as $5 billion, modifying its lending policies as
appropriate. The United States will also ask the World Bank to
accelerate its assistance in the energy field, drawing on the $9
billion now committed to, or planned for, Central and Eastern
Europe.
-- The US government provides direct bilateral aid for "quick
fix" energy-efficiency projects and cooperation with the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the
International Energy Agency, and the European Community in a
regional energy-efficiency project. These projects are designed to
help Hungary overcome short- and medium-term energy crises.
-- The US government also provides longer-term assistance
for energy conservation, energy efficiency, clean-coal technology,
and nuclear safety -- all crucial to Hungary if it is to overcome the
effects of the energy crisis caused by reduced Soviet shipments,
high world-market prices, and the unavailability of promised
supplies from Iraq.
Major Continuing US Initiatives
-- Enterprise Fund. The Hungarian-US Enterprise Fund,
launched on March 30, is fully operational and had $5 million
available in FY 1990 for loans and grants to stimulate private
business formation. From FY 1991 funding, $21 million is available
for
Hungary.
-- Environment. The US-sponsored Regional Environmental
Center in Budapest was inaugurated on September 6. The original
$1.6 million of US funding attracted about $13 million in
contributions from other G-24 members, which has made it possible
to increase the number of activities of the center. Several
environmental programs already are under way.
Technical and Educational Assistance:
-- The United States sponsors business and management
training to prepare a new generation of Hungarians to run a market
economy.
-- US programs are under way to help telecommunications
systems, which are needed for international business.
-- A full-time US adviser and computer equipment worth
$250,000 have been provided to the State Property Agency to help in
privatizing the Hungarian economy.
-- The United States is funding technical advice in financial
services and banking by the Securities and Exchange Commission
and the Financial Services Volunteer Corps.
-- 58 Peace Corps volunteers are training English teachers
and supporting small-business development.
-- The US Agency for International Development is giving
technical assistance for privatizing public housing.
-- The United States also provides technical assistance to
design and fund major infrastructure projects.
Democracy Initiatives
-- Several groups of new Hungarian parliamentarians have
come to the United States for training, and technical advice is being
provided to establish a parliamentary research service and
legislative staff services.
-- The United States has provided computers and other high-
technology equipment to the Hungarian Parliament. This equipment
will give all parliamentarians equal access to a large data base and
will assist them in drafting new legislation.
-- The United States is helping with rule-of-law programs
designed to assist in the drafting of new criminal and civil codes
and administrative procedures.
-- The United States provides information about an
independent judiciary and a more civil-rights-oriented police
authority.
-- More than $1 million have been provided for other
democratic initiatives, including election training, support for
opposition parties, and building democratic institutions.
(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 11, November 12, 1990
Title: Current Treaty Actions, October 1990
Date: Oct 30, 199010/30/90
Category: Treaties/Agreements
Country: Canada, Egypt, South Korea, Ireland, Italy,
Namibia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines,
Poland, Senegal, USSR (former), Venezuela
Subject: International Law, Resource Management,
Environment, Trade/Economics
[TEXT]
Multilateral
Agriculture
International plant protection convention. Done at Rome Dec. 6,
1951. Entered into force Apr. 3, 1952; for the US Aug. 18, 1972.
TIAS 7465.
Adherence deposited: St. Kitts ∧ Nevis, Apr. 17, 1990.
Maritime Matters
Convention on facilitation of international maritime traffic, with
annex. Done at London Apr. 9, 1965. Entered into force Mar. 5, 1967;
for the US May 16, 1967. TIAS 6251. Accession deposited:
Portugal, Aug. 6, 1990.
Nuclear Weapons--Non-Proliferation
Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Done at
Washington, London, and Moscow July 1, 1968. Entered into force
Mar. 5, 1970. TIAS 6839. Accession deposited: Albania, Sept. 12,
1990.
Pollution
Annex V to the international convention for the prevention of
pollution from ships, 1973. Done at London Nov. 2, 1973. Entered
into force Dec. 31, 1988. Acceptance deposited: Australia, Aug. 14,
1990.
Convention for the protection of the ozone layer, with annexes.
Done at Vienna Mar. 22, 1985. Entered into force Sept. 22, 1988.
(Senate) Treaty Doc. 99-9.
Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, with
annex. Done at Montreal Sept. 16, 1987. Entered into force
Jan. 1, 1989. (Senate) Treaty Doc. 100-10. Accessions deposited:
Brazil, Mar. 19, 1990; Iran, Oct. 3, 1990.
Protocol to the 1979 convention on long-range trans-boundary air
pollution concerning the control of emissions of nitrogen oxides or
their transboundary flows, with annex. Done at Sofia Oct. 31, 1988.
(1) Ratifications deposited: Luxembourg, Oct. 4, 1990; UK, Oct. 15,
1990.
Torture
Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment or punishment. Done at New York Dec. 10, 1984. Entered
into force June 26, 1987. (2) (Senate) Treaty Doc. 100-20. Senate
advice and consent to ratification: Oct. 27, 1990. (3)
Bilateral
Canada
Agreement on fisheries enforcement. Signed at Ottawa Sept. 26,
1990. Enters into force upon notification by the parties that they
have completed their internal procedures.
Egypt
Grant agreement for commodity imports. Signed at Cairo Sept. 30,
1990. Entered into force Sept. 30, 1990.
Indonesia
Agreement extending the agreement of Dec. 11, 1978 (TIAS 9609),
for scientific and technical cooperation. Signed at Jakarta Oct. 4
and 5, 1990. Entered into force Oct. 5, 1990.
Ireland
Agreement amending the agreement of Feb. 3, 1945 (EAS 460), as
amended, relating to air transport services, with annex. Effected by
exchange of notes at Dublin July 25 and Sept. 6, 1990. Supersedes
agreement of June 11, 1973 (TIAS 7660).
Italy
Memorandum of understanding relating to the air transport services
agreement of June 22, 1970 (TIAS 6957), as amended, with related
exchange of letters. Signed at Rome Sept. 27, 1990. Entered into
force Sept. 27, 1990, except for amendment to Article 10, which
shall enter into force on the 15th day following the date of
exchange of notes covering the Italian instrument of ratification.
Namibia
General agreement for special development assistance. Signed at
New York Sept. 28, 1990. Entered into force Sept. 28, 1990.
Netherlands
Agreement on social security, with administrative arrangement.
Signed at The Hague Dec. 8, 1987.
Protocol to the agreement on social security and administrative
arrangement of Dec. 8, 1987. Signed at The Hague Dec. 7, 1989.
Entered into force: Nov. 1, 1990.
Nicaragua
Grant agreement to provide balance-of-payments support and to
assist Nicaragua in its efforts to stabilize the economy. Signed at
Washington Sept. 26, 1990. Entered into force Sept. 26, 1990.
Philippines
Grant agreement for natural resources management program. Signed
at Manila Sept. 28, 1990. Entered into force Sept. 28, 1990.
Poland
Agreement regarding the consolidation and rescheduling of certain
debts owed to, guaranteed by, or insured by the US government and
its agencies, with annexes. Signed at Warsaw Aug. 24, 1990.
Entered into force: Oct. 22, 1990.
Senegal
Treaty concerning the reciprocal encouragement and protection of
investment, with annex and protocol. Signed at Washington Dec. 6,
1983. (Senate) Treaty Doc. 99-15. Entered into force: Oct. 25,
1990.
USSR
Agreement regarding certain maritime matters, with annexes.
Signed at Washington June 1, 1990. Entered into force: Oct. 1,
1990.
Venezuela
Agreement amending the annex to the air transport services
agreement of Aug. 14, 1953, as amended (TIAS 2813, 7549, 8433).
Effected by exchange of notes at Washington July 19 and Oct. 10,
1990. Entered into force Oct. 10, 1990.
1 Not in force.
2 Not in force for the US.
3 With reservations, declarations, understandings, and a proviso.
(###)