US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 13, November 26, 1990
Title: 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]
Emergencies
: 202-647-0900 (24 hours)
Questions
or comments about the administration's
gulf policy: 202-647-6575 or 6576 Monday-Friday, 8:30 am-5:00
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.
Destruction
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.
Verification
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]
Background
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]
Background
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
Arrests--
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.
Question:
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?
Answer:
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.
Question:
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?
Answer
: 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.
Question:
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?
Answer
: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.
Question:
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?
Answer
: 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.
Question:
: 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?
Answer
: 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.
Question:
: 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.
Answer
: 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.
Question:
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?
Answer
:: 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.
Question:
: 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?
Answer
: 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.
Question:
: 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?
Answer
: 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.
Question:
: You say that this policy is self-
executing. Does that mean that the US Government alone will decide
when to use the military option?
Answer
: 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.
Question:
: But not just the United States
unilaterally?
Answer
: 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.
Question:
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?
Answer
: 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.
Question:
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?
Answer
: 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.
Question:
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?
\
Answer
: 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.
Question:
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?
Answer
: 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.
Question:
: 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?
Answer
: 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.
Question:
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?
Answer
: 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.
Question:
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?
Answer
: 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.
Question:
Is the President going to call a
special session? There's been talk about it.
Answer
: 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.
Solutions
-- 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."
Sanctions
-- 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.
Hostages
-- 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.(###)