US Department of State 

Dispatch, Vol 1, No 13, November 26, 1990


Thanksgiving Day Address to US Forces in Saudi Arabia

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Date: Nov 22, 199011/22/90 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: MidEast/North Africa Country: Iraq, Kuwait Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization [TEXT] Barbara and I are very, very pleased to be here today, joined by the bipartisan leadership of the Congress on this mission of peace, this mission of pride. And we're honored to be here to tell you that on this special Thanksgiving Day, Americans will thank God for many things, but first they will thank God for each one of you. The 10th Airborne, with the strength of the 197th Infantry Brigade and the 24th Infantry Division . . . and so many other brave Americans, has spearheaded what history will judge as one of the most important deployments of military power in the last half century. You've done it for principle; you've done it for freedom; and you've done it to make America proud. And so I've come out here today personally to thank you, the men and women who endured much and sacrificed more to stand tall against aggression. I hope you'll excuse a personal reference, but seeing you all here brings back a personal memory of another Thanksgiving--another group of Americans far from home--and for me it was November 23, 1944. I was 20 years old and 6 days away from my last mission as a carrier pilot. Our ship, the San Jacinto, laid off the coast of the Philippines. While we celebrated without family that year, like you, we all came together as friends and as part of something bigger than ourselves to thank God for our blessings. And we joined together then, as you are now, as a part of a proud force for freedom. You know, back then, the 24th was there in the northern Philippines, as I was flying raids in the south on Manila Bay and 10,000 miles away in another theater where the stakes were just as high--one well-known to some standing right with me--the predecessor of today's 197th was on the front lines of the fight for Europe. And they don't call you "forever forward" for nothing. Now, almost 50 years later, there are still proud troops like you--commanders like you, Americans like you--ready to stand in defense of peace and freedom and the whole world. And believe me, I'm just here from Paris where I met with all the CSCE [Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe] countries of Europe--the whole world thanks you. Today, we face a similar mission, but in a world far different than the one we faced in 1944. Today, we have a vision of a new partnership of nations united by principle and seeking a lasting peace for this generation and generations to come. That is why we are there in this land so far from husbands and wives and parents and children on this day, this special day for Americans, this Thanksgiving Day. That's why we sacrificed, so that those kids and all children can grow up in a new world; a safer and a better world. Simply put, we are here to guarantee that freedom is protected and that Iraq's aggression will not be rewarded. We must send a signal to Saddam Hussein that the world will not tolerate tyrants who violate every standard of civilized behavior--invading, bullying, and swallowing whole a peaceful neighbor. We will not tolerate the raping and the brutalizing, and the kidnaping, and the killing of innocent civilians. And we will not tolerate those who try to starve out foreign embassies, breaking a diplomatic code of conduct that has been in place for centuries. You see, we must also ensure our future. Clearly, our national security's at stake here in the gulf, not just from the threat of force but from the potential economic blackmail of a gulf dominated by a power-hungry Iraq. Even now, without an actual shortage of oil, Saddam's aggression is directly responsible for skyrocketing oil prices, causing serious problems at home and throughout the entire world, especially for smaller countries who are hurt the most. You know, in Eastern Europe, the economic shock wave of the gulf threatens to disrupt the already difficult process of creating both new and democratic governments and free market economies. And while Saddam loudly professes his desire to help the most impoverished nations of the region--the have-nots, he calls the-- his aggression is taking a terrible toll on the already hard lives of millions. And we can't hope to achieve our vision of a new world order, the safer and better world for all our kids, if the economic destiny of the world can be threatened by a vicious dictator. The world cannot, must not, and--in my view, will not--let this aggression stand. And finally--and I know you don't forget it--and I hope no American forgets it on this special day when we give our thanks to our God--finally, innocent lives are at stake here. The cynical manipulation of civilians, be it as bargaining chips or as pawns to deter attack, is an affront to acceptable behavior. And nothing is more cynical than Iraq's announcement earlier this week that the hostages would be freed in batches like chattel, beginning Christmas Day. There is no reason to wait for Christmas. I say to him today, free the hostages--all the hostages--and free them today or you're going to pay the price. It is also time that Saddam conformed to the unanimous demand of the United Nations. And remember, we're not in this alone. All the countries in the United Nations [are] standing up. It is the United Nations against Saddam Hussein. It is not Iraq against the United States. It's also time, then, that he conformed to the unanimous demand of the United Nations that our embassy be resupplied and that our diplomats treated with the respect they deserve under international law. The outrageous treatment of the US Embassy in Kuwait must stop. So to sum it up, the United States is joined in the gulf with other members of the United Nations for these three simple reasons: First, to ensure that freedom will be protected and aggression will not be rewarded. Second, to protect our future by ensuring our national security. Finally, to protect innocent lives. Any one is reason enough why Iraq's unprincipled, unprovoked aggression must not go unchallenged. And together, as 10 UN Security Council resolutions [see Dispatch, Vol. 1, Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 10] make clear, they are a compelling argument for your important mission. All of us know only too well the inevitable outcome of appeasement. The kind of aggression we see in Kuwait today is not just a threat to regional peace but a promise of wider conflict tomorrow. We understand that we can sacrifice now, or we can pay an even stiffer price later as Saddam moves to multiply his weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological, and, most ominous, nuclear. And we all know that Saddam Hussein has never possessed a weapon that he hasn't used. And we will not allow the hope for a more peaceful world to rest in the hands of this brutal dictator. Our goals in the gulf have never changed. We have no quarrel at all--and I'll repeat it here--we have no quarrel with the Iraqi people. It is with the outrageous aggression of Saddam Hussein. We want the immediate, complete, and unconditional withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from Kuwait. We want the establishment--the reestablishment of Kuwait's legitimate government. We want the protection of lives of American citizens and the restoration of the security and stability of the gulf. No president, believe me, no president is quick to order American troops abroad. But there are times when all nations that value their own freedom and hope for a new world of freedom must confront aggression. You know, you guys know it--all of you men and women out here in the sands know it--we still live in dangerous times. And those in uniform, I guess, will always continue to bear the heaviest burden. We want every single American soldier home. And this we promise: No American will be kept in the gulf a single day longer than necessary. But we won't pull punches. We are not here on some exercise. This is a real world situation, and we're not walking away until our mission is done. I think Americans understand the contribution that you are making to world peace and to our own country. And on this very special Thanksgiving Day, when every American thanks God for our blessings, we think of you. Barbara and I will always remember this time out here that we've shared with you all today. And so, we want you to know that you have our love and our prayers, and we're proud of each and every one of you. May God bless you and watch over you. And may God bless the greatest country on the face of the earth, the United States of America. Thank you. God bless you all. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 13, November 26, 1990 Title:

Visit of President Bush to Saudi Arabia

Faud Source: King Faud Description: Jiddah, Saudi Arabia Date: Nov 21, 199011/21/90 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: MidEast/North Africa Country: Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait Subject: Military Affairs, United Nations [TEXT] I welcome my friend President Bush both personally and as the representative of our friends the American people, on his visit to Saudi Arabia. I also take this opportunity to thank the President and the American people and their representatives in the Congress for their strong support and deeply appreciated response to the threats that face the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its people as a result of the naked Iraqi aggression against Kuwait and the threat to the international economy and the Third World in particular, as well as to the stability of the region. We--the President and I--agree fully on the importance and absolute necessity to implement the UN Security Council resolutions, the Arab League resolutions, and the Islamic Conference Organization resolutions. We both agree that aggression must not be rewarded, and that these resolutions and the entire world's will must be implemented without preconditions. We believe this is the best and only way to solve this crisis peacefully--an objective we both support. We both deplore, with the rest of the civilized world, the brutal treatment by Iraq of the brotherly Kuwaiti people under occupation and the treatment of the foreign nationals being held in Kuwait and Iraq, and call on the Iraq government to abide by the Security Council resolutions and international law in this regard. We also agreed the friendly forces would leave immediately when the crisis is resolved or on the request of the Saudi government. I also take this opportunity to thank the leaders and people of all the brotherly and friendly countries that have rallied together in support of the Saudi people against Iraqi aggression.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 13, November 26, 1990 Title:

State Department Gulf Crisis Information

Date: Nov 26, 199011/26/90 Category: Fact Sheets Region: MidEast/North Africa Country: Iraq, Kuwait Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization [TEXT]
: 202-647-0900 (24 hours)
or comments about the administration's gulf policy: 202-647-6575 or 6576 Monday-Friday, 8:30 am-5:00 pm (Eastern Standard Time)(###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 13, November 26, 1990 Title:

The Need for Credible Options in the Persian Gulf

Bush, Al Sabah Source: President Bush, Amir of Kuwait Description: Remarks by President Bush and Shaikh Jabir al-Ahmad al- Jabir Al Sabah, the Amir of Kuwait, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Date: Nov 21, 199011/21/90 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: MidEast/North Africa Country: Iraq, Kuwait Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization [TEXT] The President: May I say that I just had a very useful meeting with His Highness, the Amir, and I reiterated the total commitment of the United States to the objectives that are enshrined in 10 UN Security Council resolutions. As you all know, these objectives include Iraq's immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait; the restoration of Kuwait's legitimate government; the release of all individuals held against their will from whatever country they come; and it also includes the eventual stability and security of the gulf. We agreed on the desirability that these objectives be realized peacefully. At the same time, we also agreed that all options remained open and that steps needed to be taken right now in order to make these options credible and effective. His Highness, the Amir, told me of the atrocities and acts of destruction that are being committed daily against the Kuwaiti people by the forces of Saddam Hussein. It is a moving and touching and horrible story. And I come away from this conversation more committed than ever to seeing this cruel occupation come to an end and those responsible for this violence called to account. Let me just close by saying that this is my second meeting with His Highness, the Amir, since the tragic events of August 2. And as I told him, I both hope and expect that our next meeting will take place in liberated Kuwait. The Amir: Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I meet with you once again, this time on the land of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a land that is very dear to us and friendly to us all. Although this meeting takes place under tragic circumstances for my country and my people, we, nevertheless, find some solace in the honorable stance taken by the world community--respect of our cause, on the side of justice and righteousness in an unprecedented matter as to make it an historical turning point in international relations. In this context, I feel duty bound to single cut the decisive rule of the United States--people and administration--in standing up in the face of aggression. The American resolve did not come as a surprise, for your people are the descendants of the Pilgrim fathers who, centuries ago, preferred risking their lives in search of freedom in a far and unknown world rather than accepting to live under oppression and injustice; thereby, setting a tradition of standing up for justice and opposing aggression. Their hopes were realized and they built a free world that rejects despotism and oppression. And so it became a refuge for all freedom-lovers. Today, the descendants of the Pilgrim fathers reversed their historic crossing in aid of freedom yet once again-- again to dissipate the dark shadows cast by another dictator on the land of the free. True to their tradition and true to the tradition of their ancestors to which they have always adhered. Mr. President, it is with affliction in our hearts that every day passes, knowing how much suffering our people and peoples of other nationalities are being subjected to in an ever-increasing manner, and the darkness that has befallen their homeland, making them vulnerable to unprecedented inhuman treatment, depriving them even from food and medicine. The people of Kuwait inside their country, unarmed and outnumbered, are unanimously engaged in a passive resistance against the invaders with a rare bravery against all odds and under the most adverse circumstances. So much that the aggressor has lost his senses and indulged in its fury of frustration in the practice of operation--and brutality in an ever-increasing manner. No doubt, Mr. President, your ambassador and what have remained of Western diplomats that have managed so bravely to continue living in Kuwait, sharing the suffering of the Kuwaiti people, will testify to this fact. And there is not the slightest talk that the flagrant aggressor would give up his intransigence and his determination to defy the collective will of the world community, or his indulgence in the exercise of cheap tricks and playing with the sentiments of people with the issue of hostages, whom he should not have detained in the first place. And his attempt to connect and justify his aggression with that of Arabs, as he is comparing an evil with more evil, thereby exposing his people and his nation to serious dangers, the extent of which cannot be predicted. Nevertheless, we are sure of the inevitability of the triumph of right over wrong, and in that we place our hope. For our faith is strong. And our confidence in the firm support of our brothers and our friends is limitless. Last but not least, I present my sincere felicitation to you and, through you, to the American people and their sons who have come to the gulf to deter the aggressor, on the occasion of Thanksgiving Day, the anniversary of those brave men who had refused to succumb to oppression. Thank you, Mr. President. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 13, November 26, 1990 Title:

The CFE Treaty

Description: The White House Date: Nov 19, 199011/19/90 Category: Fact Sheets Region: Europe, Eurasia, E/C Europe Subject: Arms Control [TEXT] The Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, signed on November 19, 1990, by the 22 members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, is a landmark agreement which will establish parity in major conventional armaments between East and West in Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. The treaty will limit the size of Soviet forces to about one-third of the total armaments permitted to all the countries in Europe. The treaty includes an unprecedented monitoring regime, including detailed information exchange, on-site inspection, challenge inspection, and monitoring of arms destruction.
East-West Limits
The treaty sets equal ceilings from the Atlantic to the Urals on key armaments essential for conducting surprise attack and initiating large-scale offensive operations. Neither side may have more than: --20,000 tanks --20,000 artillery pieces --30,000 armored combat vehicles --6,800 combat aircraft, and --2,000 attack helicopters. To further limit the readiness of armed forces, the treaty sets equal ceilings on equipment that may be with active units. Other ground equipment must be in designated permanent storage sites. Each side may not exceed the following equipment levels in active units: --16,500 tanks --17,000 artillery pieces, and --27,300 armored combat vehicles In connection with the CFE Treaty, the six members of the Warsaw Pact signed a treaty in Budapest on November 3, 1990, which divides the Warsaw Pact allocation by country. The members of NATO have consulted through NATO mechanisms and have agreed on national entitlements. These national entitlements may be adjusted.
Country Ceilings
The treaty limits the proportion of armaments that can be held by any one country in Europe to about one-third of the total for all countries in Europe--the "sufficiency" rule. This provision constrains the size of Soviet forces more than any other in the treaty. Country ceiling limits are: -- 13,300 tanks -- 13,700 artillery pieces -- 20,000 armored combat vehicles -- 5,150 combat aircraft -- 1,500 attack helicopters
Regional Arrangements
In addition to limits on the number of armaments in each category on each side, the treaty also includes regional limits to prevent destabilizing force concentrations of ground equipment.
Equipment reduced to meet the ceilings must be destroyed or, in a limited number of cases, have its military capability destroyed, allowing the chassis to be used for non-military purposes. After the treaty enters into forces, there will be a 4-month baseline inspection period. After the 4-month baseline period, 25% of the destruction must be complete by the end of 1 year, 60% by the end of 2 years, and all destruction required by the treaty must be complete by the end of 3 years. Parties have 5 years to convert limited amounts of equipment. Large amounts of equipment will be destroyed to meet the obligations of the CFE Treaty. The Soviet Union alone will be obliged to destroy thousands of weapons--much more equipment than will be reduced by all the NATO countries combined. NATO will meet its destruction obligations by destroying its oldest equipment. In a process called "cascading," NATO members with newer equipment, including the United States, have agreed to transfer some of this equipment to allies with older equipment. "Cascading" will not reduce NATO's destruction obligation. Under the cascading system, no US equipment must be destroyed to meet CFE ceilings. Some 2,000 pieces of US equipment will be transferred to our NATO allies.
The treaty includes unprecedented provisions for detailed information exchanges, on-site inspections, challenge inspections, and on-site monitoring of destruction. At the initiative of the United States, NATO has established a system to cooperate in monitoring the treaty. Parties have an unlimited right to monitor the process of destruction. The CFE treaty is of unlimited duration and will enter into force 10 days after all parties have ratified the agreement. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 13, November 26, 1990 Title:

CSCE: Putting Principle Into Practice

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Remarks at the CSCE Conference, Paris, France Date: Nov 19, 199011/19/90 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Europe, E/C Europe Subject: CSCE, International Organizations, International Law [TEXT] This is a glorious day for Europe. This morning I signed for my country an arms control agreement which ends the military confrontation that has cursed this continent for decades. This afternoon we welcome a summit document, a Charter of Paris, which expresses the common aspiration of our society. It is right that we gather here in this magnificent city, a city of civilization, to declare our hopes for the future and to mark a grand turn in the course of history. Today, we do justice to the original framers of the Helsinki Final Act. The goals they set have proven their worth, thanks to the courage of so many who dared not merely to hope, but to act. We salute men of courage--[Vaclav] Havel and [Tadeus] Masowiecki and [Josef] Antall, here with us today--and all the other activists who took Helsinki's goals as solemn commitments and who suffered so that these commitments would be honored. We salute all those individuals and private groups in the West who showed that the protection of human rights is not just the business of governments, it's everyone's business: non governmental organizations, the press, religious leaders, and ordinary citizens. Their dreams are being realized before our eyes. The new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe have ended decades of repression to rediscover their birthright of freedom. In the Soviet Union, the seeds of democracy and human rights have found new soil. And at long last, the cruel division of Germany has come to an end. A continent frozen in hostility for so long has become a continent of revolutionary change. To assure that this change occurs in a secure framework, we've completed a conventional arms control treaty that transforms the military map of this continent. We are adopting confidence- and security-building measures that will contribute to lasting peace through openness. This morning, 22 of us signed a solemn undertaking on the nonuse of force. But today, as old political divisions disappear, other sources of tension--some ancient, some new--are emerging. National disputes persist. Abuses of minority and human rights continue. Where millions had once been denied the freedom to move, now millions feel compelled to move to escape economic or political hardship. We are witnessing in several countries the ugly resurgence of anti- Semitism and other ethnic, racial, and religious intolerance. Bigotry and hatred have no place in civilized nations. Minorities enrich our societies. Protection of their rights is a prerequisite for stability.
Europe is entering unknown waters.
The CSCE is ideally suited to help its member states navigate. We have articulated fine standards for national behavior. And now it's our task to bring CSCE down to earth, making it part of everyday politics. Building and drawing on its strength to address the new challenges. My government put forward some ideas for the future development of the CSCE earlier this year, and I hope that they contributed to the initiatives that the members of the North Atlantic alliance announced at our London summit in July. And I am pleased to see that so many of the ideas discussed there have emerged in a summit declaration that we will sign this week.
The CSCE Adjenda
Let me highlight how we think some of these initiatives and others will help the CSCE put its principles into practice. The declaration we will sign establishes an agenda to guide our work until we meet again in Helsinki. This is important work on issues vital to all of us. The peaceful settlement of disputes, the role of minorities in our societies, the construction of democratic institutions, and most fundamental of all, enhancement of human rights. We've also agreed that we must deepen the security of our community by extending our talks on conventional forces, expanding the benefits of confidence-building measures, and successfully concluding an agreement on open skies. Finally, we recognize that, as Europe mends its wounds, so CSCE can mature. We've established a framework for regular political consultations and institutions to reinforce that framework. The Secretariat, the Office of Free Elections, and the Center for the Prevention of Conflict--let's face it--they are modest but significant steps toward the new order we all seek. We welcome, too, the call for a new parliamentary dimension in CSCE which can give another voice to the democratic values that we all share. Two days ago in Prague, I called on Europe and America to work in common cause toward a new commonwealth for freedom based on these shared principles: a belief in the fundamental dignity and rights of the individual, a belief that governments can be empowered only by the people and must answer to them, a belief that individuals should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor, and a belief that governments and nations must live by a rule of law as a prerequisite for human progress. These are the principles that guide our nations and the CSCE. And yet, to secure them in our two continents, they must be secure in the world as a whole. As we consecrate those principles here today, those same principles are grossly violated in the Persian Gulf. I'd like to quote a sentence from the joint statement issued by President Gorbachev and myself in September at Helsinki: "Nothing short of complete implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions is acceptable." Can there be room for any other view here in a continent that has suffered so much from aggression and its companion, appeasement? The principles that have given life to CSCE, that have guided our success in Europe have no geographic limits. Our success here can be neither profound nor enduring if the rule of law is shamelessly disregarded elsewhere. As we entered the Cold War in the spring of 1947, the American Secretary of State George Marshall made an important point which I'd like to quote: "Problems which bear directly on the future of our civilization cannot be disposed of by general talk or vague formulae. They require concrete solutions for definite and extremely complicated questions--questions that have to do with boundaries, with power to prevent military aggression, with people who have bitter memories, with the production and control of things which are essential to the lives of millions of people." We in the CSCE have come far in the last few months in finding those concrete solutions. And now we should build on this success here, and we should stand on it squarely everywhere. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 13, November 26, 1990 Title:

Czechoslovakia: From Revolution to Renaissance

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Address before the Czechoslovak Federal Assembly, Prague, Czechoslovakia Date: Nov 17, 199011/17/90 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Eurasia Country: Czechoslovakia (former) Subject: Democratization [TEXT] President Havel, thank you, sir, for greeting us with such warmth today. And to Chairman Dubcek, thank you, sir, for that really warm and generous introduction. May I salute the prime ministers of the Czech and Slovak Republics, the members of the assembly--and most of all, the people of Czechoslovakia. It is an honor for me, the first American president ever to visit your country, to bring you the greetings of the American people on this, the first anniversary of Czechoslovakia's return to freedom. One year ago today, in the streets and squares of this city, the people of Prague gathered, first by twos and threes and then by thousands, in the night air, an autumn chill--in their minds, memories of a spring 20 years past. The Velvet Revolution had begun. That revolution succeeded without a single shot. Your weapons proved far superior to any in the state's arsenal. In the face of force you deployed the power of principle. Against a wall of lies you advanced the truth. Out of a thousand acts of courage-- Czech and Slovak--emerged a single voice. Its message: The time had come to bring freedom home to Czechoslovakia. Your revolution was also a renewal, a renewal of the deeply held principles that bind my country, the United States of America, to yours--principles enshrined in your declaration of independence issued in the United States in 1918 by Thomas Masaryk, your first president, and Milan Stafanik, proud Slovak patriot--principles inspired by the ringing words of our own Thomas Jefferson more than two centuries ago. In my homeland, those principles were put into practice when we adopted our Constitution and its Bill of Rights. And last night I carried copies of those documents as we flew from Washington to Prague--copies that I guess were passed out to you as you came in today. And during this historic time as you consider the adoption of your own federal system and bill of rights, I offer them to you in friendship, for the common principles--and common bonds--our peoples have long shared. Generations of Americans, Czechs, and Slovaks sustained these common bonds. In the battle to defeat Nazi tyranny, America stood with the courageous Czech and Slovak partisans fighting for freedom. Through the long dark decades after 1948, we--like you-- refused to accept Europe's division. Through Radio Free Europe and the Voice of America, we held aloft the ideal of truth--and we spoke a common language of hope. At long last, the grip of the dictators weakened, and Czechoslovakia seized its chance to rise up--to reclaim your rights as a free people and as a sovereign nation. Today, as fellow citizens of free governments, we share the fruits of our common resolve. Europe, East and West, stands at the threshold of a new era--an era of peace, prosperity, and security unparalleled in the long history of this continent. Today, Europe's long division is ending. Today, once more, Czechoslovakia is free. Czechoslovakia's revolution is over, but its renaissance has just begun. Your work and ours is far from complete. Your nation, like your neighbors to the north and south, faces the unprecedented task of building a stable democratic rule and a prosperous market economy on the ruins of totalitarianism. I am here today to say that we will not fail you in this decisive moment. America will stand with you to that end. America stands ready to help Czechoslovakia realize the progress and prosperity now within reach. Today, our two countries will conclude agreements giving Czechoslovakia the fullest access to American markets, American investment, and American technology.
Czechoslovak-American Enterprise Fund
To help unleash the creativity and drive of the Czech and Slovak people, I will urge our Congress to authorize a $60-million Czechoslovak-American Enterprise Fund. In addition, to help build your private sector, the United States will extend prompt economic assistance from the $370 million now committed to Central and Eastern Europe for the coming year. We also welcome the active involvement of the American private sector. I am pleased to see that, yesterday, your government entered into a promising, multimillion-dollar joint venture with Bell Atlantic and US West to modernize your country's communications network. I am sure this will be the first of many large-scale investments in the future of a free Czechoslovakia. In response to this region's severe energy problems, we expect the IMF [International Monetary Fund]--at our initiative--to lend up to $5 billion in 1991 to Central and Eastern Europe, and the World Bank will commit an additional $9 billion over the next 3 years. In addition to these economic initiatives, we seek to renew the free and open exchange denied our peoples for so many years. I am pleased to announce the reopening of the American consulate in Bratislava in the Republic of Slovakia--and just yesterday, the selection of a site for our new cultural center in Prague. Our newly established International Media Fund promises to contribute expertise and encouragement to your nation's free and independent media. And I am gratified that your government and my country's Institute for East-West Security Studies will soon open a European Studies Center in Stirin--an important partnership of the intellect between European and American scholars. And let me say once again: Prague should be the home to the permanent secretariat of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). In Paris, I am confident that I will find unanimous support for this initiative. It is right that this city--once on the fault line of Cold War and conflict, now at the heart of the new and united Europe--play a central role as the CSCE seeks to expand the frontiers of freedom in Europe. At the Paris summit of the CSCE, the nations of North America and Europe will sign historic documents--a treaty to provide deep reductions in conventional armed forces in Europe, a CSCE summit declaration charting the future role of CSCE in ending Europe's division. The Atlantic alliance, the foundation of European stability, has pledged itself to the same goal. Working together, we can fulfill the promise of a Europe that reaches its democratic destiny--a Europe that is truly whole and free. But this continent's reconciliation is only part of the larger vision for our world--a vision which I ask you to share. Let me draw on the life and writings of the gentleman who is sitting over my right shoulder, President Havel--let me draw on those just to make my point. Several years ago, Mr. Havel wrote about the Western visitors who came to see your so-called dissidents, asking how they could help your cause. He wondered about that question--wondered why visitors from the West couldn't see that your cause was their cause, too. Mr. Havel wrote--and I quote--"Are not my dim prospects or my hopes his dim prospects and hopes as well? Is not the destruction of humans in Prague a destruction of all humans? Is not indifference to what is happening here a preparation for the same kind of misery elsewhere?" Dissident Havel--now President Havel--spoke then of a shared destiny--spoke out of a sure sense that the fate of all mankind is linked. Czechs and Slovaks understand this vision and the challenge. For half a century, your struggle for freedom was cut short--not by one, but by two of the cruelest tyrannies history has ever known. You know what it means to live under regimes whose vision of world order holds no place for freedom. As heirs of Jan Hus, whose statue stands just a few blocks from us--as countrymen of Comenius, the son of Moravia, whose name graces your great University of Bratislava--you have always looked to the far horizon, to take your bearings from principles that are universal. As small nations, whose very existence demands constant vigilance, you have always understood that your future depends not only on your own heroic actions here--but on the broader principles that govern the greater world in which you live. We must recognize that no people, no continent, can stand alone--secure unto itself. Our fates, our futures are intertwined. That, you see, is why Europe's celebration of freedom brings with it a new responsibility. Now that democracy has proven its power, Europe has both the opportunity and the challenge to join us in leadership--to work with us in common cause toward this new commonwealth of freedom. This commonwealth rests on shared principles--upon four cornerstones that constitute our common values: an unshakable belief in the dignity and rights of man, the conviction that just government derives its power from the people, and the beliefs that men and women everywhere must be free to enjoy the fruits of their labor and that the rule of law must govern the conduct of nations.
Welcome to the New Democracies
The United States welcomes the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe fully into the commonwealth of freedom--a moral community united in its dedication to free ideals. We wish to encourage the Soviet Union to go forward with their reforms, as difficult as the course may seem. They will find our community ready to welcome them--and to help them as they, too, commit themselves to this commonwealth of freedom. Every new nation that embraces these common values--every new nation that joins the ranks of this commonwealth of freedom-- advances us one step closer to a new world order, a world in which the use of force gives way to a shared respect for the rule of law. This new world will be incomplete without a vision that extends beyond the boundaries of Europe alone. Now that unity is within reach in Europe it is no time for our vision of change to stop at the edge of this continent. The principles guiding our two nations--the principles at work in our two revolutions--are not Czech or Slovak or American alone. These principles are universal- -rooted in the love of liberty and the rights of man. Now, after four decades of conflict and Cold War, we are entering an era of great promise. And yet our freedom--the freedom of people everywhere-- remains under threat from regimes for whom the rights of man and rule of law mean nothing. And that is why our response to the challenge in the Persian Gulf is critical. The current crisis there is a warning to America as well as to Europe that we cannot turn inward, somehow isolate ourselves, from global challenges. Iraq's brutal aggression against Kuwait is a rude reminder that none of us can remain secure when aggression remains unchecked. I have this feeling in my heart that no peoples understand better what is at stake in the gulf than Czechs and Slovaks. You know from your own bitter experience that the world cannot turn a blind eye to aggression. You know the futility and vain hope that aggressors can be appeased. You know the tragic consequences when nations confronted with aggression choose to tell themselves it is no concern of theirs, just a "quarrel in a faraway country between a people of whom we know nothing." We Americans, too, have learned. We know the costs, to ourselves and to the whole of Europe, of our isolationism after the First World War. We know that America must resist the temptation to consider our work complete. We must remain committed to the cause of freedom in the world. And more and more, the Soviet Union is demonstrating its commitment to act as a constructive force for international stability. More and more, the United Nations is functioning as its creators intended it--free from the ideological confrontation that frustrated collective action and rendered impotent the peace- keeping function of that body. From this first crisis of the post-Cold War era comes a historic opportunity--the opportunity to draw upon the great and growing strength of the commonwealth of freedom and forge for all nations a new world order far more stable and secure than any we have known. Today, I am very proud to join Czechoslovakia as it celebrates a year in freedom. I salute you for your courage and your vision, for all that you have endured and for all you are destined to achieve. And I challenge you, as you take your rightful place in the center of Europe, to look beyond the confines of this continent to join with your neighbors in Europe and in North America to build a true commonwealth of freedom, so that the peace and prosperity you seek--the peace and prosperity we shall share--will be the peace and prosperity of all mankind. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 13, November 26, 1990 Title:

Czechoslovakia: Celebrating a Year in Freedom

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Address at Wenceslas Square, Prague, Czechoslovakia Date: Nov 17, 199011/17/90 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: E/C Europe Country: Czechoslovakia (former) Subject: Democratization [TEXT] It is a tremendous honor to me to be the first sitting American president to visit this proud and beautiful country and to be able to join you on the first anniversary of the extraordinary Velvet Revolution. What a powerfully moving sight it is. There are no leaves on the trees, and yet it is Prague Spring. There are no flowers in bloom, and yet it is Prague Spring. The calendar says November 17th, and yet it is Prague Spring. Your declaration of independence proclaims: "The forces of darkness have served the victory of light. The longed-for age of humanity is dawning." Today, the freedom-loving people of the world can bear witness that this age of humanity has now finally and truly dawned on this splendid nation. Seven decades ago, an unprecedented partnership began between two presidents--the philosopher, Tomas Masaryk, and the idealistic scholar, Woodrow Wilson. It was a partnership as well among Czechs and Slovaks to join together in federation. And yes, it was a long, hard road from their work on your declaration of independence to this magnificent celebration today. I am proud to walk these last steps with you as one shared journey ends and another begins. Our countries share a history. We share a vision. And we share a friendship, a friendship Masaryk described to Czech-American soldiers 70 years ago. He said, "Do not forget that the same ideals, the same principles ever unite us. Do not forget us as we shall never forget you."
The World Will Not Forget
That is why I'm here today. We have not forgotten. The world will never forget what happened here in this square where the history of freedom was written--the days of anguish, the days of hope. So many times, you came here bearing candles against the dark night, answering the call of Comenius to follow "the way of light." These brave flames came to symbolize your fiercely burning national pride. A year ago, the world saw you face down totalitarianism. We saw the peaceful crowds swell day by day in numbers and in resolve. We saw the few candles grow into a blaze. We saw this square become a beacon of hope for an entire nation as it gave birth to your new era of freedom. This victory owes its heart to two great heroes: Alexander Dubcek--22 years ago, he led this nation in its first sweet taste of liberty; his are the will and compassion that are living Czechoslovakia--and then President Havel, a man of wisdom, a man of tremendous moral courage. In the dark years, on one side stood the state--on the other side, Havel; on one side, tyranny--on the other, this man of vision and truth. Among the first was Havel, and now there are millions. Today, a Europe whole and free is within our reach. We've seen a new world of freedom born amid shouts of joy. Born full of hope, barreling with confidence toward a new century. A new world born of a revolution that linked this square with others--Gdansk, Budapest, Berlin--a revolution that joined together people fueled by courage and by humanity's essential quest for freedom. For four decades, our two nations waited across the divide between East and West. Two peoples united in spirit, in vision--and yet separated by conflict. Today, the United States and Czechoslovakia stand together, united once more in our devotion to the democratic ideal.
A New Challenge
Now, with the division of Europe ending and democracy ascending in the East, the challenge is to move forward: in Czechoslovakia-- from revolution to renaissance, across this continent toward a new Europe in which each nation and every culture can flourish and breathe free; on both sides of the Atlantic--toward a commonwealth based on our shared principles and our hopes for the whole world, a commonwealth inspired by the words of your great Comenius written three centuries ago: "Let us have but one end in view--the welfare of humanity." A thousand miles to the south, this new commonwealth of freedom now faces a terrible test. Czechoslovakia was one of the first nations to condemn the outrage in the Persian Gulf, one of the first to measure the magnitude of the wrong committed in the name of territorial ambition. It is no coincidence that appeasement's lonely victim half a century ago should be among the first to understand that there is right and there is wrong. There is good and there is evil. And there are sacrifices worth making. There is no question about what binds our nations--and so many others--in common cause. There is no question that ours is a just cause and that good will prevail. The darkness in the desert sky cannot stand against the way of light. I salute your courageous president when he joins us in saying that Saddam Hussein's aggression must not be rewarded. Earlier today, I told your parliament we know this is a difficult time for you but also a time of extraordinary optimism. As you undertake political and economic reform, know one thing: America will not fail you in this decisive moment. America will stand with you. We will continue along the road mapped out by our presidents more than 70 years ago. A road whose goal was described by Woodrow Wilson: "To bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free." For the past 70 years, your declaration of independence has been preserved and cherished in our Library of Congress. I say it is time for Masaryk's words to come home. And as humanity and liberty return to Czechoslovakia, so, too, will this treasured document. On behalf of the people of the United States, I am proud to be able to tell the people of Czechoslovakia: 1989 was the year that freedom came home to Czechoslovakia--1990 will be the year your declaration of independence came home to the Golden City of Prague. May it be for future generations a reminder of the ties that bind our nations and the principles that bind all humanity. In 1776, when our Declaration of Independence was first read in public, a bell tolled to proclaim the defiant thrill of that moment. That bell--we call it, at home, the Liberty Bell--has for 200 years symbolized our nation's deepest dedication to freedom. Dedication like your own. Inscribed on this bell are the words, "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land." We want to help you proclaim your new liberty throughout all this proud and beautiful land; and so, today, we give to you our last replica of the Liberty Bell. You know, one of our patriotic songs proclaims, "Sweet land of liberty--from every mountainside, let freedom ring." So when bells ring in Wensceslas Square, or in Bratislava, or anywhere in this glorious country, think of this bell and know that all bells are tolling for your precious liberty--now and forever. And so, now, I am proud to ring this bell three times: once for your courage, once for your freedom, and once for your children. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 13, November 26, 1990 Title:

US-EC Cooperation In Europe and the World

Baker Source: Secretary Baker Description: Opening statement at a news conference following the US- European Community ministerial meeting, Brussels, Belgium Date: Nov 16, 199011/16/90 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Europe Subject: EC, Trade/Economics [TEXT] First of all let me say that we value very much our increasingly close ties with the European Community, and we appreciate the key role that the EC plays in bolstering democracy, stability, and prosperity in Europe. Today's meeting is one of a series of biannual consultations that were agreed to last February in order to ensure that the EC-US consultations and cooperation are commensurate with our international role and our international obligations. As you know, Prime Minister Andreotti of Italy, acting in his EC presidency capacity, accompanied by President Delors [France], met with us on Tuesday [November 13] in Washington. We had some very good discussions then, and we have had some very good discussions today on a wide range of issues. The Persian Gulf, the Uruguay Round, the US-EC bilateral relations--all of these issues figured very prominently on our agenda. On the Uruguay Round, we discussed our goals for the round, and we discussed our strong conviction that we have got to succeed in substantial trade liberalization and in strengthening the multilateral trading system. Many problems do remain and not much time remains. But I think that it is fair to say that all of us are committed to intense discussions at the highest level to resolve our differences. On the gulf, I think that there is an unwavering consensus on the critical importance of maintaining international unity against the aggression of Saddam Hussain. All of us, I think, would resist anything short of full implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions. The United States and the Community share a deep concern, of course, for the transition of the nations of Central and Eastern Europe to full democracy and to market economies. That course is an arduous course. It's full of challenge; but the United States and the EC are determined to help these nations succeed. And I think we have been cooperating very effectively within the G-24 process and in other ways to help the nations of Central and Eastern Europe succeed. Similarly, I think we both want to do what we can to encourage the ongoing political and economic reform in the Soviet Union, recognizing that the key choices and efforts are going to have to be made by the Soviet people themselves. I'd like to emphasize that US-EC cooperation can prove valuable outside the continent and the immediate environs of this continent, and that's why we welcome very much the Community's interest in exploring with us and with Japan and with Canada and some of our Latin neighbors a new way to help Central America, through a partnership for democracy and development that builds on the G-24 model. I'm also pleased to note agreements that were made today to advance specific US-EC cooperation projects in science and technology, and in education, culture and training. As European integration proceeds, it's important that Europe, the United States, and Canada pay very close attention to strengthen transatlantic ties. As I noted in a speech in Berlin last December, I think we need to enrich, to expand, and to evolve the institutional basis for our cooperation so that we can meet changing needs. So I particularly welcome the concrete steps that we are now taking on that Berlin agenda through our development of a US-EC declaration that will outline an institutional framework for US-EC relations. When this is completed, this can represent an important step in giving more structure to our relations and in encouraging consultations on an expanding agenda of US-EC contacts. I also spoke in Berlin in December about CSCE and about NATO. In a few days our presidents and prime ministers will meet in Paris to advance CSCE's role, and I am pleased that our actions at this year's London NATO summit have underscored that the NATO alliance is, and will continue to be, the transatlantic forum in which we address security issues together. Indeed the United States [and] the EC members who are in NATO, will call attention in this declaration to their commitment to the North Atlantic alliance. So, as we face new uncertainties and potential challenges, I think it's fair to note that the alliance will remain the vital foundation of stability in Europe and the means through which the fact of our mutual security interests takes practical form.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 13, November 26, 1990 Title:

Declaration on US-EC Relations

Date: Nov 23, 199011/23/90 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Europe Subject: EC, Trade/Economics [TEXT] The United States of America on one side and, on the other, the European Community and its member States, Mindful of their common heritage and of their close historical, political, economic and cultural ties, Guided by their faith in the values of human dignity, intellectual freedom and civil liberties, and in the democratic institutions which have evolved on both sides of the Atlantic over the centuries, Recognizing that the transatlantic solidarity has been essential for the preservation of peace and freedom and for the development of free and prosperous economies as well as for the recent developments which have restored unity in Europe, Determined to help consolidate the new Europe, undivided and democratic, Resolved to strengthen security, economic cooperation and human rights in Europe in the framework of the CSCE, and in other fora, Noting the firm commitment of the United States and the EC member states concerned to the North Atlantic Alliance and to its principles and purposes, Acting on the basis of a pattern of cooperation proven over many decades, and convinced that by strengthening and expanding this partnership on an equal footing they will greatly contribute to continued stability, as well as to political and economic progress in Europe and in the world, Aware of their shared responsibility, not only to further common interests but also to face transnational challenges affecting the well-being of all mankind, Bearing in mind the accelerating process by which the European Community is acquiring its own identity in economic and monetary matters, in foreign policy and in the domain of security, Determined to further strengthen transatlantic solidarity through the variety of their international relations, Have decided to endow their relationship with long-term perspectives.
Common Goals
The United States of America and the European Community and its member States solemnly reaffirm their determination further to strengthen their partnership in order to: -- support democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and individual liberty, and promote prosperity and social progress world-wide; -- safeguard peace and promote international security, by cooperating with other nations against aggression and coercion, by contributing to the settlement of conflicts in the world and by reinforcing the role of the United Nations and other international organisations; -- pursue policies aimed at achieving a sound world economy marked by sustained economic growth with low inflation, a high level of employment, equitable social conditions, in a framework of international stability; -- promote market principles, reject protectionism and expand, strengthen and further open the multilateral trading system; -- carry out their resolve to help developing countries by all appropriate means in their efforts towards political and economic reforms; -- provide adequate support, in cooperation with other states and organisations, to the nations of Eastern and Central Europe undertaking economic and political reforms and encourage their participation in the multilateral institutions of international trade and finance.
Principles of US-EC Partnership
To achieve their common goals, the European Community and its member States and the United States of America will inform and consult each other on important matters of common interest, both political and economic, with a view to bringing their positions as close as possible, without prejudice to their respective independence. In appropriate international bodies, in particular, they will seek close cooperation. The US-EC partnership will, moreover, greatly benefit from the mutual knowledge and understanding acquired through regular consultations as described in this declaration.
Economic Cooperation
Both sides recognized the importance of strengthening the multilateral trading system. They will support further steps towards liberalization, transparency, and the implementation of GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] and OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] principles concerning both trade in goods and services and investment. They will further develop their dialogue, which is already underway, on other matters such as technical and non-tariff barriers to industrial and agricultural trade, services, competition policy, transportation policy, standards, telecommunications, high technology and other relevant areas.
Education, Scientific and Cultural Cooperation
The partnership between the European Community and its member States on the one hand, and the United States on the other, will be based on continuous efforts to strengthen mutual cooperation in various other fields which directly affect the present and future well-being of their citizens, such as exchanges and joint projects in science and technology, including, inter alia, research in medicine, environment protection, pollution prevention, energy, space, high-energy physics, and the safety of nuclear and other installations, as well as in education and culture, including academic and youth exchanges.
Trans-national Challenges
The United States of America and the European Community and its member States will fulfill their responsibility to address trans- national challenges, in the interest of their own peoples and of the rest of the world. In particular, they will join their efforts in the following fields: -- combatting and preventing terrorism; -- putting an end to the illegal production, trafficking and consumption of narcotics and related criminal activities, such as the laundering of money; -- cooperating in the fight against international crime; -- protecting the environment, both internationally and domestically, by integrating environmental and economic goals; -- preventing the proliferation of nuclear armaments, chemical and biological weapons, and missile technology.
Institutional Framework for Consultation
Both sides agree that a framework is required for regular and intensive consultation. They will make full use of and further strengthen existing procedures, including those established by the President of the European Council and the President of the United States on 27th February 1990, namely: -- bi-annual consultations to be arranged in the United States and in Europe between, on the one side, the President of the European Council and the President of the Commission, and on the other side, the President of the United States; -- bi-annual consultations between the European Community Foreign Ministers, with the Commission, and the US Secretary of State, alternately on either side of the Atlantic; -- ad hoc consultations between the Presidency Foreign Minister or the Troika and the US Secretary of State; -- bi-annual consultations between the Commission and the US Government at Cabinet level; -- briefings, as currently exist, by the Presidency to US Representatives on European Political Cooperation (EPC) meetings at the Ministerial level. Both sides are resolved to develop and deepen these procedures for consultation so as to reflect the evolution of the European Community and of its relationship with the United States. They welcome the actions taken by the European Parliament and the Congress of the United States in order to improve their dialogue and thereby bring closer together the peoples on both sides of the Atlantic.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 13, November 26, 1990 Title:

The European Community

Date: Nov 26, 199011/26/90 Category: Fact Sheets Region: Europe Country: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom Subject: EC, Trade/Economics [TEXT]
The 12-member European Community (EC) was founded in 1957 with the signing of the Treaty of Rome. EC members are Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and United Kingdom. The EC's primary goal is increased economic and political integration among its members. A major step toward that goal is the creation of a single, integrated market by the end of 1992. The EC may form an economic and monetary union and is considering steps toward closer political integration.
EC Institutions and Presidency
Major EC institutions are the Commission, the Council, the European Parliament, and the Court of Justice. The Commission, made up of 17 members appointed by common agreement of the 12 governments, initiates and implements EC policy. The Council, representing the 12 governments, is the Commission's primary vehicle to make decisions. The Parliament, the only EC institution that directly represents European citizens, controls most budgetary matters and can amend or reject certain legislation approved by the Council. The Court, which has a role similar to that of the US Supreme Court, is the final authority on the interpretation of EC laws. Every January and July, the presidency of the Council of Ministers rotates. The presidency country presides at all meetings of the 12 member states and serves as spokesman in dealing with third countries on inter-governmental matters, including efforts to coordinate the foreign policies of the member states. This foreign policy coordination process, known as European Political Cooperation, is one of seeking consensus for joint action by the 12 members on international political issues, such as the Middle East peace process, South Africa, Central America, and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The European Commission has primary responsibility for initiating and implementing EC policy in areas that fall under EC treaties (e.g., the internal market, external trade, and agricultural policy). The Council of Ministers, representing member states, occupies the pre-eminent position in the current institutional power balance. The directly elected European Parliament has gained a greater role in EC decision making in recent years and has significant power over budgetary matters (except agricultural spending). Recently, the EC has taken increasing responsibility in areas such as monetary coordination and environmental and narcotics policy, formerly reserved to individual members. Since mid-1989, the EC has played a key coordinating role for Western assistance to Eastern Europe.
European Integration
The EC is dedicated to achieving a political and economic European union. As part of this effort, the EC is moving quickly toward creation of a single West European market without national barriers to the movement of goods, services, capital, or people. The EC is expected to have adopted most of its single market proposals by the end of 1992 and to have made strides toward more complete economic integration. In December 1990, the EC will convene two intergovernmental conferences, one to discuss movement toward economic and monetary union (EMU) and the other, European political union (EPU). European political cooperation is an increasingly active means of coordinating foreign policy among EC members.
EC Economy
Due to German unification on October 3, 1990, the population of the EC is now roughly 342 million. In 1989, the EC had a population of 326 million, a gross domestic product of $4.8 trillion (about the same as that of the United States), and an average per capita GNP of $14,842. The EC is the world's largest trading entity. Its total foreign trade in 1989 was $954 billion, which is about 16% of world commerce. An important aspect of the EC's economy is its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), a complicated system of price supports, subsidies, and protection that consumes about two-thirds of the EC budget. The Community is more than self-sufficient in many agricultural commodities.
US-EC Relations
The United States has an important economic relationship with the EC and growing ties in other areas. The EC is America's largest trading partner. Total US-EC trade was $164 billion in 1988 and $172 billion in 1989. US imports from the EC represented 18% of its total imports. US exports to the EC were 24% of its total exports. In 1989, the United States registered a small trade surplus ($1.5 billion) with the Community, its first since 1982. The United States and the Community are each other's most significant source of direct investment. By the end of 1988, the EC had $194 billion invested in the United States, and the United States had about $127 billion in the EC. The United States supports the EC's plan to develop an integrated market by the end of 1992. It is in the EC and the US interest that the program be implemented in an open fashion without new trade barriers. The United States holds regular meetings with the EC to discuss various aspects of the 1992 program and to resolve trade differences, many concerning agriculture. In its negotiations with the Community on trade and investment issues, the US government works to ensure that American interests are not discriminated against in post-1992 Europe. The global reform of agricultural policies, including the CAP, remains an important US objective and a major task of the current round of multilateral trade negotiations. The United States cooperates with the EC to mobilize economic and financial support for Central and Eastern Europe. The United States discusses foreign policy issues with the community through the EC presidency country. This has been enhanced recently by a series of regular high-level meetings, including semiannual sessions involving the US president. Issues include approaches to international trade, developments in Eastern Europe and other areas of the world, science and technology, narcotics, and development assistance. President Bush and Secretary Baker have reaffirmed the importance of the EC in any new European "architecture" resulting from changes in Eastern Europe. The United States and the EC agreed on a joint declaration on November 23, 1990 (see p. 288). The EC has cooperated with the United States closely during the Persian Gulf crisis. On August 2, the EC and its member states issued a strong condemnation of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and announced full support of UN Security Council Resolution 660. This statement was followed by a series of actions by the EC and individual member states which underscored their commitment to the UN sanctions. On August 4, EC Political Directors announced an embargo on oil imports from Iraq and Kuwait, and a freeze on Iraqi assets within EC territory. On August 10, the EC issued a declaration in support of UN Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, and 662. On August 21, the EC Commission adopted the first of several proposals regarding the extension of humanitarian aid to what became known as the front-line states. Over the past 3 months, the EC has sought to work with the US on the issues of sanctions compliance and assistance to those states most affected by the crisis. In an October 29 declaration, the EC Council of Ministers strengthened the existing EC sanctions legislation to include prohibiting the execution of all non-financial services with Iraq and occupied Kuwait. This declaration effectively moves the EC closer to the US government's overall interpretation of Resolution 661. Bilaterally and in international forums, the EC and the US increasingly have sought to coordinate their positions and work in a complementary fashion.
Relations With Other European Countries
EC countries have longstanding political and economic ties with the countries of Eastern Europe. However, the EC only recently established diplomatic relations with most East European governments. The Community provides significant economic assistance to the emerging East European democracies and has eased access to its markets for them. A European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (in which the US is an active member) has been established to assist economic recovery and reform in Eastern Europe. Recently, the EC and the six-country European Free Trade Association (EFTA) agreed to negotiate a closer relationship, to be known as the European Economic Space.
Relations With Developing Countries
Improving relations with the Third World has been a priority for the Community. The Lome Convention, a framework for EC development cooperation with 68 African, Caribbean, and Pacific countries, was established in 1975. In 1990, a new 10-year agreement was signed to provide aid to development projects, free access to EC markets for almost all manufactured imports from those countries, and incentives to promote European investment in developing countries. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 13, November 26, 1990 Title:

Chronology: European Community, 1989-90

Date: Nov 26, 199011/26/90 Category: Chronologies Region: Europe Subject: EC, Trade/Economics, History [TEXT] The following was prepared by the Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs.
May 21, 1989:
In a commencement address at Boston University, President Bush expressed the desire of the United States to "develop with the European Community [EC] and its member states new mechanisms of consultation and cooperation on political and global issues, from the strengthening of the forces of democracy in the Third World to managing regional tensions to putting an end to the division of Europe."
May 31, 1989:
In an address in Mainz, West Germany, President Bush praised the efforts of the European Community to promote the peaceful integration of Western Europe and to create "borders open to people, commerce, and ideas." He called on the EC to aid in the integration of the countries of Eastern Europe into the world community.
June 14, 1989:
President Bush met in Washington, DC, with Jacques Delors, President of the EC Commission. Mr. Bush reiterated US support for European integration and for the Community's program to create a single market by 1992. He said that US and EC policymakers would work closely to assure that US interests are taken fully into account in the 1992 process.
December 4, 1989:
President Bush, addressing NATO leaders in Brussels after his meeting on Malta with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, said, "I am committed to a close US partnership with the EC." The President hoped that this tie would promote a strengthened trans-Atlantic relationship. He said that the EC should play a vital role in a new Europe and help encourage the forces of reform in the East.
December 12, 1989:
In an address at the Berlin Press Club, Secretary of State James A. Baker, III, said that the European Community should play an important role in shaping a new Europe by helping to draw together the countries of Western Europe and acting as an economic open door to the nations of Eastern Europe. He called for "a significantly strengthened set of institutional and consultative links" between the United States and the EC and said that it should help encourage the forces of reform in the east.
December 15, 1989:
Secretary Baker attended the annual US-EC ministerial meeting in Brussels. The conferees issued a statement declaring the determination of the United states and the EC Commission that world stability would be enhanced by a strong EC-US relationship. They pledged close cooperation in confronting the political and economic challenges of the decade ahead.
February 27, 1990:
President Bush and Irish Prime Minister Charles J. Haughey, President of the European Council, met in Washington. They issued a statement calling for regular meetings between the American President and the president of the European Council at least once during each 6-month presidency of the European Council. They further agreed to convene twice-yearly meetings between the EC Foreign Ministers and the US Secretary of State to enhance political and economic ties between the EC and the United States.
April 23-24, 1990:
The first US-EC ministerial meeting to be held in the United States convened in Washington. European Commission President Jacques Delors met with Secretary Baker and President Bush.
May 3, 1990:
Secretary Baker met with the 12 EC Foreign Ministers in Brussels. They discussed progress toward European political and economic union, East-West issues, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), and aid to Eastern Europe.
May 14, 1990:
Secretary Baker, in an address in New York to the National Committee on American Foreign Policy, said that a European Community closely linked to the United States had great institutional importance. The EC would provide freer, expanded markets in Europe and an open door to Europe for the United States. It also would help to open the emerging private sectors of the East European countries to the United States and Western Europe. He emphasized that the United states and the European Community were striving to intensify their political dialogue.
September 21, 1990:
The Counselor of the Department of State, Robert B. Zoellick, addressing the America-European Community Association's International Conference on US/EC Relations and Europe's New Architecture, outlined a 10-point plan to expand US-EC cooperation based on a negotiated framework agreement. The agreement would allow the United States and EC to pursue coordinated policies based on common ideals and values.
September 25, 1990:
Secretary Baker and the 12 EC Foreign Ministers met in New York. They discussed the Western response to the Gulf crisis and East- West issues.
November 13, 1990:
President Bush and Secretary Baker met with Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti, President of the European Council, and EC Commission President Delors in Washington. They discussed trade matters, the Persian Gulf crisis, aid to Eastern and Central Europe, and future US-EC cooperation.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 13, November 26, 1990 Title:

US-Mexico Economic Relations

Date: Nov 26, 199011/26/90 Category: Fact Sheets Region: North America Country: Mexico, United States Subject: Trade/Economics, North America Free Trade [TEXT]
Mexico's Economic Reform Program
Since 1982, Mexico substantially has reformed its economy, moving from an inward-oriented, highly protected, state-directed economy to one which responds to market forces, is outward-looking, and where protectionist barriers have largely disappeared. As a result, Mexico's gross domestic product (GDP) grew 2.9% last year and is projected to grow 3% this year. Business confidence has spurred a return of flight capital, and new foreign investment totaling $5 billion has been approved since the May 1989 decree liberalizing foreign investment. Inflation has been reduced from more than 150% in 1987 to about 27% projected for 1990 through a wage-price pact instituted in 1988. (It was under 20% in 1989, and is higher this year due to easing wage/price limits). Only 325 state-owned enterprises remain out of 1,155 in existence in 1982. The rest have been privatized or dismantled. Parastatals now produce about 13% of GDP, down from 16% in 1985. President Salinas introduced legislation to privatize commercial banks last May. TELMEX, the monopoly telecommunications firm, will be sold to private bidders next month. Mexico's international airlines are now privately held. Mexico's government deficit has declined substantially (projected at less than 5% of GDP in 1990, down from 15% in 1987) because of reduced inflation (thus, lower interest on government debt), privatization, several years of stringent fiscal discipline, and increasing tax revenues. President Salinas has deregulated trucking, and rates have dropped by an average 25% (some by 50%). Restrictions on airline traffic have been lifted and international accords updated, opening international aviation to competition. Since Mexico's 1986 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) accession, it has eliminated import license requirements on all but about 235 products (some 4,500 import classifications were covered in 1985). Import licenses are still required on agriculture, automotive products, and pharmaceuticals. Since 1986, Mexico has reduced its applied tariffs to less than 20% (many were previously more than 100%). The trade- weighted average tariff facing US goods entering Mexico is about 9%. Restrictions on foreign direct investment have been substantially eased through a May 1989 decree allowing up to 100% foreign ownership in sectors representing about two-thirds of Mexico's GDP and expediting approvals. In March 1990, Mexico concluded a debt/debt service reduction agreement with its commercial creditors under the Brady plan guidelines. The agreement reduces the net transfer of resources from Mexico abroad by an annual average of $4 billion from 1990 to 1994.
US Response
The US has welcomed and supported Mexico's economic reforms, particularly the dismantling of trade and investment barriers. In 1987, the US and Mexico entered into the Trade and Investment Framework Understanding, creating working groups to discuss specific trade aspirations. This success led to the 1989 Trade and Investment Facilitation Talks Understanding, in which the US and Mexico agreed to take concrete steps to liberalize trade. President Bush notified the Congress on September 25, 1990 of his intent to enter into free trade agreement negotiations with Mexico. Negotiations are expected to begin next spring following the 60-day legislative period in which Congress decides whether to permit the administration to use fast-track authority. Fast-track authority connotes Congress' agreement to vote on the entire agreement without addition or deletion. The US accorded Mexico new tariff-waiver benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences program covering more than $2 billion in trade beginning this year. Mexico is the largest beneficiary in the program's nearly 20-year history. In response to Mexico's trade liberalization, the United States doubled Mexico's share of the US import market in late 1989. In early 1990, the US substantially increased Mexico's access to the US textile and apparel market by raising some quota levels and removing others.
Tuna Embargo
A brief embargo has been lifted on US imports of yellowfin tuna caught in the eastern tropical Pacific by Mexican vessels using purse seines (fishing nets which hang vertically in the water and are pulled closed at the bottom by "drawstring" cables). The embargo was imposed last month by court order based on the Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 1988. Mexico has greatly reduced its dolphin mortality incidental to its tuna fishery and is an active participant in international negotiations to conserve dolphins.
Free Trade Agreement (box)
President Bush notified the Congress on September 25, 1990, that he and Mexican President Salinas intended to negotiate a free trade agreement (FTA) which would eliminate the restrictions on the flow of goods, services, and investment between the United States and Mexico. It also would address protection of intellectual property rights in both countries. FTA negotiations are expected to begin late next spring and conclude in 1992. Canada has indicated interest in participating in the negotiations. All three countries are now to explore the possibilities for three-way free trade.
US Benefits.
An FTA would benefit the United States by stimulating US exports and improving US competitiveness. Mexico is the United States' third most important trade partner. More than two-thirds of Mexico's imports come from the United States. Removal of remaining Mexican barriers to US exports could mean more sales and would enhance job creation in the United States. US firms could invest more easily and securely in Mexico. It should enable both US and Mexican industry to compete more successfully with Asian producers.
Mexican Benefits
. An FTA also should foster increased investment and exports for Mexico and stimulate job creation. Some of the new investment will bring new technology and managerial skills needed by Mexico. The economic growth sparked by an FTA should help reduce illegal immigration from Mexico into the United States. The United States is Mexico's largest trade partner and leading source of foreign investment. Lowering trade barriers further will stimulate improvements in efficiency and help hold down prices.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 13, November 26, 1990 Title:

US-Mexico Anti-Narcotic Cooperation

Date: Nov 26, 199011/26/90 Category: Fact Sheets Region: North America Country: Mexico Subject: Narcotics [TEXT]
Mexico has achieved much in the past year, largely due to the leadership of President Carlos Salinas de Gotari. Mexico continues to increase funding ($37 million in 1989; $52 million in 1990) for its anti-narcotics "campaign." The US government provides more than $30 million. Working relations between the US and Mexico are better than in many years, promising expanded cooperative action in FY 1991 and beyond. Eradication has increased this year, and drug seizures continue to soar. The government of Mexico seized more drugs in 1989 than in the previous 6 years combined (34 metric tons of cocaine, 448 metric tons of marijuana, and 0.5 metric tons of opiates). The Mexican government has seized 46 metric tons of cocaine thus far in 1990. The Northern Border Response Force (NBRF), a new interdiction program based in Monterrey, promises to increase seizures. In the first months of operation, despite limited resources, it has seized 19 metric tons of cocaine and numerous aircraft. The US government plans to provide significant technical and materiel support to this creative Mexican initiative.
Ongoing Efforts
Mexico is currently the largest foreign source of marijuana and one of the largest sources of heroin sold in the United States. As much as one-half of the South American cocaine entering the United States is trans-shipped through Mexico, largely because of intensified interdiction efforts in the Caribbean. Given Mexico's proximity to the US, the US government places a high priority on anti-narcotics control programs in Mexico. -- President Salinas repeatedly has expressed concern over the threat posed by narcotics to Mexico's national security and to the health of its people. His administration has responded with intensified eradication and interdiction activities as well as tough anti-corruption measures within the government. -- The Mexican government maintains an extensive anti- narcotics program, which includes eradication of drug crops (marijuana and opium poppy), interdiction of narcotics shipments, bilateral enforcement cooperation, mutual legal assistance, and public awareness/education. -- Although aerial eradication was the dominant part of the Mexican government's program in the past, the dramatic increase in cocaine trans-shipments from Colombia forced Mexico to intensify its interdiction efforts. -- In 1989, Mexico expanded its crop eradication and interdiction activities. The Attorney General's anti-narcotics budget increased from $23 million in 1988 to $37 million in 1989 to $53 million in 1990 (54% of the Attorney General's budget). -- The Department of State's Bureau of International Narcotics Matters currently provides $18.3 million in support for the Mexican drug control program, most of which will be used for an aviation maintenance contract to support the eradication campaign. The bureau expects to nearly double its support in FY 1992 to assist Mexico in countering the dramatic upswing in transshipments of cocaine from Colombia.
Mexico: 1990 Anti-Narcotics Efforts
Drug Seizures--
as of October 23 (metric tons) -- Cocaine: 46.0 -- Dried Marijuana: 351.0 -- Opiates: 0.4
January-September 5 -- Arrested: 8, 417 -- Charged: 5,058
Landing Strips Destroyed--
March-August -- 558 by military forces
Eradication (hectares)
Marijuana: 1,709 by Federal Judicial Police 1,196 by military January-June Opium Poppy: 1,781 by Federal Judicial Police 3,131 by military January-June Source: Attorney General, Mexico (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 13, November 26, 1990 Title:

The Gulf Crisis: Un Security Council Actions

Date: Dec 3, 199012/3/90 Category: Fact Sheets Region: MidEast/North Africa Country: Iraq, Kuwait Subject: United Nations [TEXT] Within the forum of the United Nations, the international community condemned Iraq's unprovoked invasion of Kuwait. Since August 2, the UN Security Council has passed 12 resolutions condemning the invasion and calling for Iraq's immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait. August 2--Resolution 660 Condemns invasion. Demands unconditional and immediate withdrawal. Vote: 14 for, 0 against, 1 abstention (Yemen). August 6--Resolution 661 Imposes economic sanctions. Authorizes non-military measures to enforce trade sanctions. Vote: 13 for, 2 abstentions (Yemen and Cuba). August 9--Resolution 662 Declares Iraq's annexation of Kuwait null and void. Vote: Unanimous (15-0). August 18--Resolution 664 Condemns Iraq for holding foreign nationals hostage and demands their immediate release. Vote: Unanimous (15-0). August 25--Resolution 665 Outlaws all trade with Iraq by land, sea, and air. Bars financial dealings with all UN members. Vote: 13 for, 2 abstentions (Yemen and Cuba). September 13--Resolution 666 Establishes guidelines for humanitarian food aid to Iraq and occupied Kuwait . Vote: 13 for, 2 opposed (Yemen and Cuba). September 16--Resolution 667 Condemns Iraq for violence against foreign embassies and diplomats in Kuwait. Demands protection for diplomatic and consular personnel. Vote: Unanimous (15-0). September 24--Resolution 669 Agrees to consider exceptions to Resolution 661 for shipment of humanitarian supplies and authorizes examination of requests for economic assistance under Article 50. Vote: Unanimous (15-0). September 25--Resolution 670 Tightens embargo on air traffic and authorizes detention of Iraq's merchant fleet. Vote: Unanimous (15-0). October 29--Resolution 674 Holds Iraq responsible for all financial losses resulting from invasion and seeks evidence of human rights abuses by Iraqi troops in Kuwait. Calls for the release of third-country nationals and the provision of food to those being held against their will. Vote: 13 for, 2 abstentions (Yemen and Cuba). November 28--Resolution 677 Condemns Iraqi attempts to alter the demographic composition of Kuwait and to destroy the civil records maintained by the legitimate government of Kuwait. Mandates Secretary General to take custody of a copy of the Kuwaiti population register. Vote: Unanimous (15-0). November 29--Resolution 678 Authorizes "member states cooperating with the government of Kuwait" to use "all necessary means" to uphold the above resolutions, while giving Iraq "one final opportunity, as a pause of good will" to abide by the resolutions by January 15, 1991. Vote: 12 for, 2 against (Yemen and Cuba), 1 abstention (China).(###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 13, November 26, 1990 Title:

Gulf Crisis: At a Crossroads

Baker Source: Secretary Baker Description: Remarks before the UN Security Council, New York City Date: Nov 29, 199011/29/90 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: MidEast/North Africa Country: Iraq, Kuwait Subject: United Nations, Democratization [TEXT] Today's vote marks a watershed in the history of the United Nations. Earlier this week, members of this council heard testimony of crimes committed against the citizens of Kuwait. There can be no doubt that these are crimes incompatible with any civilized order. They are part of the same pattern that includes the taking of innocent hostages from many nations. The entire international community has been affronted by a series of brutal acts. -- Iraqi forces have invaded and seized a small Arab neighbor. -- A once prosperous country has been pillaged and looted. -- A once peaceful country has been turned into an armed camp. -- A once secure country has been terrorized. The nations of the world have not stood idly by. We have taken political, economic, and military measures to quarantine Iraq and to contain its aggression. We have worked out a coordinated international effort involving over 50 states to provide assistance to those nations most in need as a consequence of the economic embargo of Iraq. And, military forces from over 27 nations have been deployed to defend Iraq's neighbors from further aggression and to implement UN resolutions. The 12 resolutions passed by the Security Council have established clearly that there is a peaceful way out of this conflict: the complete, immediate, unconditional Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait; the restoration of Kuwait's legitimate government; and the release of all hostages. I do not think all of this could have taken place unless most nations shared our vision of what is at stake. A dangerous man has committed a blatant act of aggression in a vital region at a critical moment in history. Saddam Hussein's actions, the vast arms he possesses, the weapons of mass destruction he seeks, indicate clearly that Kuwait was not only not the first but probably not the last target on his list. If he should win this struggle, then there will be no peace in the Middle East; only the prospect of more conflict and a far wider war. If Saddam should come to dominate the resources of the gulf, his ambitions will threaten all of us here and the economic well- being of all nations. Finally, if Iraq should emerge from this conflict with territory or treasure or political advantage, then the lesson will be clear: aggression pays. As I said earlier today, we must remember the lesson of the 1930s: aggression must not be rewarded.
International Efforts to Date
Since August 2, many nations have worked together to prove just that. Many unprecedented actions have been taken. The result is a new fact: a newly effective UN Security Council, free of the constraints of the Cold War. Yet, the sad truth is that the new fact has not yet erased the old fact of Iraqi aggression, and that, and that alone, is the ultimate test of success. We must ask ourselves why Saddam Hussein has not recoiled from his aggression. We must wonder why he does not understand how great are the forces against him and how profound is the revulsion against his behavior. The answer must be that he does not believe we really mean what we say. He does not believe that we will stand united until he withdraws. He thinks that his fact of aggression will outlast our fact: an international community opposed to aggression. We are meeting here today, therefore, first and foremost, to dispel Saddam Hussein's illusions. He must know from us that a refusal to comply peacefully with the Security Council resolutions risks disaster for him. Members of the council, we are at a crossroads. Today, we show Saddam that the sign marked "peace" is the direction he should take. Today's resolution is clear. The words authorize the use of force, but the purpose--I truly believe--is to bring about a peaceful resolution. No one here has sought this conflict. Many nations here have had good relations with the people of Iraq. But the Security Council of the United Nations cannot tolerate this aggression and still be faithful to the principles of the UN Charter. With passage of today's resolution, we concur with other council members that this should lead to a pause in this council's efforts, assuming no adverse change in circumstances. We do so while retaining our rights to protect our foreign nationals in Iraq and mindful of the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Geneva Protocol of 1925, should Saddam Hussein use chemical or biological weapons. By passing today's resolution--a pause for peace--we say to Saddam Hussein: "We continue to seek a diplomatic solution. Peace is your only sensible option. You can choose peace by respecting the will of the international community. But if you fail to do so, you will risk all. The choice is yours." If we fail to redress this aggression, more will be lost than just peace in the Persian Gulf. Only recently, in Europe, the nations party to the Cold War assembled to bury that conflict. All the peoples of Europe and North America, who had nothing to look forward to except an unending, twilight struggle, now have a fresh start, a new opportunity. Conflict and war are no longer the watchwords of European politics. Members of the council, we meet at the hinge of history. We can use the end of the Cold War to get beyond the whole pattern of settling conflicts by force, or we can slip back into ever more savage regional conflicts in which might alone makes right. We can take the high road toward peace and the rule of law, or Saddam Hussein's path of brutal aggression and the law of the jungle. Simply put, it is a choice between right and wrong. I believe we have the courage and the fortitude to choose what's right. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 13, November 26, 1990 Title:

UN Security Council Resolution 677 on Iraq

Date: Nov 28, 199011/28/90 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: MidEast/North Africa Country: Iraq, Kuwait Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization [TEXT]
Resolution 677 (Nov. 28, 1990)
The Security Council, Recalling its resolutions 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990, 662 (1990) of 9 August 1990, and 674 (1990) of 29 October 1990. Reiterating its concern for the suffering caused to individuals in Kuwait as a result of the invasion and occupation of Kuwait by Iraq, Gravely concerned at the ongoing attempt by Iraq to alter the demographic composition of the population of Kuwait and to destroy the civil records maintained by the legitimate Government of Kuwait, Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, 1. Condemns the attempts by Iraq to alter the demographic composition of the population of Kuwait and to destroy the civil records maintained by the legitimate Government of Kuwait; 2. Mandates the Secretary-General to take custody of a copy of the population register of Kuwait, the authenticity of which has been certified by the legitimate Government of Kuwait and which covers the registration of population up to 1 August 1990; 3. Requests the Secretary-General to establish, in co- operation with the legitimate Government of Kuwait, an Order of Rules and Regulations governing access to and use of the said copy of the population register. VOTE: Unanimous (15-0).
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 13, November 26, 1990 Title:

UN Security Council Resolution 677 on Iraq

Date: Nov 28, 199011/28/90 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: MidEast/North Africa Country: Iraq, Kuwait Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization [TEXT]
Resolution 678 (Nov. 29, 1990)
The Security Council, Recalling and reaffirming its resolutions 660 (1990), 661 (1990), 662 (1990), 664 (1990), 665 (1990), 666 (1990), 667 (1990), 669 (1990), 670 (1990) and 674 (1990), Noting that, despite all efforts by the United Nations, Iraq refuses to comply with its obligation to implement resolution 660 (1990) and the above subsequent relevant resolutions, in flagrant contempt of the Council, Mindful of its duties and responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance and preservation of international peace and security, Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions, Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, 1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwill, to do so; 2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement Security Council resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; 3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of this resolution; 4. Requests the States concerned to keep the Council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of this resolution; 5. Decides to remain seized of the matter. VOTE: 12 for, 2 against (Cuba and Yemen); 1 abstention (China)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 13, November 26, 1990 Title:

UN Security Council Memberships

Date: Dec 3, 199012/3/90 Category: Fact Sheets Subject: United Nations [TEXT]
UN Security Council Membership
Current Security Council Membership--
Canada, China, Colombia, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Malaysia, Romania, UK, USSR, US, Yemen, Zaire
Council Presidency (June-December 1990)--
France (June) Malaysia (July) Romania (August) USSR (September) UK (October ) USA (November ) Yemen (December )
Permanent Members--
China, France, UK, USSR, USA
Term Expirations--12/31/90
Canada, Colombia, Ethiopia, Finland, Malaysia
New Members--1/1/91
Austria, Belgium, Ecuador, India, Zimbabwe
Term Expirations--12/31/91
Cuba, Cote d'Ivoire, Romania, Yemen, Zaire (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 13, November 26, 1990 Title:

A Pause for Peace in the Persian Gulf

Baker Source: Secretary Baker Description: News conference, New York City Date: Nov 29, 199011/29/90 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: MidEast/North Africa Country: Iraq, Kuwait Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization [TEXT] First, let me say that I think that today's vote in the United Nations marks a watershed in the history of that organization. In passing this resolution today--a resolution that we refer to as a pause for peace--I think we've put the choice to Saddam Hussein in unmistakable terms. If Iraq does not reverse its course peacefully, the Security Council has unequivocally authorized the use of all necessary means, including, of course, the use of force. Our aim today was to convince Saddam Hussein that the just, humane demands of the Security Council and the international community cannot be ignored. Simply put, the Security Council made it clear that Iraqi aggression will not be allowed to stand. Today, the members of the Security Council acted once again, recognizing that we all face a fundamental choice between right and wrong, and I am heartened that the members of the Security Council, as they have repeatedly since August 2, have continued courageously to do what is right.
In the 6/7 weeks now that you have given, or the UN really has given, Saddam Hussein to get out of Kuwait, what does the US do? I notice the Soviet Foreign Minister [Eduard Shevardnadze] said that maybe there will be some diplomatic initiative. You've said no partial solutions. Do you just now wait for Saddam Hussein to surrender?
Well, no. I think that as a number of speakers indicated there tonight, during the course of the debate, the purpose of this resolution is to advance the chances for a peaceful and political solution. Yes, it authorizes the use of force. I would remind you that it doesn't require it. It's our view that this is the best way to give peace a chance, if you will. Because the message, that if he does not withdraw from Kuwait willingly he will be forced to do so, is perhaps the only message that Saddam Hussein will understand. I think it's interesting that the international community remains so firmly united behind this objective. This was not an easy vote today. This was a tough vote for a lot of countries. I think that you could determine that or judge that from the remarks that were made during the course of the debate. We do not stop the diplomatic and political efforts now at all. We have, in fact, a pause here for peace that will permit us to continue to pursue these efforts. Why, I'm going to have an informal, off-the-record, low profile, no photo-op dinner with the other ministers of the permanent five [members of the Security Council] as soon as I leave this briefing. We will, in that hopefully informal and low-profile session, have the opportunity to talk about next steps.
Do you, or the Soviets, or some other member of the permanent five now plan some sort of initial or additional diplomatic moves on Iraq?
: We want to talk about what the prospects are for further political and diplomatic efforts. We're just beginning these discussions. In fact, the idea really came up during the course of some bilaterals I had today before the Security Council session. Sowe need to explore with them what their ideas are. We want to talk with them a little bit about what our ideas are, and that's what we're going to be doing tonight. But over the course of these next weeks, we will be vigorously pursuing the diplomatic and political-solution approach.
Sometimes, we get the idea, though, that he [Saddam Hussein] is not being given much choice. That is, one choice is to get out and survive and live, but the rhetoric seems to suggest that even if he does pull out he still faces the enmity of the United States and possible military action because of the nuclear materials he may have--those kinds of things. Are you giving him a real choice? Can he get out and survive as head of his government?
:We are not giving him the choice of being rewarded for aggression. That should not be equated with an unwillingness to pursue diplomatic and political approaches. We have said before that we think partial solutions would set a very unfortunate precedent. It would set the precedent that aggression pays. But there are plenty of choices that he is being given. The fundamental choice is that he is being given is a choice for peace. As I said in my concluding statement, Iraq, Saddam Hussein, has it in his power--he and he alone--has it in his power to assure a peaceful solution here by complying with the will of the international community, as expressed in the Security Council resolutions in withdrawing from Kuwait. That's all it takes. That's all it takes, and then we have a peaceful solution.
There has been concern expressed during the last few weeks that Saddam Hussein may not take the United States and its allies seriously; maybe leave that--the United States is not prepared to use force. By giving a 45-day pause, don't you contribute to that misapprehension?
: No. I think it goes in exactly the other direction. It does make it clear that for 45 days, there will be continued pursuit of the political and diplomatic and peaceful approach. But it makes it equally clear that after that time, it is the will of the international community--again, an unprecedented consensus of the international community--that force cannot be ruled out as an option. It seems to me it brings the message home very clearly and very loudly that the international community is, indeed, serious. I don't think we would have seen this resolution passed today if there had not been this determined seriousness of purpose on the part, certainly, of the 12 countries that voted for the resolution.
: Shevardnadze seemed to be suggesting in his remarks that a fruitful next step could be to try to get the Israeli-Palestinian peace process going again, and that the international community shouldn't be afraid of the linkage question. He said: "We wouldn't do it as a reward but neither should we hold back pursuing that avenue simply because there's this other problem." Do you think that could be a fruitful next step to pursue? Or do you think that it would be regarded as being linked?
: I think it's important that the international--well, I think you have to be very careful that it is not seen to be linked, and I think everybody agrees with that, including the Soviet Union. Everybody has articulated their view that there should not be formal linkage, but there should not be de facto linkage either. Having said that, I think it is the view of all of the countries involved that there should be a willingness and a commitment on the part of all to do everything we can to move the peace process forward in the Middle East, and that we must, indeed, address the Arab-Israeli peace process problem.
: But isn't that something--he [Shevardnadze] said that the permanent five might have a role and there might be something it might look at next.
: That's not something that we are doing in terms of--if you're talking about the dinner tonight--that's not the purpose of dinner tonight. What we're going to do is sit down and talk with each other about possible further diplomatic and political steps on Iraq-Kuwait.
The cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union has been the keystone in all of the diplomacy from the very beginning. In reading today's resolution, it's clear that legally, after January 15, we have the right to use force. Have you, though--has the United States, yourself, the President--made any commitment to [Soviet] President Gorbachev that before we should exercise that force, we would go back to the Soviet Union and clear it in any way, directly or indirectly, with them?
:: We've made it clear to our partners in this effort that we want to keep them fully informed, that we want to consult with them. Obviously, that goes without saying with respect to those who have a presence in the multinational force. But the intent of this resolution, and I think the effect of this resolution, is that it be self-executing. There was some early discussion about the possibility of having two resolutions. One that would set a date and then the first one would say when we pass another resolution. Our point was that that would be walking back from the resolution--I think it was 660-- that called for immediate withdrawal. So this is a self-executing resolution, and I think everybody understands that. Let me just add one more thing to my answer a minute ago about whether or not we're offering anything. You don't have to offer anything that would reward an aggressor in order to be pursuing a political and diplomatic approach. I don't think people should say we are not pursuing a political and diplomatic approach just because we will not negotiate with Saddam Hussein to give him something for his aggression. That is not diplomacy. That is appeasement, and that is what we do not intend to do.
: The past few weeks of intense diplomacy that both you and President Bush have engaged in have included many meetings with nations the United States has shunned for one reason or another because of their records on undemocratic political systems, human rights, terrorism. They include Syria, Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba, Yemen. Don't the American people have a right to know what pledges, what commitments, what promises, what exchanges you've had with those nations about which they now don't know in order to achieve the political victory that you did achieve tonight at the UN?
: I'm going to be testifying before the Congress Wednesday and Thursday [December 5 and 6] of next week. I'm sure that we will get into a lot of that, to the extent that it exists, and it doesn't exist to the extent that perhaps you might suspect. But I do think that there does need to be, certainly, full consultation with the Congress. But let me say something I said in Damascus. Our policy--our foreign policy--cannot and will never be amoral. We are going to talk to people, countries where it's important to our goals in the gulf, particularly now that we have so many young American men and women there in the region. But we're not going to compromise our principles. I don't think that talking to people should be portrayed somehow as a compromise of those principles.
: Have you made any other commitments to do any other kinds of talking, for example, with the Syrians on the Middle East peace problem? For example, with the Chinese?
: We have not made any commitments to do any talking with the Syrians on the Middle East peace problem. I just answered a question saying that the United States is certainly willing to address the question of Middle East peace. It is very important. Those of you who are assigned to the State Department know that I spent the better part of 14 months working extraordinarily hard to try and do just that, and we want to see a peace process. We are serious. We are serious about a peace process. We will do anything we can to advance a peace process.
: You say that this policy is self- executing. Does that mean that the US Government alone will decide when to use the military option?
: I said the resolution is self- executing, which means we don't have to come back to the United Nations--or the Security Council--for an additional resolution before force could be used. With respect to the question--I answered this, I think, when we were in the gulf--the question of whether or not that force would be used once it's authorized. That is a question for political decision at the highest levels of the countries that have forces on the ground in the gulf.
: But not just the United States unilaterally?
: We could make the decision with respect to our forces and with respect to any forces that have been put under our command and control. But there would have to be, of course; that decision wouldn't be made by military officers in the field. That decision would have to be made at the highest level of our government; just as it would have to be made at the highest level of the other governments.
I was just wondering, if this is the case, does that mean there is no need for a coalition of forces, or, it was in Korea, for example, under the US command?
: There is a coalition of forces. There are 26 or 27 nations with forces in the gulf. Some of those countries have entered into command-and-control arrangements with the United States respecting how operations would be conducted in the event that they ever became necessary.
Were you disappointed that the Chinese abstained rather than voting "yes"? And if they had voted yes, might the Foreign Secretary [Qian Quchen] be visiting with President Bush tomorrow?
: Well, the latter question is hypothetical. The answer to the first one is, no. Because I think the Chinese understood, and certainly we understood, there was only one vote that they could have cast that would have made the passage of this resolution impossible and they didn't cast that vote.
Please tell us, sir, now that you have the authorization for use of force from the international community, do you expect or have you received any pledges of more troops from other countries to join the multinational force? \
: I'm just not going to get into the specific military questions that we've discussed with other countries. I haven't been willing to do that all throughout this process, and I just can't do that.
To follow up on something you said earlier. Are you concerned at all that this debate that's now underway on the Hill in any way is going to undercut the strength of this message that you're trying to send to Saddam Hussein?
: I think that we have said before that we welcome these hearings, and we do. We welcome the opportunity to go up and testify. We live in a democracy, perhaps one of the freest democracies in the world and democratic debate is a part of what we're all about. So we accept that. I would hope that there would be some consideration and attention paid to what happened here tonight in terms of the action by the international community. I think it's a very significant thing that's happened. But we welcome these hearings. We welcome the debate, and we think that the President, as commander-in-chief, will enjoy the support of the American people if it should ever become necessary, and we hope it isn't, but if it should ever become necessary--we hope it won't--to commit US forces.
: If you decide to use force after January 15, would you consider, or do you consider, or are you going to consider [asking] Turkey to act militarily?
: I cannot get into specific questions--military discussions that we've had with other governments. I think you can understand why we would not want to do that. It's a matter of sensitivity.
In regard to the Mideast peace process, several Arab and nonaligned nation delegations here are saying openly, on the record today, that an exchange for their agreement to postpone, for the time being, action on the resolution having to do with the protection of the rights of Palestinians, they were given a commitment by the United States to abstain from vetoing that resolution when it comes to a vote. Is that correct?
: No, that's not right. What we said was--it's basically repetition of what I've just said here. We think it is important that we move toward peace in the Middle East. We think it is important to address the question of Arab-Israeli peace. What we said was, we would discuss with them next week, in good faith, the resolution that is now pending, which is unacceptable to the United States, and see if there could be some sort of an understanding or consensus arrived at with respect to that. There are no promises, no commitments. Only a representation by us that we would discuss that resolution next week. If we can't come up with something that's acceptable to us, we wont' support it.
What's your view on whether it would now be worthwhile to have the Congress of the United States consider voting on something similar to what the Security Council has just voted on?
: You know, I've said before that the Congress, of course, is a co-equal branch. The Congress has reserved unto itself the right to come back in to consider these matters as things move forward here during the period that they are in recess. One thing that I do think is important is that we continue to consult very closely with the Congress as we have been doing. There has been extraordinary consultation. I think even the Members of Congress who may or may not agree with our policy approach would agree that there's been good consultation, and we will continue that.
Is the President going to call a special session? There's been talk about it.
: There are no plans that I'm aware of to call a special session. But we need to keep discussing these matters with the leadership as, indeed, I know the President had some discussion yesterday with the leadership and we'll continue to do that.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 13, November 26, 1990 Title:

Secretary Baker's Meetings with Security Council Members

Baker Date: Nov 29, 199011/29/90 Category: Fact Sheets Country: Iraq, Kuwait, Cuba Subject: United Nations [TEXT] The November 29, 1990, UN Security Council meeting on the gulf crisis marks the first time in history that a US Secretary of State has presided over a council session. --It is the fourth time in the UN's 45-year history that foreign ministers from all five permanent members of the Security Council (China, France, UK, US, and USSR) have met together. The last occasion, just 2 months ago, also was a result of the gulf crisis. --As a result of the grave threat to the world community posed by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait--and the US position as Security Council president for the month of November--Secretary Baker has taken a personal role in the Security Council's deliberations on the gulf crisis. --Prior to the November 29 meeting, Secretary Baker met personally with representatives of all 14 other council members--in their own capitals, in third countries, or at the United Nations. --The Secretary's talks with Cuban Foreign Minister Isidoro Octavio Malmierca are part of that process. Although the United States and Cuba do not have full diplomatic relations, US and Cuban officials have met on some occasions to discuss matters of pressing international concern. The last meeting on the Secretary of State level was in December 1988 when Secretary George Shultz and Foreign Minister Malmierca met briefly and informally in New York after US diplomats mediated the Angolan peace accords that involved the removal of Cuban troops from that African nation. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 13, November 26, 1990 Title:

Gulf Crisis Update

Date: Dec 3, 199012/3/90 Category: Fact Sheets Region: MidEast/North Africa Country: Iraq, Kuwait Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization [TEXT] The following is an overview of US goals and objectives in the Persian Gulf crisis. It is designed as a reference aid to speakers, writers, and others engaged in discussion of the crisis. This material will be updated periodically.
US Objectives
Immediate implementation of all relevant UN Security Council resolutions. -- The immediate, complete, and unconditional withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from Kuwait. -- The restoration of Kuwait's legitimate government. -- The security and stability of Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf. -- The protection of US citizens held hostage by Iraq, both in Iraq and Kuwait.
-- UN Security Council Resolution 678 of November 29, 1990, authorizes "member states cooperating with the government of Kuwait" to use "all necessary means" to uphold all resolutions, while giving Iraq "one final opportunity, as a pause of good will" to abide by the resolutions by January 15, 1991. -- In the coming weeks, "we will engage in serious, honest, good faith" and "hard efforts, to try to find a diplomatic, political and peaceful solution to this problem." -- President Bush and Secretary Baker have pursued a diplomatic solution to this crisis, devoting great personal efforts to that end. -- This resolution is a "pause for peace", giving the international community "a better opportunity " to find a peaceful solution to the crisis. -- The President has invited Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz to meet with him. The President also suggested that Secretary Baker meet with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. The US Government will be prepared to discuss all aspects of the gulf "within the mandate of the UN resolutions. . . to exhaust all means. . . for a diplomatic and political solution." -- The President and Secretary Baker will not discuss "anything less than Iraq's complete withdrawal from Kuwait, restoration of Kuwait's legitimate government, and freedom for all hostages."
-- UN imposed sanctions ban any economic exchanges with Iraq. There also exists a ban on all commercial air traffic going to and from Iraq unless it is under humanitarian circumstances, as determined by the UN. -- Sanctions are beginning to have an impact on Iraq. Iraq's oil income has been cut off. Shortages of spare parts are taking their toll on Iraqi industry. -- The continuation and strengthening of economic sanctions make a diplomatic solution more attainable.
The Stakes
-- Iraq's aggression challenges world peace and threatens the vision of a better world in the aftermath of the Cold War. As Presidents Bush and Gorbachev stated jointly in Helsinki: "No peaceful international order is possible if larger states can devour their smaller neighbors." Saddam Hussein's aggression is a challenge to the rest of the international community. If we reverse his aggression, we will help define the world that lies beyond the Cold War as a place where civilized rules of conduct apply. -- Iraq's aggression is a regional challenge. The Middle East is an area of unresolved conflicts, sectarian and social strife, and economic disparities. A peaceful solution to these problems in the Middle East is the only way to preserve the security of our friends. -- Iraq's aggression challenges the global economy. If an aggressive state is allowed to sit astride the economic lifeline of the industrial world, everyone will suffer profound setbacks in their ability to deliver economic growth.
International Response
-- The US response is part of a strong coalition against Iraq. -- The US has been working through the UN Security Council to isolate Iraq politically and to impose penalties for its refusal to comply with the UN Resolutions on the crisis . -- We are leading an unprecedented coalition in which many are sharing responsibility; 27 other countries have sent troops or material to the gulf in support of the Security Council resolutions. -- Never in its existence has the potential of the UN as a force for peace and stability been clearer. This is due in part to the cooperation between the US and the Soviet Union and also the support of the Arab League and the Non-aligned Movement.
-- The holding of hostages violates international law and civilized norms. -- We continuously remind the Iraqi government of its obligation under international law and the UN resolutions to allow Americans, and all foreigners, to leave if they want to do so. -- On August 20, President Bush declared that those being held in Iraq were "hostages." We hold the government of Iraq responsible for the safety and well-being of foreign citizens held against their will. -- We have arranged evacuation flights for more than 2,000 people--Americans and their families--from Iraq and Kuwait. There are now less than 1,000 Americans in Iraq and Kuwait. These include some who have chosen not to depart, some 100 people being held by the Iraqi government as "human shields," some people with medical problems, others in hiding or men who are not allowed to depart. We are unable to give details so as to avoid giving the Iraqi government information which might help them find those who remain. -- Our consular task force has scores of people who keep in close touch with families (every day for "special cases"), pass messages where possible, and help our embassies arrange the departure of those who are allowed to go.
Condition of Americans in Kuwait
-- We also remain deeply concerned about the harsh conditions of those Americans living in hiding in Kuwait. Many are dependent on good samaritans who provide assistance at great risk to their own lives. Food, medicine, and basic necessities are in short supply for these trapped Americans. Many of them live in darkened apartments, dreading the knock on the door by Iraqi troops. All of them know that if their whereabouts are discovered, they will join the other Americans Saddam Hussein has sentenced to be human shields. -- Our staff in Embassy Kuwait is reduced to four women and four men. They are busy keeping in touch with Americans and helping to arrange the departure of more who are willing and able to leave. -- They have not been able to leave the compound and get new supplies. At this point, they have only canned food and have planted a garden. They have dug a well which yields brackish water for washing. -- They are in good spirits despite the hardship.
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 1, No 13, November 26, 1990 Title:

Update on the Sudan and the Liberia Crises

Cohen Source: Herman J. Cohen, Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Description: Statement before the Subcommittee on African Affairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC Date: Nov 27, 199011/27/90 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Subsaharan Africa Country: Liberia, Sudan Subject: Development/Relief Aid [TEXT] It is a pleasure to be here this morning to discuss Sudan and Liberia with you. The situations in both these countries are tragic because of the needless and massive loss of human life involved. Many of those who have survived have fled their homelands--refugees from hunger and atrocity. I will address events in Sudan first, then turn to Liberia.
The Food Crisis in Sudan
Events in the Middle East and stories of an impending food shortage have focused attention on Sudan recently. I would like to discuss first the food crisis, since it will have an immense human impact. This is a matter of extreme concern for us. As you know, we brought our ambassador to Sudan, James Cheek, back to Washington in September to discuss this very issue. Sudan's rainy season has now ended and the main harvest is underway. It became apparent in mid- August that this year's rains were failing badly over many areas of the country. As a result, the harvest will be substantially below normal. The precise extent of the deficit cannot be stated until the harvest is finished. Rough estimates are that the harvest will be at least 500,000 tons--and perhaps as much as 1 million tons--below normal. At that upper limit, 8-9 million people across Sudan would be at risk. This would include the 3 million people displaced by the civil war and currently fed by the UN-sponsored Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS) relief effort, as well as some 400,000 refugees receiving international assistance. The United States, the other donors, and the UN, have raised this issue with the government of Sudan. We have told the government of Sudan, in the most forceful terms, that a major emergency is pending in Sudan, that it can be handled only by a coordinated international relief effort, and that Sudan must request such an effort. Our ambassador to Sudan has raised this directly with General [Omar] Al-Bashir, and we have raised it with numerous other Sudanese government officials. The Sudanese government apparently is aware that there is a problem, but has down played its magnitude. The government of Sudan has requested a food assistance program from the United States for next year at the level of $150 million ($100 million Title I/loan and $50 million Title II/grant). This would be channeled through the government for distribution or sale. What the government has not done is to request a food relief program, which would involve the donors, the UN, and various non-governmental organizations that would get the food to elements of the population most in need. Our estimate is that if 1 million tons of food are needed, 300,000 tons could be moved through the relief network to reach those most in need, and the remaining 700,000 tons could be moved through the normal Sudanese commercial distribution network. A relief program will be necessary to prevent widespread starvation in Sudan next year. The United States is not waiting, however, but has begun planning to deal with the emergency. As I said, we have told the government of Sudan what it must do to energize an international response; we have been in contact with other donors and the UN; and we are prepared to supply up to 100,000 tons of relief food, plus additional food for commercial distribution, subject to budgetary limitations. What I must emphasize, however, is that the needed relief program will not be possible unless the government of Sudan agrees to such a program and takes the practical steps to facilitate it. I know that you are familiar with the history of Operation Lifeline Sudan, which has managed, with great difficulty and at great expense, to move relief food into southern Sudan. Khartoum's attitude toward OLS has ranged from ambiguity to outright hostility. The government of Sudan has harassed non-governmental organizations, interfered with relief flights, and--in September and again this month--bombed a number of relief sites in southern Sudan. The government of Sudan must do better in 1991. If it does not, we will not be able to move the amounts of food needed. We will, of course, also need SPLA [Sudanese Peoples' Liberation Army] cooperation. As you know, OLS moves a substantial amount of food into southern Sudan from Kenya and Uganda. We intend to continue to move food in this fashion, and to increase the amount, but it cannot be a substitute for a nationwide program. At the most, cross- border food could reach perhaps a quarter of those in need. In addition, logistical difficulties will put a cap on the amount of food that could be moved in this way.
Sudan and the Persian Gulf Crisis
Let me turn next to the impact on Sudan of the Middle East crisis. The Omar Al-Bashir government has had friendly relations with Iraq since it came into power in June 1989. Iraq became one of Sudan's principal military suppliers shortly after the coup. As Sudan's traditional sources of military assistance dried up, the Iraqi connection became even more important. We believe it was this military assistance relationship which led Sudan to its current ambiguous stance on the Iraq/Kuwait issue. To be specific, Sudan has refused to condemn Iraq for its occupation of Kuwait. Sudan insists on characterizing the issue as solely an intra-Arab dispute, which should be settled by the Arab states without outside interference, and has stated that outside forces have no legitimate role in the gulf. Sudan refused to go along with the Cairo Arab League resolution condemning Iraq. Sudan has stated, however, that Iraqi troops should leave Kuwait and the legitimate Kuwaiti government should be restored. Sudan endorsed, after a period of time, the Security Council resolutions and promised to obey them. Sudan has stated that it believes its policy of not condemning Iraq will place it in a position of mediating between the two sides. In pursuit of this goal, Sudanese President Al-Bashir has engaged in some shuttle diplomacy, flying between Baghdad, Amman, and other Middle Eastern capitals without any discernible results. Press reports that Sudan has engaged in sanction-busting, and that Iraq has stationed troops, fighters, and missiles in Sudan are-- to the best of our knowledge--unsubstantiated. The United States has impressed upon the government of Sudan, both in Khartoum and in Washington, that we consider its stance on Iraq unhelpful. We have told Sudan that it should line up firmly with the world community in opposition to Iraqi aggression. Unfortunately, it has not done so. Sudan's stance has gravely affected its relations with other Middle Eastern countries--particularly its traditional friends, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. These countries have made it clear that they, just as we, consider Sudan's position and its explanations for that position unsatisfactory. Egyptian President Mubarak recently stated publicly that if Iraqi missiles were stationed in Sudan, Egypt would take action against them. I would like to emphasize that Sudan's position on the Iraq/Kuwait crisis does not affect in any way our decisions on the provision of relief food to Sudan. This food goes to feed hungry people in Sudan--not to the government. We are not using food as a weapon.
Sudanese Domestic Politics
There has been little improvement in the domestic political situation in Sudan. The Bashir government is narrowly based, drawing support only from a segment of the military and the Islamic fundamentalist National Islamic Front (NIF). The NIF has over time assumed a greater role in the government, and NIF appointees now fill numerous key positions in the bureaucracy. This has led to greater opposition from other political forces within Sudan. A government-sponsored conference on Sudan's future political system has just ended in Khartoum. The conference rejected both one-party dictatorship and multi-party democracy in favor of a system similar to the current set-up of local "popular committees." It is not clear how or when this system will be implemented. It does seem clear that without a settlement of the civil war and the participation of the SPLA, there can be no final decision of Sudan's future political system. General Al-Bashir, for his part, has stated that he does not intend to return Sudan to a multi-party democracy. All political parties remain banned in Sudan. The human rights situation has not improved in any significant way. Sudanese citizens are still subject to detention without charge by the security forces, and we estimate there are currently 200-300 political prisoners. Some prisoners are occasionally released, but new ones replace them. Perhaps the only hopeful sign is that physical and psychological abuse of detainees has decreased. Reports of torture--common earlier in the year--are now rare. But many detainees are still held in sub-standard conditions in isolated areas and do not receive proper medical care. We have told the government of Sudan numerous times that the human rights situation there is unacceptable and must be improved. In particular, we have said that all detainees should be either charged or released, that they should be treated humanely, and that if charged, they should receive prompt and fair judicial process. Potential opponents of the government have been intimidated by the regime's harsh measures against dissent, including the execution in April of a number of military officers who took part in a coup attempt. In September, however, five former Sudanese army generals, including the chief of staff under the Sadiq Al-Mahdi government, announced that they were forming an opposition alliance with the SPLA. It is not yet clear whether they have any significant following, however. The US government has been engaged in a dialogue with both the government of Sudan and the rebel SPLA on restarting the peace process. Unfortunately, there has been little progress. We have suggested to both sides that a military disengagement and partial withdrawal followed by political talks could be a fruitful procedure. Unfortunately, the two sides were unable to agree on the parameters of a disengagement/withdrawal. On the political side, they disagree on who should participate in political talks. The government insists that it and the SPLA only should take part. The SPLA, on the other hand, insists that other Sudanese political forces--the banned political parties, the trade unions, etc.--should also participate. In truth, we have seen little evidence that either side is willing to make the difficult concessions that will be necessary to make peace possible. It is obvious from what I have said that we and the government of Sudan have differences on many issues. Our influence in Khartoum has obviously diminished, particularly as our once substantial assistance program has wound down. But we do discuss issues with Khartoum and look for ways to move forward where we can. Our immediate interests in Sudan are peace and relief, and we will continue to work in these areas, as well as in human rights. In the longer term, we want to see economic reform and a return to representative government. Progress in these areas does not appear likely soon, but we remain ready to work with the government of Sudan in the future.
Civil War in Liberia
The civil war in Liberia is now beginning its 12th month. Suffering throughout the country has been massive, with 80% of Liberia's 2.2 million people either displaced, experiencing severe food shortages, or [are] now refugees in neighboring countries. The war is stalemated between the three opposing Liberian forces and the armed forces of the ECOMOG [the military forces of ECOWAS--the Economic Community of West African States]. Charles Taylor's National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) has been pushed out of the city of Monrovia by the ECOMOG with assistance from Prince Johnson's Independent National Patriotic Front of Liberia (INPFL). Remnants of former President Doe's Armed Forces of Liberia (AFL) continue to play a negative role within the city and have been linked to continued looting and civilian harassment there. Both the INPFL and AFL have now handed over civil power to the interim government of Liberia headed by Amos Sawyer. Mr. Sawyer arrived in Monrovia on Wednesday, November 21, and was warmly received by Prince Johnson and, to a lesser extent, by AFL commander Bowen. To the extent that there is room for optimism, we hope that the interim government's presence in Monrovia, coupled with the proposed ECOWAS talks in Bamako [Mali] with President Traore [of Mali] and Charles Taylor, will begin some movement toward lasting peace. This will, however, be a difficult process as many destabilizing forces have been unleased throughout Liberia. The US Government stands ready to facilitate the process in realistic ways.
US Steps Toward Liberian Peace
My testimony today is focused on the diplomatic efforts we have undertaken to facilitate a Liberian peace process. Between the beginning of the conflict in December 1989 and the early summer of 1990, the US Government conducted a vigorous initiative to bring about reconciliation between the opposing forces in Liberia. All of the groups involved sent delegations to the State Department at different times. Our message was always the same: Liberia's problems must be settled by Liberians on the basis of democratic values. While Samuel Doe was still in power, we urged him to move up the date of the next presidential election so that the insurgents could feel that their grievances could be addressed. You will recall that Samuel Doe had agreed to an election within 1 year--or mid- 1991--and had also agreed not to run for reelection. Unfortunately, these concessions were insufficient for the national patriotic front which demanded Doe's immediate resignation and exile. Throughout the process, the US Government offered to evacuate Samuel Doe and his family from Liberia to another African country whenever he wished to leave, but he failed to take up the offer. During the first 5 months of 1990, the administration also made a major effort to evacuate American citizens living in Liberia who were in danger of being caught up in the fighting. The United states military forces stationed offshore played an important role in our successful effort to evacuate every American who wished to leave as well as nationals of 58 other countries. During the spring of 1990, the ECOWAS--concerned about the danger to thousands of their nationals living in Liberia; the hundreds of thousands of Liberian refugees who had taken refuge in Cote d' Ivoire, Guinea, and Sierra Leone; and the overall threat to regional stability caused by the conflict--decided to offer its mediation services to the parties to the conflict. The ECOWAS mediation commission proposed that Liberia be governed, after a cease-fire, by an interim government whose leaders would not be eligible to run for office. The role of the interim government would be to restore peace and social services and prepare for a free and fair democratic election. The US Government issued a public endorsement of the objectives of the ECOWAS mediators. Under ECOWAS auspices, certain Liberian political parties held a conference in Banjul [The Gambia] which elected the leaders of an interim government, headed by Amos Sawyer as the president. That process was flawed by the absence of the NPFL from the conference. Despite its absence, the interim government offered Charles Taylor the post of speaker of the national assembly, and offered the NPFL six seats in the national assembly--more than any other political organization. They also assured Mr. Taylor that he could run for office in a democratic election, even though he held the post of speaker in the interim government. Charles Taylor refused to accept the offer. In the absence of a Liberian political consensus, the war continued, mainly in prolonged siege of central Monrovia by the NPFL and the break-away INPFL. Despite many weeks of combat, it was clear that Samuel Doe's dwindling band of troops could not be defeated in central Monrovia. The continued stalemate guaranteed that the city of Monrovia would slowly starve to death. Worried about their nationals and the growing tragedy, the members of the ECOWAS mediation commission decided to send troops to Monrovia. The military group dispatched to Monrovia was called ECOMOG, which stands for monitoring group of ECOWAS. The military force hoped to be received peacefully but was vigorously opposed by Charles Taylor's NPFL. A number of ECOWAS governments that did not participate in the decision to send troops to Liberia objected to the action as being contrary to the rules of the organization, which is an economic grouping. In view of the split within ECOWAS on the issue of military intervention, the United States maintained its neutrality while continuing to support the stated goals of ECOWAS--cease-fire, interim government, and democratic elections. Throughout the period December 1989 to August 1990, the United States has been actively engaged in humanitarian relief. Wherever and whenever possible, we have assisted those inside Liberia and the Liberian refugees in other countries. Whatever one may feel about the armed intervention of ECOMOG forces, we can state that their ability to open up the port of Monrovia and their pacification of much of the city allowed us to arrest the starvation of that city. By September 1990, it was clear that the ECOWAS effort was not making progress in building a political consensus for Liberian national reconciliation. For that reason, I made a tour of the region, where I discussed the problem with a number of chiefs of state. I found general agreement that Liberians should solve their own problem through negotiations without any preconditions. My trip was followed by a tour undertaken by Liberian task force director Don Petterson, former ambassador to Somalia and Tanzania. He urged all of Liberia's neighbors to foster national reconciliation among Liberians. We both informed the president of Burkina Faso that we disapproved of his sending arms to the NPFL in transit from Libya, and that any continuation of that activity could only result in a deterioration of our bilateral relations. We also informed all of the governments that Charles Taylor must play a leading role in any solution, and that no political process can succeed unless Charles Taylor cooperates. My feeling is that since our two visits there has been a greater determination to seek a regional consensus about Liberia. The upcoming regional summit scheduled to be held in Bamako will demonstrate whether that cautious optimism is correct.
A Regional Framework for Peace
Creating a regional framework for peace is one of the primary necessities for a successful end to the mediation committee's mandate. To that end, Charles Taylor has been invited by Malian President Moussa Traore to meet with him in Bamako; Mr. Taylor has also indicated his intention to meet with the ECOWAS mediation committee during the course of his visit to Bamako. Just a few days ago, Mr. Taylor told us he may also agree to stay in Bamako during the ECOWAS summit. In addition to such a meeting, Mr. Taylor's stay in Bamako could provide an opportunity for discussions with interim government president Amos Sawyer. These developments are hopeful portents of peace, but, for the moment, they represent only intentions. The United States will continue to support the ECOWAS stated goals and does so in the belief that ECOWAS mediation in the peace process supports our goals of regional solutions to regional problems. During our conversations, Charles Taylor indicated to me great concern with the problems of interim governance and with ECOMOG neutrality. I discussed with him ways that these issues could be dealt with within a negotiating structure. While I am encouraged by Mr. Taylor's stated willingness to show flexibility, this remains declaratory policy unaccompanied, for the moment, by diplomatic action or demonstrable desire to achieve an enforceable, lasting cease-fire. With respect to the role of ECOMOG, the stated primary purpose of the military force has been to stop the fighting and achieve a cease-fire. I hope that all sides show flexibility and negotiated solution to the war. Failing that, it is difficult to see how Liberian lives can be saved. The costs of the war are measured in lost lives, refugees, and displaced persons. We believe that more than 600,000 Liberians are living outside their country today, many of them in makeshift camps in Guinea, Sierra Leone, Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, and Nigeria. Their fate is part of what drives American policy in the Liberian conflict. For the time being, these people's needs are being met by massive assistance programs but they need more than that. They need peace in Liberia.(###)