US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 15, December 10, 1990
Title: America's Strategy in the Persian Gulf Crisis
Baker
Source: Secretary Baker
Description: Statement before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, Washington, DC
Date: Dec 5, 199012/5/90
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait
Subject: Military Affairs
[TEXT]
Today, I come before you for the third time since August 2 to
discuss Iraq's continuing occupation of Kuwait. I have come here to
consult with you because a very dangerous dictator--armed to the
teeth--is threatening a critical region at what is really a defining
moment in history. He must be stopped--peacefully if possible but
by force if necessary.
I would like to focus my prepared remarks on three aspects of
the situation:
One, on explaining the President's strategy;
Two, on detailing the reasons that preparations for the
possible use of force--and, indeed, a willingness to use force, if
necessary--remain, in our view, essential to achieving a peaceful
resolution of this crisis; and
Three, on presenting the compelling interests that we have in
seeing Saddam Hussein's brutal aggression reversed.
Strategy
From the outset, the international community has rallied behind
four objectives:
First, the immediate, complete, and unconditional Iraqi
withdrawal from Kuwait;
Second, the restoration of Kuwait's legitimate government;
Third, the release of all hostages; and
Fourth, a commitment to the security and stability of the gulf.
The President has stated repeatedly that we want to achieve
these objectives peacefully. He has also made clear that we seek to
achieve them at the least cost to ourselves and at the least cost to
the other members of the international coalition.
From the outset, our strategy to achieve these objectives has
been to make Saddam Hussein pay such a high price for his
aggression that he would quit Kuwait. We have aimed to impose
costs on him for his aggression by taking increasingly harsh steps
on a continuum of pressure and pain--politically, economically, and
militarily. On this continuum, economic sanctions and military
preparations are not alternatives but are really reinforcing and
escalating steps of the same strategy.
Notwithstanding our desire for peace, from the outset we have
proceeded with the full realization that if these objectives cannot
be achieved peacefully, then we really must be prepared to use
force, given the vital interests that we have at stake.
Thus, starting on August 2, an international coalition led by
the United States began to impose costs on Iraq for its aggression.
The day of the invasion, the Security Council of the United
Nations passed Resolution 660, calling for an immediate Iraqi
withdrawal from Kuwait. When this effort and the diplomatic
efforts of the Arab League were summarily rejected by Hussein, on
August 6 the Security Council imposed mandatory economic
sanctions to increase the pressure on Iraq and to make it pay
greater costs for its aggression. The hope was that by isolating
Iraq politically and economically, Saddam Hussein would withdraw.
While these diplomatic and economic steps were being taken,
military forces were deployed in the region to deter further
aggression and to support the Security Council resolutions. As of
now, 27 nations have joined in this truly unprecedented
multinational force.
To date, the international coalition has had considerable
success in isolating Iraq and in making it pay high costs for its
occupation of Kuwait. We regret the pain that this causes the
innocent citizens of Iraq, a people with whom we have no quarrel.
But the question before us now is whether the costs we
impose on Saddam Hussein through sanctions alone will be high
enough to cause him to withdraw peacefully from Kuwait.
We have to face the fact that, 4 months into this conflict,
none of our efforts have yet produced any sign of change in Saddam
Hussein. He shows no signs of complying with any of the Security
Council resolutions.
Instead, he appears to be doubling his bets. He has tried to
make Kuwait part of Iraq, systematically looting and dismembering
a sovereign Arab state. He has been terrorizing the population, his
soldiers committing unspeakable crimes against innocent Kuwaitis.
He has called for the overthrow of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia and
President Mubarak of Egypt. He has threatened to rain terror and
mass destruction on his Arab neighbors as well as on Israel. He has
been playing the cruelest of games with hostages and their families
and with our diplomats in Kuwait.
Preparing for War To Achieve Peace
After serious and sobering consultations, the UN Security Council
last Thursday [November 29] passed by an overwhelming majority a
12th resolution--one that authorizes all necessary means, including
the use of force, to eject Iraq from Kuwait after January 15, 1991.
In passing this resolution, the international community is giving
Saddam yet another chance--indeed, one last chance--to come to
his senses.
In passing Thursday's resolution, the international community
sends the following clear message: "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."
To ensure that he understands this choice, the President has
invited the Foreign Minister [Tariq Aziz] of Iraq to Washington and
has directed me to go to Baghdad.
Put bluntly, this is the last best chance for a peaceful
solution. If we are to have any chance of success, I must go to
Baghdad with the fullest support of the Congress and the American
people behind the message of the international community.
Let me be clear: This meeting will not be the beginning of a
negotiation over the terms of the UN resolutions. Those terms are
clear: a complete, immediate, and unconditional withdrawal from
Kuwait; the restoration of the legitimate Kuwaiti government; and
the release of all foreign nationals.
Nor is this the beginning of a negotiation on subjects which
are unrelated to Iraq's brutal occupation of Kuwait. I will not be
negotiating the Palestinian question or the civil war in Lebanon.
Saddam Hussein did not invade Kuwait to help the Palestinians. He
did it for his own self-aggrandizement. As [Soviet Foreign Minister]
Eduard Shevardnadze has said, you do not enslave one people to free
another.
Put simply, my mission to Baghdad will be an attempt to
explain to Saddam the choice he faces: comply with the objectives
of the Security Council or risk disaster for Iraq.
To give substance to these words, the President has directed
the Secretary of Defense [Richard Cheney], the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs [Gen. Colin Powell], and me to work with the other members
of the international coalition to reinforce the multinational force in
the gulf and to coordinate its efforts. Our aim is to ensure that if
force must be used, it will be used suddenly, massively, and
decisively.
Do the troop reinforcements and the Security Council
resolution mean that war is inevitable? Surely not. There is a
peaceful solution possible--one that does not reward aggression--
and everyone, including Saddam Hussein, knows what that is. He can
choose peace by withdrawing unconditionally from Kuwait and by
releasing all hostages.
He will not make that peaceful choice, however, in our
opinion, unless he understands that the alternative to peaceful
compliance is that he will be forced to comply. That is the
message that we are trying in every way we know how to send him.
That is the meaning of the steps the international community has
taken over the past month. It is not a new strategy but rather a
continuation and reinforcement of the strategy that we have been
pursuing since August.
Now, I know that some here and throughout the country are
uneasy about the prospects of war. No one wants war: none of us--
not you; not the President; not me; none of us. None of us, though,
have sought this conflict, and we are making every attempt possible
to resolve it peacefully--to resolve it peacefully without appeasing
the aggressor.
I know the arguments of those who believe that time and the
economic embargo alone will work to resolve this conflict
peacefully. But, I think, we have to face some very hard facts.
If sanctions are to succeed, they've got to do more than simply
hurt Iraq economically. They must hurt Iraq so much that Saddam
Hussein changes his behavior and withdraws from Kuwait. That is
the criteria of success by which sanctions must be judged.
In considering the role of sanctions in our strategy, we need
to ask ourselves:
-- Can economic sanctions alone compel a dictator like
Saddam Hussein to make the politically difficult choice of
withdrawing from Kuwait?
-- Absent a credible military threat, will he take the
Security Council's actions seriously?
-- Is there anything in Saddam Hussein's history that could
lead us to believe that sanctions alone would get him out of
Kuwait?
If I might, let me try to answer these questions, based on the
results so far. After 4 months of a stringent embargo, no one
doubts that sanctions are having some effect on the Iraqi economy.
But we have to face the difficult fact, I think, that no one can tell
you that sanctions alone will ever be able to impose a high enough
cost on Saddam Hussein to get him to withdraw. So far, all
available evidence suggests that they have had little if any effect
on his inclination to withdraw.
That's in part because Saddam, to a considerable extent, can
decide who in Iraq gets hurt by the sanctions. And you can bet the
Iraqi people will feel the pain first and most deeply--not the Iraqi
military or Saddam himself, and not the government of Iraq itself.
Saddam has a long history of imposing great pain and suffering on
the Iraqi people. It is not new for him to impose economic
sacrifices on the Iraqi people in pursuit of his ambitions.
So, we need to remember who it is we are trying to get out of
Kuwait. He is a ruthless dictator. He has an inflated sense of Iraq's
leverage and a very high pain threshold. He undoubtedly believes he
can endure economic sanctions. However, surely he understands
more acutely the consequences of military force.
Waiting not only gives him time to break the sanctions, but
waiting imposes costs on us. As we wait, Saddam will continue
torturing Kuwait, and continue killing it as a nation. As we wait, he
will continue manipulating hostages, attempting to break the
coalition. As we wait, he will continue to fortify Kuwait, he will
continue to build chemical and biological weapons, and he will
continue to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. As we wait, he
expects other issues to deflect our attention, to weaken our
resolve, and to dissolve the international coalition. And as we
wait, his crime weighs heavier on the world.
That is why we must make credible our preparations to use
force.
The international community has clearly agreed that force
will not be used before January 15 of next year, provided, of course,
there is no provocation in the intervening time frame. Thus, we
need to remind ourselves that, for now, no one is making a decision
about going to war. Indeed, in asking me to go to Baghdad, the
President has made it clear that he will use the next 6 weeks to
exhaust all diplomatic opportunities.
But to support these diplomatic efforts, the President has
also made it clear that we need continued support for our military
preparations to make credible an offensive option to liberate
Kuwait. While not prejudging any decision whether force should be
used sometime after January 15, I can state unequivocally that
failure to continue preparations now has at least three dangerous
consequences.
First, it would undercut our diplomatic leverage by removing
the other alternative to a peaceful withdrawal, which is use of
force. It would send Iraq exactly the wrong message--that is,
"Continue to play for time. You will have lots of it because the
Security Council resolution is just a bluff. The international
coalition is not even preparing the option to use force, let alone
take that option." That is a message that we should not and must
not send.
We must show Saddam Hussein that time is not on his side.
He needs to know that even if he believes he can withstand the
sanctions, and he may well be right in this belief, we can and will
impose even greater costs on him through the use of force if that is
necessary.
Second, the failure to prepare a credible offensive military
option would only tend to reaffirm the status quo and to legitimize
to some the brutal occupation that he is now carrying out against
Kuwait and its people.
Third, the failure to prepare adequately now would mean that
should conflict come, we would be irresponsibly risking greater
casualties --putting the lives of those young Americans already on
the front lines in the Persian Gulf at greater risk than they need to
be. The President will not stand for that. And neither will, I
submit, the American people.
What's at Stake
We do not proceed along this path unaware of the dangers and the
risks that are involved. But let there be no doubt, that succeeding
in this endeavor--hopefully in peace, if necessary by force--is in
the vital interest of the American people.
It is often said that there has been no clear answer given to
the question of why we are in the gulf. Much of this, I think,
results from the search for a single cause for our involvement, a
single reason the President could use to explain why the lives of
American men and women should be put in harm's way in the sands
of Arabia, on the seas around it, or in the air above it.
Let us stop this search. Let us be honest with ourselves and
with each other. There are multiple causes; there are multiple
dangers; there are multiple threats. Standing alone, each is
compelling. But you put them all together, and the case is
overwhelming.
Put very bluntly: A very dangerous dictator--armed to the
teeth--is threatening a critical region at a defining moment in
history.
It is the combination of these reasons--that is, who is
threatening our interests, what capabilities he has and is
developing, where he is carrying out his aggression, and when he has
chosen to act--that make the stakes so very high for all of us. Let
me explain.
-- Strategically, this man is a capricious dictator whose lust
for power is as unlimited as his brutality in the pursuit of it. He
has invaded two neighbors; he is harboring terrorists and now is
systematically exterminating Kuwait. He uses poison gas--even
against his own people; he develops deadly toxins; and he seeks
relentlessly to acquire nuclear bombs. He has built the world's
sixth largest army, has the world's fifth largest tank army, and has
deployed ballistic missiles.
-- Geographically, Saddam's aggression has occurred in a
political tinderbox that is a crossroads to three continents. His
success would only guarantee more strife, more conflict, and
eventually a wider war. There would be little hope for any effort at
peace-making in the Middle East.
-- Economically, his aggression imperils the world's oil
lifelines, threatening recession and depression, here and abroad,
hitting hardest those fledgling democracies that are least able to
cope with it. His aggression is an attempt to mortgage the
economic promise of the post-Cold War world to the whims of a
single man.
-- Morally, we must act so that international laws, not
international outlaws, govern the post-Cold War world. We must
act so that right, not might, dictates success in the post-Cold War
world. We must act so that innocent men and women and diplomats
are protected, not held hostage, in the post-Cold War world.
-- Historically, we must stand with the people of Kuwait so
that the annexation of Kuwait does not become the first reality that
mars our vision of a new world order. We must stand with the
world community so that the United Nations does not go the same
way as the League of Nations.
-- Politically, we must stand for American leadership, not
because we seek it but simply because no one else can do the job.
And we did not stand united for 40 years to bring the Cold War to a
peaceful end in order to make the world safe for the likes of
Saddam Hussein.
So, these then are the stakes. If he is not stopped now, if his
aggressive designs are not frustrated--peacefully or if necessary
by force--we will all pay a much higher price later on.
As the Security Council did last Thursday, this Congress and
the American people must tell Saddam Hussein in unmistakable
actions and words: "Get out of Kuwait now or risk all."
Now--more than at any time during this conflict--it is
important that we stand united with the world community in full
support of the UN Security Council resolutions.
Simply put, it is a choice between what's right and what's
wrong--between what's right and what's wrong.
I think we have the courage and fortitude to do what's right.
(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 15, December 10, 1990
Title: State Department Gulf Crisis Information
Date: Dec 10, 199012/10/90
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 Persian Gulf
policy: 202-647-6575 or 6576, Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5 pm
(Eastern Standard Time)(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 15, December 10, 1990
Title: America's Objectives in the Persian Gulf
Quayle
Source: Vice President Quayle
Description: Address at Seton Hall University, South Orange, New
Jersey
Date: Nov 29, 199011/29/90
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait
Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization
[TEXT]
(introductory remarks deleted)
As all of you know, our country, along with the rest of the
international community, currently faces a grave crisis in the
Persian Gulf. This crisis carries with it the risk of war. Some in
this country have questioned whether the United States has any
interest in the gulf that is worth fighting for. Today, I would like
to step back a bit from the current debate. I'd like to speak to the
larger perspectives of the subject that is too often presented in
10-second soundbites on television. Why is the region so
important? What have the strategic goals of US Middle East policy
been over the last 40 years? And how do these goals apply in the
current crisis?
The Middle East, as everyone knows, is the source of much of
the oil on which the industrialized world and developing nations
depend. It is a region of striking contrasts: vast wealth and
grinding poverty; secular radicalism and religious fundamentalism;
hatred of the West and emulation of the West. Most importantly,
perhaps, the Middle East is caught up in a vast process of change as
ancient societies and cultures strive to adapt to the modern world.
This process of adaptation, which entails much turmoil and
instability, is what makes the Middle East such an interesting place.
Unfortunately, it also makes the Middle East a dangerous place.
US Objectives in the Region
Since the onset of the Cold War, the United States has had three
strategic objectives in the region. The first objective was to
contain Soviet expansionism. In 1947, the Soviet threat to one
regional state, Turkey, played a role in President Truman's decision
to issue the doctrine that bears his name. Thirty-three years later,
the threat of Soviet encroachment on another region of the Middle
East--the Persian Gulf--led President Carter to proclaim the
equivalent of the Truman Doctrine for the gulf. The Carter Doctrine,
which also was reinforced by President Reagan, warned that, "Any
attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf
region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the
United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by
any means necessary, including military force."
But the Cold War is over. And because it is over--because one
of America's strategic objectives has been realized--some
commentators have assumed that all of our objectives have been
realized. They could not be more mistaken. For in addition to
containing the Soviets, American foreign policy has traditionally
pursued two other strategic objectives in the Middle East. It has
sought to prevent any local Middle East power from achieving
hegemony over its neighbors, and it has sought to secure the
uninterrupted supply of oil at a reasonable price. Let me describe
both of these objectives in greater detail.
Today, all the states of the Middle East face a major threat in
Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Saddam's ambitions are not confined to
Kuwait. Rather, his goal is to dominate the Persian Gulf region and
use its vast wealth to become the greatest Arab hero of modern
times, the leader of a new Arab superpower. To that end, he spent
some $50 billion on arms imports during the 1980s alone. He has
launched two wars of aggression during this period, against Iran and
against Kuwait, at a cost of some 1 million lives--thus far. He has
built the sixth largest military force in the world. He has acquired
a sizable stockpile of both chemical and biological weapons and is
estimated to have employed several thousand tons of chemical
agents against Iranians and against his own people--Iraqi Kurds--in
the 1980s. And he has launched a massive program to acquire
nuclear weapons.
The United States opposes Saddam Hussein's bid for regional
hegemony for the same reasons that we have opposed other bids. We
do not think any government has the right to impose its political
will on other countries through subversion or conquest. We do not
think Israel's existence, or the existence of other friendly regional
states, should be threatened. And, of course, the prospect of
Saddam Hussein strutting across the world stage at the head of a
malevolent global power, armed to the teeth with weapons of mass
destruction, and controlling a large portion of the world's energy
supplies, is something no sane person would welcome. That is why
we are working to contain Saddam Hussein's bid for hegemony
today--just as we worked to contain other bids for hegemony
yesterday.
Of course, no discussion of America's strategic objectives in
the region is complete without mention of oil, so let me turn to that
issue now. A key strategic goal of US Middle East policy has been to
assure the uninterrupted flow of oil at reasonable prices. This
does not mean, as some cynics have suggested, that we are risking
war to prevent the price of oil from going up a few cents a gallon.
During the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74 and during the 1979 oil
price shock that came in the wake of the Iranian revolution, the
price of oil went up much more than that. But we never thought of
going to war because the price of oil was too high. We were
confident that market forces would eventually bring the price of oil
down--and we were right.
We did prepare for all contingencies, however, when the
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, coupled with instability in Iran,
brought Soviet forces within striking distance of the Persian Gulf--
hence the Carter Doctrine. For if "any outside force," as the Carter
Doctrine put it, could control the flow of Persian Gulf oil, it would,
as President Bush said, place our independence and way of life at
risk. No nation should be willing to tolerate such a state of affairs,
just as no individual should be willing to allow anyone to hold a gun
to his or her head.
That is why President Carter was willing to commit the
United States to preventing a single power--the Soviet Union--from
controlling the gulf. And that is why President Bush has dispatched
American troops to Saudi Arabia to prevent another power--Iraq,
this time--from doing likewise. Neither President was prepared to
jeopardize American security by permitting, in President Bush's
words, "a resource so vital to be dominated by one so ruthless"--
either Leonid Brezhnev of Moscow or Saddam Hussein of Baghdad.
So far, I have talked about traditional US strategic objectives
in the Middle East. But there is another strategic American
objective in the current crisis that is not traditional--that has only
emerged, in fact, as a result of the end of the Cold War. This
objective might be described as strengthening the foundations of
world order. Let me explain what I mean.
When the Cold War was still raging, any regional crisis in the
Third World contained within it the seeds of a possible Soviet-
American confrontation. That is why, in the Middle East and
elsewhere, both the United States and the Soviet Union often made
significant efforts to restrain their clients from rash behavior.
These efforts were part of the unwritten "rules of the game" that
prevented Soviet-American competition from getting out of hand
during the Cold War.
With the end of the Cold War, the chances of a Soviet-
American clash in any Third World conflict, including the Middle
East, have greatly diminished. Unfortunately, so have the
traditional restraints that the superpowers used to impose on their
regional clients. As a result, unless the UN Charter's rules about
using force are not reaffirmed and defended fairly quickly, we face
the dangerous prospect of a new, post-Cold War world that is
actually more anarchic, and more violence prone, than the world
which preceded it.
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait is the first crisis of the post-Cold
War world. One way or another, it is bound to set a precedent--
either on behalf of greater world order or on behalf of greater
chaos. If Saddam Hussein succeeds in his aggression, it is likely
that his success will embolden other dictators to emulate his
example. But if he fails--and believe me, he will fail--others will
draw the lesson that might does not make right and that aggression
will not be allowed to succeed.
This is why President Bush has sought to rally the
international community against Iraq's aggression. This is why the
UN Security Council has passed 11 resolutions condemning Iraq, and
is considering yet another resolution today. This is why scores of
nations have agreed to contribute economically or militarily to the
joint effort against Saddam Hussein. And this is why 27 nations
have sent troops or military materiel to the Persian Gulf. Everyone
recognizes that this is a test case. Everyone can see that, beyond
America's traditional objectives in the region, what is at stake is
nothing less than the shape of tomorrow.
None of these considerations, of course, frees us from the
responsibility to proceed carefully. The moral and human
implications of war--any war--are very grave. No reasonable
effort should be spared in the quest for a peaceful solution. That is
why, despite the use of American hostages as human shields,
despite the outrages against our embassy, despite Iraq's continued
barbarism in Kuwait, we have refrained from military action
against Saddam Hussein.
But even as we exercise patience and restraint, we also must
be alert to the moral costs of such a course. Consider, for example,
the fate of the people of Kuwait. With every day that passes, their
plight grows more desperate. Being patient with Iraq allows
Saddam Hussein to prolong their agony. Is this a moral course of
action?
Or consider the fate of American military personnel in Saudi
Arabia. The longer we refrain from action against Iraq, the more
time Saddam Hussein has to tighten his grip on Kuwait, and the
harder it may be to break that grip, if and when war comes. Does
patience today risk greater American casualties tomorrow? And if
so, is this a moral course of action?
Or consider Iraq's drive for nuclear weapons. As President
Bush told American troops in Saudi Arabia during Thanksgiving,
"Each day that passes brings Saddam one day closer to realizing his
goal of a nuclear weapons arsenal. . . . And we do know this for
sure: He has never possessed a weapon that he didn't use." Will
continued patience with Iraq help make the world vulnerable to
nuclear blackmail by Saddam Hussein? And if so, is this a moral
course of action?
Please don't misunderstand me. I believe that every
reasonable effort must be made to resolve this crisis peacefully. I
also think that there must be limits to our patience. And those
limits are reached when our restraint threatens to undermine other,
equally moral goals. These goals, as I said, include ending Kuwait's
agony as soon as possible; minimizing American casualties in the
event of war; and preventing Saddam Hussein from adding nuclear
weapons to his already formidable arsenal of mass destruction. It
is in order to prevent Saddam Hussein from thwarting these goals
that the UN Security Council is expected to adopt a resolution today
endorsing the use of force against Iraq if Saddam does not withdraw
his forces from Kuwait.
The challenge the civilized world faces today is very grave.
But it is not unprecedented. In 1936, the world faced a rather
similar challenge when Adolf Hitler, who had only recently come to
power, moved German troops into the Rhineland, in open defiance of
the treaties of Versailles and Locarno. British and French leaders
faced a major dilemma. To confront Hitler militarily could mean
war. Not to confront him meant acquiescing in a cynical breach of
international law. What to do?
But while British and French leaders vacillated between their
hopes and their fears, one voice rang out loud and clear. On March
13, 1936, Winston Churchill called on the League of Nations to take
tough action against German aggression. His words deserve to be
quoted at some length:
"If no means of lawful redress can be offered to the aggrieved
party," Churchill wrote, "the whole doctrine of international law
and cooperation upon which the hopes of the future are based would
lapse ignominiously. . . .
But the risk! No one must ignore it. How can it be minimized?
There is a simple method: the assembly of an overwhelming force,
moral and physical, in support of international law . . . If the forces
at the disposal of the League of Nations are four or five times as
strong as those that the aggressor can yet command, the chances of
a peaceful and friendly solution are very good. . . .
The constabulary of the world is at hand. On every side of
Geneva stand great nations, armed and ready, whose interests as
well as whose obligations bind them to uphold, and in the last
resort enforce, the public law. This may never come to pass again.
The fateful moment has arrived for choice between the New Age and
the Old."
Tragically, most leaders did not see the stakes as clearly as
Churchill did. They did not force the issue to a head in the League of
Nations. Instead, they acquiesced in Hitler's aggression. When,
many years later, Churchill called World War II the "unnecessary
war," it was the failure of British and French statesmanship during
the Rhineland crisis that he had in mind.
Today, the UN Security Council stands poised at a historic
juncture not unlike that faced by the League of Nations in 1936. We
are hopeful--indeed, we are confident--that it will not fail the
test. Some will thoughtlessly say that a vote for today's UN
resolution is a vote for war. We reject this idea. Saddam has
shown that he understands no language other than the language of
force. Today's UN resolution is our last and best hope for peace--
for a genuine peace, not the false peace that is only a prelude to
another "unnecessary war."(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 15, December 10, 1990
Title: Gulf Crisis Update
Date: Dec 10, 199012/10/90
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait
Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization
[TEXT]
The following is an overview of US objectives in the Persian Gulf
crisis based on statements by President Bush and Secretary Baker
and actions of the UN Security Council. It will be updated
periodically.
US Objectives
US objectives in the Persian Gulf call for the:
-- Immediate implementation of all relevant UN Security
Council resolutions;
-- Immediate, complete, and unconditional withdrawal of all
Iraqi forces from Kuwait;
-- Restoration of Kuwait's legitimate government;
-- Security and stability of Saudi Arabia and the Persian
Gulf;
-- Protection of American citizens held hostage by Iraq,
both in Iraq and Kuwait.
The Stakes
-- Saddam is a very dangerous dictator--armed to the teeth--who
is threatening a critical region at a defining moment in history.
Saddam has invaded two neighbors, harbors terrorists, and now is
systematically exterminating Kuwait. Saddam uses poisonous gas,
brandishes deadly toxins, and tries relentlessly to acquire nuclear
bombs. He has built the world's sixth largest army, has acquired the
fourth largest tank army, and has deployed ballistic missiles.
-- Iraq's aggression against Kuwait 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 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 to
economic growth. As Secretary Baker stated, "If [Saddam] is not
stopped now, if his aggressive designs are not frustrated,
peacefully if possible or, if necessary, by force, we will all pay a
higher price later."
-- We must stand with the people of Kuwait so that the
annexation of Kuwait does not become the first reality that mars
our vision of a new world order.
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 the above
resolutions, while giving Iraq "one final opportunity, as a pause of
good will" to abide by the resolutions by January 15, 1990. This
"pause for peace" gives the international community "a better
opportunity" to find a peaceful solution to the crisis. The UN
Security Council resolution authorizes the use of all necessary
means but certainly does not require it. It should be crystal clear
to Iraq that force is not going to be ruled out as an option. It is a
real, live, credible option.
-- President Bush and Secretary Baker have devoted great
personal efforts to find a diplomatic, political, and peaceful
solution to this problem. The United States does not intend to leave
any stones unturned in our search for a solution.
-- The President has invited Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq
Aziz to meet with him. The President also suggested that Secretary
Baker meet with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. Both 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
-- After 4 months of a stringent embargo, sanctions are having
some effect on the Iraqi economy, but no one can say that sanctions
alone can impose a high enough cost on Saddam Hussein to get him
to withdraw.
-- Adverse economic impact on Iraq is not the way to
measure success. Success is Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait.
-- Saddam believes that he can endure economic sanctions. In
part, that is because he can, to a considerable extent, decide who in
Iraq gets hurt by them. He continues to impose economic sacrifices
on the Iraqi people to support his army and ambitions.
-- Waiting for sanctions to work effectively gives Saddam
time to break them but also imposes enormous costs. He will
continue to grind up Kuwait, to fortify it, to build chemical and
biological weapons, to acquire nuclear capability, and to generate
other issues aimed at dissolving the coalition arrayed against him.
-- That is why the US must make credible military
preparations aimed at achieving peace. Our diplomatic efforts will
continue, but full support for our military preparations will make
credible our offensive option to liberate Kuwait.
-- Failure to continue military preparations would have at
least three dangerous consequences.
1) It would undercut our diplomatic leverage by removing the
new option to use force.
2) It would tend to reaffirm the status quo and to legitimize
to some extent Iraq's brutal occupation of Kuwait.
3) Finally, it would mean risking greater casualties, should
conflict occur.
International Response
-- The international coalition has had considerable success in
isolating Iraq and making it pay high costs for its occupation and
rape of Kuwait. Twenty-seven nations have joined in a truly
unprecedented multinational force, deploying a substantial number
of troops in the region to deter further aggression and to support UN
Security Council resolutions.
-- For calendar year 1990, the Saudis and the smaller gulf
states have pledged more than $6 billion so far toward our direct
defense costs. They also have pledged $6 billion in aid to front-line
states and $2.5 billion to other affected nations to resettle
refugees, subsidize higher oil bills, and defray other costs.
-- In 1991, additional responsibility-sharing will be
required. All of our coalition partners recognize this fact.
Hostages
-- The US Government acknowledged that Saddam's offer to release
all hostages is a welcome and significant development. Such a
release does not lessen, nor should it lessen, US determination that
Iraq's aggression against Kuwait must be reversed by full
implementation of all of the UN Security Council resolutions. It is a
sign that our strategy of diplomatic and military pressure is
working.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 15, December 10, 1990
Title: The Us and Brazil: Fulfilling a Common Destiny
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: Remarks to a joint session of the Brazilian Congress,
Brasilia, Brazil
Date: Dec 3, 199012/3/90
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: South America
Country: Brazil
Subject: Trade/Economics
[TEXT]
It is a privilege; it is an honor to join you in this great hall of
democracy. My thoughts today could have no better forum than this
National Congress--my words--no better audience than the people
of Brazil. We meet at an extraordinary moment in our shared
history. A time of serious challenges and important choices that
calls for mutual respect, candor, and collective will. I've met with
many Latin [American] and Caribbean leaders, and beyond any single
issue that we've discussed, all of us have been galvanized by a new
era of hope and opportunity throughout the Americas--especially
here in Brazil.
By pioneering bold new economic reforms and consolidating
its democracy, Brazil today is poised to enter the 21st century as a
leader among nations. That is a tribute to a leader whose friendship
and vision I value and respect--a man who represents a new
generation of democratic leadership now sweeping across Latin
America--your dynamic new president, Fernando Collor de Mello.
President Collor has spoken eloquently of Brazil's rightful
place at the table of the First World, and I agree. I believe it is
time, in fact, to end the false distinctions between the First World
and Third World that have for too long limited political and economic
relations in the Americas. Let us instead speak of the New World.
This hemisphere has always found strength in diversity. After
all, here I stand, addressing Portuguese speakers in English, because
of an Italian sailing on behalf of Spain five centuries ago. What we
hold in common transcends borders and translates into any language.
The nations of the Americas all struggled and gained independence
from the old ways of the Old World--ended the injustice of slavery
and colonialism--and built republics of promise and renewal around
the dignity and the power of the individual and the rule of law.
Charting a Course for Freedom
Now, as we approach the 500th anniversary of Columbus' discovery
of Americas and the arrival of [Pedro] Cabral's Portuguese fleet in
Brazil, this is our moment to chart the course for the New World--a
course of freedom, a course of democracy, a course of prosperity.
We've all witnessed in wonder the dawn of democracy in Eastern
Europe. But in the Americas, we, too, have seen extraordinary
political and economic change that is transforming the face of this
hemisphere; nowhere more so than right here; no more so than in the
great nation of Brazil. The changes you are carrying out in your
economy--reducing the size of the state, privatizing enterprises,
combating inflation and liberalizing trade--are the keys to growth
and prosperity in the global economy of the 21st century, whose
outlines we already see today. I am here to tell you that you are
not only on the right path, but the United States wants you to
succeed and supports your efforts every step of the way. I believe
that we've just begun to press forward, toward the real promise of
the Americas.
Territories may end at borders, but mankind's capacity for
progress knows no bounds. Continents may end at the water's edge,
but human potential knows only those limits set by human
imagination. The Americas' role in the world is not defined by
geography. It is defined by its people and its ideals. I truly believe
that we are approaching a new dawn in the New World.
Our thinking must be bold; our will, resolute. Our challenge
now is to hew out of a wilderness of competing interests a new
kind of opportunity in the Americas. To fulfill the New World's
destiny, all of the Americas and the Caribbean must embark on a
venture for the coming century: to create the first fully democratic
hemisphere in the history of mankind. The first hemisphere devoted
to the democratic ideal--to unleash the power of free people, free
elections, and free markets.
Four Principles of Freedom
Two weeks ago in Czechoslovakia, I spoke to a people that had paid
dearly for its freedom. I talked about a new commonwealth of
freedom, based on four key principles. This hemisphere already
shares these convictions:
-- An unshakable belief in the dignity and rights of man;
-- The conviction that just government derives its power
from the people;
-- The belief that men and women everywhere must be free to
enjoy the fruits of their labor; and, four,
-- That the rule of law must govern the conduct of nations.
Every nation that joins this commonwealth of freedom
advances us one step closer to a new world order. We must persist
until this victory for freedom and democracy is won completely.
Growing Economic Opportunity
It is also within our power to make this hemisphere the largest
free-trading partnership of sovereign nations in the world. From
the northern-most reaches of Canada to the tip of Cape Horn, we
see a future where growing opportunity, the power of technology,
and the benefits of prosperity are developed and shared by all.
Change will not come easily. Economies, now dependent on
protection and state regulation, must open to competition. The
transition, for a time, will be painful. Many in the Americas will
have to make serious adjustments to compete with Southeast Asia
and to take advantage of the European market after 1992. But we
are confident that solutions will be found--by Brazilians, by
Chileans, by Venezuelans--by all of the Americas.
And the results, growing economies and sound currencies, will
bring unprecedented prosperity and growth for all our citizens to
share. That was the vision of the Enterprise for the Americas
Initiative that we announced last June. And, Deputy Fiuza, I
listened very carefully to your strong speech in this regard. And I
thank you for those frank and forceful comments. The initiative
calls for a major hemispheric effort to unify the New World in the
three key areas of trade, investment, and debt.
Trade, Investment, and Debt
In trade, our first priority should be to promote long-term growth.
The most effective first step is the successful conclusion of the
Uruguay Round [of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade], now
in its final stages in Brussels. An end to export subsidies on
agricultural goods and new openings for developing country exports
means new market opportunities and a higher standard of living for
the farmer in Para, the textile worker in Santa Catarina, and the
engineer in Sao Paulo.
But the Uruguay Round and bilateral trade agreements are only
first steps. The Southern Cone common market, now developing
under the leadership of your president and his colleagues in
neighboring countries, is another major step toward the world's
first hemispheric free trade zone.
To promote new investment in the Americas, the dead hand of
state control must be lifted. We must allow entrepreneurs the
flexibility to adapt, create, and produce. So, as we chart a course
for the future of the New World, let us hold firmly in our minds an
unshakable conviction in the importance and benefit of free
enterprise. Let us work together so that any man or woman who
wants to launch a new enterprise views the state as an ally, not as
an obstacle--and all who pursue the fruits of the free market see
other nations not as threats to sovereignty, but as partners in trade
and mutual prosperity.
Individuals cannot succeed if government is burdened by debt.
So the third leg of our Enterprise for the Americas Initiative is a
comprehensive commitment to work with Brazil and others in Latin
America to restructure US official debt. Our new approach to
official debt will complement commercial debt restructuring
through the Brady Plan. I understand the importance to Brazil and,
indeed, to the international financial community of reaching a new
and effective agreement on commercial debt. I believe, through
your program of economic reform, you have taken the first crucial
step toward that goal. Global capital flows will be vital to your
development, and we are ready to assist wherever possible.
Funds for the Environment
We've submitted a request to our Congress for the authority to
implement our proposals. But we know that real solutions must
involve all of us in the Americas. That's why we envision a
permanent partnership between all the nations of the Americas, to
confront challenges that know no borders. We envision a
hemisphere where a collaborative commitment is shared to protect
our environmental legacy. There can be no sustained economic
growth without respect for the environment. That's why the
Enterprise for the Americas Initiative joins environmental
protection with bilateral debt relief--not as a challenge to national
sovereignty, not as a challenge to the sovereignty, in this case of
Brazil, but as an affirmation of shared international interests.
Senator Tito--and I do appreciate, sir, your using this podium
for a frank exchange--talked about partners in growth. I believe
you said partners in growth rather than shareholders of misery.
That is what you want, and that is what we want.
I encourage Brazil and other creditor nations to convert debt
into funds for the environment. The entire world stands in awe of
Brazil's unique endowment of wildlife, trees, and plants in the
Amazon and the Atlantic rain forests. No nation on earth--none--is
as rich in flora and fauna, with all of their potential to provide
future medicines and foods, and crops and fibers. Your hosting of
the UN Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 places
Brazil in a position of true global leadership. We hope that
conference will mark the culmination of a number of initiatives to
protect and wisely utilize the world's resources.
We also are challenged to make ours a hemisphere where
sovereign nations are joined in collective determination to
eradicate the disease of drugs. On this one, the time for blame is
long over. We in the United States recognize that we must do more
to reduce what seems to you as insatiable demand. And you
understand that the spreading tentacles of the drug trade threaten
any democratic society.
President Collor has taken a strong position against drugs for
the sake of youth in Brazil. I know full well it is a demand problem
as well as a supply problem for my country. I pledge the full
efforts of my government to continue to dampen demand. There is
only one answer to the drug problem in this hemisphere, and that is
to defeat these narcotics traffickers who prey on our children--
once and for all.
Finally, in this era of great challenges around the world, we
want the Western Hemisphere to be a model to the world for
security, stability, and peace.
Together, let us ensure that this hemisphere stands united to
prevent the spread of nuclear weapons or new, more dangerous,
ballistic missiles anywhere in the world. We hope that all
countries in this hemisphere will follow Brazil's and Argentina's
recent decision to bring the non-proliferation Treaty of Tlatelolco
into force. I want to applaud, as many other nations have done, the
recent announcement by Brazil and Argentina that together they
will ensure that no nuclear program in their countries is used for
anything but peaceful purposes. We applaud your decision to move
forward on full-scope nuclear safeguards.
But your leadership today goes beyond this hemisphere. Just
as Brazil made valiant contributions to the cause of freedom in
World War II, you were among the very first to implement the
sanctions against Iraq. I realize the sacrifices that Saddam's
brutality has caused this nation and its people, has caused many
nations around the world. In this country, I was told this morning
[of] the impact--$5 billion in higher oil prices alone for 1 year; $5
billion to your economy, [which is] struggling to move forward,
because of the brutality and the aggression of Saddam Hussein. In
Czechoslovakia, a country that knows about aggression, Vaclav
Havel told me [that the cost is] $1.5 billion, just because of the
aggression of Saddam Hussein. I salute your leadership in the
world's community and united stand against Iraq's aggression and in
defense of the rule of law.
Our nations, long ago, achieved independence from the Old
World, and so now let us work toward a new declaration of
interdependence among the American nations of the New World. If,
as Jose Bonifacio once said, "Brazilians are enthusiasts of a
beautiful ideal," let us not limit the New World's potential with old
thinking. After the half millennium we've had in this hemisphere to
form our nations and find our way, let the nations of the Americas
now fulfill their common potential.
Standing on this central plateau, soon to be the seat of great
decisions, President [Juscelino] Kubitschek [1956-61] said this: "I
look once again at the future of my country and see this dawn with
unyielding faith and unlimited confidence in its great destiny."
My friends, our neighbors, let the new dawn come to Brazil and
to the New World, and let us fulfill the promise of these great
lands. Thank you very much.
Addresses by President Bush in Chile and Venezuela with
accompanying Fact Sheets and Country Profiles will appear in
Dispatch No. 16, December 17, 1990.
(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 15, December 10, 1990
Title: The President's Trip to Brazil, December 3, 1990
Date: Dec 3, 199012/3/90
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: South America
Country: Brazil
Subject: Environment, Democratization, Trade/Economics
[TEXT]
Trip Overview
President Bush visited Brazil December 3, 1990, during his five-
nation trip to South America. He last traveled to Brazil in March
1985, as vice president, for the inauguration of President Tancredo
de Almeida Neves. (Neves fell ill on inauguration eve and died 1
month later, to be succeeded by Vice President Jose Sarney.) The
1989 elections, which brought Fernando Collor to office, were the
first direct presidential elections in Brazil in 29 years.
Background
With more than 150 million people, Brazil is the largest nation in
Latin America and the fifth largest in the world. More than two-
thirds of the population live in urban areas. Though 76% of
Brazilians are functionally literate, only 20% of those who begin
public school complete the primary grades. Per capita income
exceeds $2,400 per year, putting Brazil in the ranks of middle-
income developing countries. There are wide disparities in income
distribution, with only 2% of national income going to the lowest
20% of the population and 65% going to the upper 20%. Brasilia is
the capital.
Forests cover approximately one-half of Brazil's interior,
which includes a major share of the Amazon Basin and the largest
tropical rain forest in the world. Largely self-sufficient in food,
Brazil is the world's leading exporter
of coffee and orange juice concentrate; the second-largest exporter
of cocoa and soybeans; and a major exporter of sugar, meat, and
cotton.
Consolidation of Democracy
Major events in the transition to democracy included the return to
civilian rule in 1985, promulgation of a new constitution in 1988,
and the presidential election of 1989. More than 80 million voters
went to the polls in November and December 1989 for elections that
were both peaceful and free of irregularities. Congressional
elections were held in October 1990 for all 503 seats in the
Chamber of Deputies and one-third of the 81-member Senate. Many
parties are represented in Congress, and party affiliations are
highly fluid.
Economic, Trade, and Debt Issues
When President Collor assumed office, inflation exceeded 80% per
month. He introduced a sweeping program of economic adjustment
and reform, beginning with an attack on inflation through a sharp
freeze on liquidity. He also announced plans to privatize state
enterprises; eliminate the fiscal deficit; and dramatically reduce
government intervention in the economy and foreign trade. In
response, inflation has dropped sharply, although recently it showed
signs of increasing. The government continues to work on detailed
plans for the sale of state enterprises, reducing the federal work
force, and new foreign trade regulations.
Brazil enjoyed a foreign-trade surplus of $16.5 billion in 1989
(down from $19 billion in 1988). The United States and other
trading partners have taken exception to Brazilian import
restrictions including outright prohibition of imports, market
reserves, and other non-tariff barriers. President Collor has
largely eliminated these practices, and the United States has ended
its trade actions under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1988.
Brazil is the largest developing-country debtor, owing $112
billion to external creditors. It has remained current in payments
to international financial organizations, although not to other
governments (including the United States). The government entered
a de facto moratorium on payments to foreign commercial banks in
September 1989; arrears now approach $10 billion. It has reached a
preliminary agreement with the International Monetary Fund on a
letter of intent that includes a promise to try to reach a debt-
rescheduling agreement with the commercial banks. The
government resumed debt negotiations with the commercial banks
in October 1990.
Environmental Issues
International concern about the destruction of the Amazon rain
forest has increased dramatically in the past few years, heightened
by the December 1988 murder of environmentalist/labor leader
Chico Mendes. In April 1989, the government began an
environmental program called "Our Nature" designed to slow the
destruction of the rain forest while seeking alternatives to develop
the region. However, the government lacks the financial resources
to implement this ambitious program. President Collor has shown a
strong personal commitment to environmental protection. Brazil
will host the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development.
Foreign Policy Issues
President Collor has signaled his interest in shifting Brazilian
foreign policy toward Europe and away from the Third World focus
that has characterized it in the past. He has made improving
relations with the United States a high priority. The resolution of
trade differences with the United States during the early weeks of
his term has done much to remove earlier points of friction.
Nuclear Issues
Although the constitution prohibits non-peaceful uses of nuclear
energy, Brazil has had an unsafeguarded nuclear research-and-
enrichment program conducted by the military. Brazil is also
committed to developing its own nuclear-powered submarine.
Shortly after taking office, President Collor ordered a complete
review of nuclear programs and policy. In September 1990, he told
the UN General Assembly that Brazil would not undertake any
experiments involving nuclear explosives, even for peaceful
purposes. On November 28, he and President Menem of Argentina
announced their intention to undertake a program of bilateral
nuclear safeguards and inspections, to negotiate jointly a
safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency,
and to take steps to bring the Treaty of Tlatelolco into force.
Brazil has a national space program aimed at developing and
launching its own satellites.
US-Brazilian Relations
The United States was the first country to recognize Brazil's
independence in 1822. During the 1950s and 1960s, Brazil received
about $2.4 billion in US economic assistance. Due to its impressive
economic development and increased ability to obtain loans and
technical assistance from private and multilateral sources, US
assistance programs were phased out during the 1970s.
The United States is Brazil's most important commercial
partner and largest investor. US-Brazilian relations are cordial and
cooperative, and the two countries' shared respect for democracy
and commitment to economic liberalization has strengthened ties
since the return of democratic government in the mid-1980s.
President Collor's successful pre-inauguration visit to the United
States in January 1990, visits by senior US officials to Brazil since
he assumed office, and his meeting with President Bush at the
United Nations in September reflected this increased warmth in
bilateral relations.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 15, December 10, 1990
Title: Country Profile: Brazil
Date: Dec 3, 199012/3/90
Category: Country Data
Region: South America
Country: Brazil
Subject: History, Trade/Economics,
International Organizations
[TEXT]
Official Name: Federative Republic of Brazil
Geography
Area (1989): 8.5 million sq. km. (3,290,000 sq. mi.).
Cities (1989): Capital--Brasilia (pop. 1.8 million). Other cities--
Sao Paulo (11 million), Rio de Janeiro (6 million), Belo Horizonte
(2.3 million), Salvador (2 million), Recife (1.4 million).
Terrain: Dense forests in northern regions, including Amazon Basin;
semi-arid along northeast coast; mountains, hills, and rolling plains
in the southwest (including Mato Grasso); and coastal strip.
Climate: Mostly tropical or semi-tropical with temperate zone in
the south.
People
Nationality: Noun and adjective--Brazilian(s).
Population (1989 est.): 150 million. Annual growth rate (1989):
2.1%.
Density: 17.6 per sq. km. (45.6 per sq mi.).
Ethnic groups: Portuguese, Italian, German, Japanese, African,
Indians, principally Tupi and Guarani linguistic stock.
Religion: Roman Catholic (89%).
Education: Literacy--78% of adult population.
Health: Infant mortality rate--109/1,000. Life expectancy--61.3
yrs.
Work force (1989, 62.5 million): Agriculture--35%. Industry--25%.
Services--40%. Trade union membership--about 6 million.
Government
Type: Federative Republic.
Independence: September 7, 1822.
Constitution: Promulgated October 5, 1988.
Branches: Executive--president (chief of state and head of
government) popularly elected to a single 5-year term. Legislative-
-Senate (81 members popularly elected to 8-year terms), Chamber
of Deputies (495 members popularly elected to 4-year terms).
Judicial--Supreme Federal Tribunal.
Political parties (with congressional representation): Brazilian
Democratic Movement Party (PMDB), National Reconstruction Party
(PRN), Liberal Front Party (PFL), Democratic Social Party (PDS),
Democratic Workers Party (PDT), Workers Party (PT), Brazilian
Labor Party (PTB), Liberal Party (PL), Brazilian Socialist Party
(PSB), Communist Party of Brazil (PCB), Christian Democratic Party
(PDC), Brazilian Social Democratic Party (PSDB).
Suffrage: Compulsory from 18 to 70.
Subdivisions: 26 states, federal district (Brasilia).
Defense: 2.6% of 1990 government budget.
Flag: A yellow diamond on a green field; a blue globe with 23 white
stars and a band with Ordem e Progresso centered on the diamond.
Economy
GDP (1989): $370 billion.
Annual real growth rate (1987-89): 2.4%. Per capita GDP (1989):
$2,593.
Natural resources: Iron ore, manganese, bauxite, nickel, uranium,
gemstones, oil.
Agriculture (12% of GDP): Products--coffee, soybeans, sugarcane,
cocoa, rice, beef, corn, oranges, cotton, wheat. Land--17% arable,
cultivable, or pasture.
Industry: Types--steel, chemicals, petrochemicals, machinery,
motor vehicles, consumer durables, cement, lumber, shipbuilding.
Trade (1989): Exports--$34.4 billion. Major markets--US 23%,
Japan 7%, Netherlands 8%, Germany 4%, Italy 4%, Argentina 3%.
Imports--$18.3 billion. Major suppliers--US 21%, Germany 10%,
Japan 7%, Argentina 5%, France 4%.
Foreign direct investment and rein-vestment in Brazil (registered
with Central Bank as of Dec. 1989): $34.3 billion. Sources--US
$11.4 billion (33%); Germany $5.0 billion (14%) Japan $3.1 billion
(9%) Switzerland $2.9 billion (9%), UK $1.9 billion (6%), Canada $1.4
billion (5%).
Fiscal year: Calendar year.
Membership in International Organizations
UN and some of its specialized and related agencies, including the
World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT); Inter-American
Development Bank (IDB); Organization of American States (OAS), Rio
Pact, Latin American Integration Association (ALADI); International
Sugar Organization (ISO); International Cocoa Organization (ICCO);
International Coffee Organization; INTELSAT; Group of 77.
(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 15, December 10, 1990
Title: United States and Uruguay: Common Ties, Common Goals
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: Address to the Uruguayan Congress, Legislative Palace,
Montevideo, Uruguay
Date: Dec 4, 199012/4/90
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: South America
Country: Uruguay
Subject: Trade/Economics, Environment, Military Affairs
[TEXT]
All of us have been deeply touched by your warm welcome. From the
moment I got here, I've felt at home. Montevideo is graced by
images that were once familiar features in our own nation's
frontier tradition--the dramatic statues of Belloni and Zorrilla
depicting covered wagons, a stagecoach, the gaucho himself. For a
moment, I thought I was back home in Texas.
The peoples of our two countries have long been linked by
bonds of tradition and belief. Both emphasize equality. Both place
their trust in the individual. Both are deeply rooted to the land.
Uruguay is blessed with some of the best farmland in the world--
and flying over it this morning, it reminded me of the fertile
heartland of the United States.
But the truth is, there is no place quite like Uruguay--this
heart-shaped country that's not only at the heart of the Southern
Cone but at the heart of South America's exciting new movement
toward free markets and free ideas.
Uruguay appears small on the map but looms large in real life-
-large in land, large in character, large in heritage, and large in
dreams. More than a century ago, W.H. Hudson crossed Uruguay's
rolling grasslands and purple banks and brought them vividly to life
in his epic saga, The Purple Land. The Uruguay he saw was a
trackless prairie of vast spaces and limitless horizons.
Today, the horizons of Uruguay once again open up to a future
without limit. Just look around--behind me, Jose Artigas, father of
a modern nation, and before me, the Uruguayan Congress--a new
generation of pioneers, seeking not to tame a land but to build a
nation.
A New Dawn For the New World
Our visit comes at a time when the Western Hemisphere looks out
upon a new era, an era not for the First World or the Third World,
but an era that marks "a new dawn for the New World." Together,
we've embarked on a journey spurred by profound worldwide
changes--political renewal, economic restructuring, understanding,
social realignment. And together we're leading the way.
We have a unique chance to realize the dreams and ambitions
of the people who came to the Americas, North and South, seeking a
better life for themselves and for those who followed. Like the
United States, Uruguay is a nation of immigrants. The history of our
republics is told in the history of our families.
One such family was the MacGillycuddys of Ireland, who left
the shores of Europe in the last century. One went north, and one
went south. Both worked hard, prayed to the same God, learned the
languages of their adopted countries. And today, their grandchildren
are the children of the Americas: Eduardo Macgillycuddy, Uruguay's
Ambassador to Washington, and Cornelius MacGillycuddy, better
known in my country as US Senator Connie Mack--common dreams;
common bonds; common families.
This is my first trip to Uruguay, and yet I feel I know your
president--President [Luis Alberto] Lacalle--well. We met in
Washington last February and again in October in New York. Not only
does your president have a vision for his country, but he has the
rare talent of being able to act on his vision for the benefit of the
people.
Enterprise for the Americas Initiative
Last June, I announced the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative--
an ambitious new plan to increase trade, investment, and growth
throughout the hemisphere. It is a major step in our shared dream
for the world's first completely democratic hemisphere. And
President Lacalle was the first--the very first leader--to call me
to discuss how we could work together to realize its objectives.
The world is changing faster than anyone believed possible.
Fundamental changes are sweeping Uruguay and Latin America.
From Tierra del Fuego to the Texas border, old ways of doing
business are being reexamined, and new ideas are on the march. The
democratic form of government has come to be recognized as the
heart of political legitimacy. The democratic ideal has not
triumphed everywhere, and, to be sure, not all men live today in
total freedom or in democracy. But we've reached the point where
all are demanding to live in freedom as their God-given right.
The Western Hemisphere can take pride in having launched this
worldwide transformation from dictatorship to democracy. And
nowhere has the process been more impressive than right here,
where your people have demonstrated the courage, cooperation, and
self-sacrifice necessary to win success. The transition was
difficult, but the potential rewards are great. The conversion of the
hemisphere to representative government and to rational economic
management opens up the possibility of unprecedented mutual
respect and common purpose across the Americas.
Here in Uruguay, President Lacalle has set forth a bold
program to restructure the economy, changes which will improve
Uruguay's overall strength and prosperity. In time, the economy
will produce more goods and services, provide more jobs for all, and
in short, improve Uruguay's very quality of life.
Fundamental changes often involve costs--there are no easy
solutions, no quick fixes. But you are not alone. Our Enterprise for
the Americas Initiative is aimed at extending a helping hand to our
neighbors in South America on trade, investment, and debt
reduction.
I know some in Latin America fear we've become preoccupied
with the dramatic developments in the Old World. Let me assure
you today that we have not. The Enterprise for the Americas
Initiative represents a fundamental shift in our relationship with
Latin America. It recognizes a simple truth, a truth President
Lacalle recognized last June at the Organization of American States
(OAS), a truth that has now been heard and embraced throughout the
Americas. Prosperity in our hemisphere, he said, depends on trade-
-not aid.
Trade. In order to promote trade, we are working toward a
framework agreement with Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay
that commits us to explore practical ways to reduce trade and
investment barriers. A strong multilateral trading system is the
cornerstone of a healthy, expanding world economy--benefiting both
developing and developed nations alike. That's why I have made the
successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round of the GATT [General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] a top trade priority--and, that's
why it has such a prominent place in my Enterprise for the
Americas Initiative. It presents us an extraordinary opportunity for
unparalleled economic growth for all nations, well into the 21st
century.
In the final talks at the GATT this week, we stand firmly with
you and other Latin nations in insisting that countries sharply
reduce the agricultural subsidies that distort world trade. The land
has historically been at the heart of both our economies, and from
Montevideo to Montana, our farmers and our ranchers enjoyed shared
traditions, shared interests, and shared concerns.
As our trade ministers meet in Brussels this week, I want to
speak to them from the place where the round began. It began with
a commitment to expansion of world trade. So, let us finish the
round in the same spirit--translating good intentions into firm
commitments that will benefit us all by substantially expanding
world trade. As the traveler in The Purple Land says: "We lose half
our opportunities in life through too much caution." The new dawn
is breaking. The stakes are high. Let's successfully conclude the
GATT Round. And that means opening up Europe's market to this
hemisphere's agricultural products.
Investment. The Enterprise for the Americas Initiative also
acknowledges that improved trade must be bolstered by assistance
with investment and with debt. To promote investment, we've been
working with the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) to create
a sectoral loan program. The IDB's response has been outstanding.
That's no surprise--it's led by an Uruguayan, Enrique Iglesias. We
also will help countries committed to economic and investment
reform to shake loose the burden of debt.
Debt reduction. I want to congratulate President Lacalle on
his successful negotiation of a debt agreement with the commercial
banks under the Brady Plan. That is a vote of confidence in
Uruguay's economic policies by the international financial
community. And we've also asked our Congress to approve a new
package to reduce Uruguay's official debt. This will allow us to
convert other payments to investment in industry and to swap
"debt-for-nature" to protect your natural beauty.
Environment and Narcotics
Environmental destruction knows no borders. It is our
responsibility to leave future generations not only a more
prosperous world but a cleaner and a safer world. A safer world
also means a world free from the scourge of this hemisphere--the
scourge called cocaine. For the sake of our kids, every country must
do its part to stop the explosive cycle of drugs, dependency, and
dollars. Let me assure you we are doing our level-best to reduce
demand in the United States for these outrageous illegal narcotics.
Finally, a safer world also means a world safe for freedom, a
world governed by the rule of law. Just a few minutes ago, I was
privileged to meet with your Supreme Court. A free, honest, and
impartial judicial system is fundamental to the freedom of a
democracy, just as the rule of law is fundamental to the freedom of
the world.
The Persian Gulf and UN Sanctions
What the world faces in the Persian Gulf, believe me, is
fundamental.
-- We will not, we must not, reward a nation that would wipe
another country off the face of the earth;
-- We will not reward a nation that has literally--and the
tales are agonizing--has literally raped and terrorized its smaller
neighbor;
-- We will not reward a nation that kidnaps people and holds
them hostage, staking them out as human shields--a nation that
violates the sanctity of foreign embassies; and
-- We will not reward a nation whose unprovoked aggression
is driving economies all around the world into ever-greater
financial distress.
I want to just say a special word in tribute to your president
and to your proud democracy. Uruguay has shown great courage and
commitment in support for UN sanctions against Iraqi aggression.
Some may not realize this, but Uruguay paid a double price for
upholding these sanctions--first, in higher oil prices but also in
substantial markets lost for now for your products. Yet, you never
flinched--your country never flinched. You never wavered in
support of these UN sanctions.
Some seek to portray the crisis in the gulf as a conflict
between Iraq and the United States. In truth, as your example
clearly demonstrates--it is a conflict between a united world
community and an isolated, brutal dictator; the rule of law against
Saddam Hussein's brutal aggression. That's why I'm convinced--
totally convinced--that the world community will prevail in the
end.
The UN sanctions in their entirety will be upheld, and
aggression will not be rewarded. That--and it will come--that will
be a great victory for peace and global security. And I want to take
this occasion once again to salute you--to salute your nation for
your leadership in this struggle.
In Czechoslovakia, President [Vaclav] Havel told me the cost
to his country was $1.5 billion. And in Brazil yesterday, President
Collor told me $5 billion is his estimated annual cost. And here in
Uruguay, President Lacalle said the impact is substantial. All
because of Iraq's determination to violate the sanctity and the
sovereignty of little Kuwait.
No one in your great country needs to be told about
sovereignty. In 1811, Artigas and his gauchos led an exodus of free
Uruguayans who refused to submit to the control of foreign despots.
His demand was simple: complete autonomy for Uruguay. His dream
was not realized overnight. But, today, many believe that had it not
been for Artigas' brave stand, Uruguay would surely have been
absorbed into another nation.
Conclusion
Exactly 30 years ago, President Eisenhower spoke to the people of
Uruguay from this very podium. Our message hasn't changed. He
said, "The United States does not covet a single acre of land that
belongs to another. We don't wish to control or dictate to another
government." And he went on: "We believe that the people of every
nation are endowed with the right of free choice and that the most
sacred obligation of the world community is to guarantee such
choice to all."
A generation later, Juan Lavalleja and the 33 Immortals
completed Uruguay's transition to sovereign freedom. Today, their
legacy has fallen to you--an inheritance from Uruguay and for all of
the Americas. Today, the new 33 Immortals are the very nations of
this continent--the OAS nations, now barreling in confidence
toward the new century. All of us have a stake in working together.
Our goal is to work with Latin America to build a hemisphere where
trade and investment are unfettered, private enterprise can
flourish, and individual rights are respected.
I see a hemisphere with strong democratic institutions and
leaders; an ever-expanding economic opportunity for all members
of society--a society free of drugs and crime; a cleaner
environment; and a new era of cooperation between Latin America
and the United States.
Yours is a colorful land of spectacular beauty, from the lush
green expanses outside Salto, to the purple banks of the Yi River, to
the white beaches of Punta del Este. And as a new dawn breaks over
the New World, Uruguay and all the hemisphere will continue on our
voyage of discovery guided by the true colors of the Americas--the
colors of free ideas, free markets, and free trade. And as you
travel, we will be watching with great hopes. We will be standing
with you. Godspeed you on this journey, and God bless the
wonderful people of this country.
(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 15, December 10, 1990
Title: The President's Trip to Uruguay, December 4-5, 1990
Date: Dec 4, 199012/4/90
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: South America
Country: Uruguay
Subject: Democratization, Trade/Economics
[TEXT]
Trip Overview
President Bush visited Uruguay December 4-5, 1990, as part of his
trip to South America. This was his first trip to Uruguay.
Background
About the same size as Oklahoma, Uruguay has a population of
slightly more than 3 million people that is distinguished by a high
literacy rate (96%) and large urban middle class. Blessed with
rolling grassy plains and low hills, Uruguay enjoys abundant
pastureland, a good water supply, and a temperate climate. Its
capital is Montevideo (estimated population: 1.3 million).
Consolidation of Democracy
Uruguay is in its sixth year of democratic civilian government
following 12 years of military rule. Blanco Party leader Luis
Alberto Lacalle won the 1989 presidential election, but his party
failed to win a majority in the bicameral legislature. He has had to
include members of the other traditional party, the Colorados, in
his cabinet in order to form a government and block maneuvers of
the Broad Front, a grouping of leftist parties. Since taking office on
March 1, 1990, Lacalle has concentrated on economic and social
reforms. His administration has pledged to reduce the budget
deficit and foreign debt, sell state enterprises, reform the civil
service, and improve education and labor programs.
Economy
While Uruguay has one of the highest per capita external debts in
the hemisphere, it has remained current in its payments. The
Lacalle administration has introduced a package of economic
reforms aimed at modernizing the economy and reducing the fiscal
deficit in nation, and economic distortions. Revenue increases to
reduce the budget deficit have been passed, but measures to
demonopolize and privatize the public sector, and reform the social
security system, are still pending. Among the targets of the
program is reducing inflation, which has recently exceeded 100%
per year, to below 30% by early 1991. Recent increases in
petroleum prices, however, have made attainment of that objective
unlikely. The government has successfully implemented an export-
based strategy that aims to achieve the economic growth necessary
to meet debt-service obligations and to improve the standard of
living.
Foreign Policy Issues
Uruguay has strong political and cultural links with the democratic
countries of the Americas and Europe. It shares basic values with
those countries, such as support for constitutional democracy,
political pluralism, and individual liberties. Its foreign relations
have been guided historically by the principles of nonintervention,
respect for national sovereignty, and reliance on the rule of law to
settle disputes.
Uruguay's location between Argentina and Brazil makes close
relations with those two larger neighbors particularly desirable.
The three countries have been working toward integrating their
economic systems and improving relations across the spectrum.
US-Uruguayan Relations
Traditionally, relations between the United States and Uruguay have
been based on a common outlook and dedication to democratic
ideals. The United States expressed a deep concern over the human
rights situation during the military regime and strongly supported
Uruguay's transition to democracy.
Uruguay is a minor, but increasingly used, transit country for
drugs, mostly cocaine, going to Europe and the United States. Also,
the strict bank-secrecy provisions of Uruguay's financial
institution statute make it a potentially attractive site for money
"laundering" operations. Uruguay cooperates with US efforts to
prevent drug trafficking from becoming a major menace in the
region. Negotiations are underway on a mutual legal assistance
treaty that will help to ensure that Uruguay does not become a
money-laundering haven.
The Uruguayan government placed a high priority on debt
renegotiation and recently reached an agreement in principle with
commercial bank creditors to restructure Uruguay's commercial
bank debt, providing significant debt reduction. The Uruguayan
government has set an exemplary record of full compliance in its
principal and interest payments while working with the United
States bilaterally, and in international trade liberalization, to
foster economic and political cooperation and to improve regional
cooperation. The United States works to continue this tradition of
friendship, to support the new democracy, and to strengthen the
Uruguayan economy. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 15, December 10, 1990
Title: Country Profile: Uruguay
Date: Dec 4, 199012/4/90
Category: Country Data
Region: South America
Country: Uruguay
Subject: History, Trade/Economics,
International Organizations
[TEXT]
Official Name: Oriental Republic of Uruguay
Geography
Area: 176,215 sq. km. (68,037 sq. mi.); slightly smaller than
Oklahoma.
Cities: Capital--Montevideo (est. pop. 1.3 million).
Terrain: Plains and low hills, 84% agricultural.
Climate: Temperate.
People
Nationality: Noun and adjective--Uruguayan(s).
Population (1990 est): 3.1 million.
Annual growth rate (1989-90): 0.6%.
Ethnic groups (est.): 90% white, 7% mestizo, 3% black.
Religions: Roman Catholic 66%, Protestant 2%, Jewish 2%,
nonprofessing or other 30%.
Language: Spanish.
Education: (Projected school-age pop., 1990--538,350 ages 5-14
yrs.; 260,238 ages 15-19 yrs.) Literacy--96%.
Health: Life expectancy (1985-90)--75.3 yrs. (female); 68.9 yrs.
(male). Infant mortality rate (1990)--24.41/1,000.
Work force (1990): 1.4 million. Manufacturing--22%. Government--
20%. Agriculture--13%. Commerce--17%. Utilities, construction,
transport, and communications--12%. Other services--16%.
Government
Type: Republic.
Independence: August 25, 1825.
Constitution: February 1967.
Branches: Executive--president (chief of state and head of
government). Legislative--General Assembly consisting of Chamber
of Deputies, 99 seats; Senate, 30 seats. Judicial--Supreme Court of
Justice.
Administrative subdivisions: 19 departments with limited
autonomy.
Political parties: Colorado, Blanco (National), Broad Front Coalition,
New Space Party, Civic Union.
Suffrage: Universal over 18.
Central government budget (1989): $1.5 billion.
Defense (1989): 1.4% of GDP.
Flag: Nine horizontal stripes--five white and four blue with a
yellow sun in the left corner. The flag was adopted in 1830.
Economy
GDP (1989): $8.4 billion.
Annual growth rate (1989): 1.5%.
Per capita GDP (1989): $2,736.
Avg. inflation rate (1989): 80.4%.
Natural resources: Soil, hydroelectric potential, gold, granite, and
marble.
Agriculture (11.8% of GDP, 1989): Products--beef, wool, grains,
fruits, vegetables.
Industry (21% of GDP, 1989): Types--meat processing, wool and
hides, textiles, shoes, handbags, leather apparel, tires, cement,
fishing, petroleum refining.
Trade: Exports--$1.6 billion (f.o.b. 1989): meat, wool, hides, leather
and wool products, fish, rice, furs. Major markets--US 11%, EC 23%
(Germany 8%), ALADI 37% (Argentina 5%, Brazil 28%). Imports--
$1.2 billion (c.i.f. 1989): fuels, chemicals, machinery, metals. Major
suppliers--US 10%, EC 19.2% (Germany 6%), ALADI 51% (Argentina
16%, Brazil 26%).
Fiscal year: Calendar year.
Economic aid received: IBRD-$693 million (to June 1988); IFC-$35
million (to June 1988); IDB-$716 million (1966-88); US-$205
million (FY 1946-88). Military aid-$67 million (1950-87).
Membership in International Organizations
UN and some of its specialized and related agencies; INTELSAT;
Latin American Integration Association (ALADI); Organization of
American States (OAS); the Antarctic Consultative Group; Latin
American Economic System (SELA); Rio Group (informal group of
Latin American states which deals with multilateral regional
issues). (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 15, December 10, 1990
Title: Democracy Takes Root in Argentina
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: Address to the Argentine Congress, Buenos Aires,
Argentina
Date: Dec 5, 199012/5/90
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: South America
Country: Argentina
Subject: Democratization, Nuclear Nonproliferation,
Trade/Economics
[TEXT]
I am honored to be with you today in this beautiful Hall of
Democracy with so many members of your Congress. And I am
privileged to be with you at this time in history, both your own
history, and the history we share as members of the same
hemisphere. For we live in an era of dramatic change.
Some may have thought that the events of Monday [aborted
military rebellion] would make me change my plans. To the
contrary, they strengthened my resolve to come to Argentina, to
stand shoulder-to-shoulder with President [Carlos] Menem and the
Argentine people, who love democracy and refuse to see it
subverted.
The message today from Argentina is clear. Democracy is
here to stay. Too many brave people sacrificed and died to bring
democracy back to Latin America. Let those who would attack
constitutional democracy understand: In Latin America the day of
the dictator is over.
Violent assaults upon the rule of law represent the old way of
thinking and acting that history has left behind. It is time to think
anew.
No longer should we think in terms of "the Old World," where
our roots lie. Or of "the First World," or "the Third World." No, we
must move beyond the labels that once separated us, to grasp the
common future that unites us. Argentina, the United States, and the
other nations in this continent share the promise of a new dawn in a
new world.
So, I have come to Argentina to speak about change, the kind
of positive, hopeful change symbolized by the spirit of the "Sun of
May" in your dramatic seal behind me.
But above all, we share a devotion and commitment to our
respective nations that would have pleased General San Martin, who
wrote: "Love for one's native land fuels noble souls."
All of this is part of the unique bond between our countries.
But it's also recent history that unites us. Your return of democracy
has brought our peoples closer than ever before. Your sacrifice
during past decades caused us deep anguish and concern. But your
people did not lose faith in the democratic ideal, and the United
States did not lose faith in you.
As we prepare, with optimism and anticipation, for the
challenges facing this hemisphere and the rest of the world, some
things are clear. We all know that we want to live in a new world
that is a model of security and stability. This means regional arms
control, as well as nuclear, missile, and chemical non-proliferation,
and the collective determination to face down aggression.
Moves for Nuclear Safeguards
As I said in Brasilia, the United States applauds the decision,
announced on November 28 by the leaders of Argentina and Brazil, to
move forward on nuclear safeguards and to bring the Treaty of
Tlatelolco into force. We hope you will move quickly to realize both
of these commitments, as they have a direct, measurable impact on
regional and world security. Such action also will impact on
regional and world security. Such action also will allow the United
States and other countries to expand significantly the range of our
nuclear and other technical cooperation.
In the current crisis in the gulf, you have also shown strength
and vision by helping to lead international efforts to stop Saddam's
brutal aggression. Your contribution to the multinational force in
the gulf is a statement of your commitment to peace and the rule of
law, and a clear sign that you are assuming your rightful place as a
leader among freedom-loving nations.
Argentina and President Menem have not limited their efforts
to promoting international security. Here in Argentina, you have
embarked on another courageous action, the restoration of your
economic dynamism. Your President, Carlos Menem, has defined the
challenge we face today. He said, "To take advantage of democratic
experiences to propel economic growth and progress is the principal
crossroads and challenge for our peoples and governments."
It is a difficult challenge as well. I believe few presidents
have ever taken office under more testing circumstances than did
President Menem. Yet, he and his colleagues in this Congress didn't
shrink from the task at hand. Instead, you set into motion a
forward-looking structural, economic, and social transformation of
this country.
We know of the painful, short-term sacrifices you are being
called upon to make, in what your own president has called "surgery
without anesthesia." For this tremendous undertaking to succeed, it
will not take miracles. It will take work. But know that the United
States is prepared to work with you every step of the way.
New Treaties and Initiatives
Just yesterday, we signed two new agreements, a mutual legal
assistance treaty and a mutual customs cooperation agreement.
And last June, to help this movement in your nation and the others
of this continent, we proposed the Enterprise for the Americas
Initiative, which calls for a major hemispheric effort to expand
trade and investment and reduce debt, to unleash energy, to
encourage initiative, and to let the incentive of reward inspire
people to better themselves, their families, and their futures.
We are absolutely committed to this initiative as a major
priority. It will give impetus to the essential economic
restructuring which is already underway. And it will sustain and
deepen this process in tangible ways.
The initiative is our hemisphere's new declaration of
interdependence. For economic revolution is the equal of political
revolution. And economic cooperation must be embraced not as a
threat to privilege for a few but as the key to prosperity for all. We
know that prosperity in our hemisphere depends on trade, not aid.
And it is within our power to make our region the largest trading
center of sovereign nations in the world. Already, the Southern
Cone common market is moving us closer to our ultimate objective,
a free trade system that links all of the Americas. We support you
in this and look forward to completing a framework agreement on
trade and investment between the United States and the southern
cone.
But to promote long-term growth, we need the successful
conclusion of the Uruguay Round. The negotiators must succeed in
their efforts to reduce or eliminate tariffs, subsidies, and other
barriers to agricultural products. This will mean new market
opportunities for the farmer in Buenos Aires province, the
agricultural workers in Jujuy, and the engineer in Rosario.
No act could be more significant for your nation than the move
toward a market-oriented economy, a move crucial to attracting
foreign investment. It lays the groundwork for your future, building
a road that leads to a modern, growing Argentina. A free enterprise
economy will encourage capital investment, greater individual
initiative, and real prosperity for this and future generations. With
the help of the Inter-American Development Bank, we want to
encourage the reform and opening of investment regimes. The spirit
of enterprise will unleash your great potential and assure this
nation of its position as one of the most vigorous nations in the
world.
The reforms that you are carrying out in your economy,
including your bold program of privatization, are not only the key to
economic growth and expanded opportunity, they are also the first
crucial steps under the Brady plan to achieve debt reduction with
your commercial creditors. I understand the burden of debt that
weighs on Argentina. But I believe that today, like Mexico,
Venezuela, Uruguay, and Costa Rica, Argentina is on the right road
to reduce that burden under the Brady Plan.
The way we deal with our common economic realities can be a
stepping stone to a permanent partnership among all the nations of
the Americas. I believe we are on the brink of something
unprecedented in world history: the first wholly democratic
hemisphere--the first hemisphere devoted to freedom; to free
speech; free elections; free enterprise; free trade; free markets.
That's why I've come to your country--to celebrate what we
share; to recommit my nation to the movement toward democracy
and prosperity in the Americas; to stress the vital importance of
mutual cooperation and understanding among traditional friends.
For we read in Martin Fierro: "Brothers should stand by each other,
because this is the first law: Keep a true bond between you at each
and every time."
Argentina is a great nation with enormous resources, but none
more impressive than the Argentinian people themselves. When this
century began, Argentina was among the most prosperous and
productive nations in the entire world. I am confident that
Argentina will be such an economic leader again.
Together, yet from our own beloved lands, we will watch
freedom, democracy, and prosperity grow. We will watch it from
the vantage point of two countries strong in liberty and expanding
in economy. And we can look forward, with shared optimism, to the
21st century, to the brilliant new dawn of a splendid new world.
(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 15, December 10, 1990
Title: The President's Trip to Argentina, December 5 and 6, 1990
Date: Dec 5, 199012/5/90
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: South America
Country: Argentina
Subject: Democratization, Trade/Economics
[TEXT]
Trip Overview
President Bush visited Argentina December 5-6, 1990, during his
trip to South America. The last time he traveled to Argentina was
in December 1983 when, as vice president, he led the US delegation
to the inauguration of Raul Alfonsin, the first civilian president
after years of military rule. On July 9, 1989, Carlos Menem became
president, the first time in 60 years that one elected civilian
president succeeded another in Argentina.
Background
About the size of the United States east of the Mississippi River,
Argentina is the second-largest country in South America, after
Brazil, and the eighth largest in the world. Its population of 32
million is 97% European, primarily descendants of Italian and
Spanish immigrants. The Indian population, estimated at 50,000, is
concentrated in the provinces of the north and northwest. Eighty
percent of the population lives in urban areas, with about one-third
of the total in the metropolitan area of the capital, Buenos Aires.
Education is compulsory for 7 years; 94% of Argentines are literate.
The country's topography ranges from subtropical lowlands in
the north to the towering Andes mountains in the west and the
bleak, windswept Patagonian steppe and Tierra del Fuego in the
south. Argentina's heartland is the rich temperate plains, known as
the pampas, in the east central part of the country. This is some of
the finest farmland in the world, from which come large quantities
of wheat, corn, sorghum, soybeans, and sunflower seeds. The
pampas also provide year-round pasturage for Argentina's important
cattle industry. Argentina is one of the largest exporters of
foodstuffs in the world.
Consolidation of Democracy
Argentina is in its seventh year of democratic civilian government.
Peronist Carlos Menem formed a broad-based government,
appointing many non-Peronists to top positions. In October 1989,
he pardoned military officers accused of human rights violations
during the 1976-83 period of military rule. Some leftist terrorists
were also pardoned. The pardons, intended to promote national
reconciliation, were criticized by human rights groups but appear to
have been accepted by the population as a whole. President Menem
also has announced his intention to pardon military junta leaders
from this period who are presently in jail. The leaders of three
army rebellions since April 1987 have been retired from the
military.
On December 3, 1990, a small group of officers involved in
earlier rebellions took over army headquarters and other sites in
the Buenos Aires area in a protest over internal military matters.
President Menem acted firmly to put down the revolt, which was not
supported by the rest of the military nor by Argentine society.
Economic and Debt Issues
In 1989, Argentina suffered perhaps its worst economic crisis of
this century. Inflation for the year was almost 5000%. Upon taking
office, President Menem embarked on a bold economic reform
program to halt hyperinflation, privatize inefficient state
enterprises, open up the economy to greater trade and competition,
encourage foreign investment, and reform the tax system. Although
monthly inflation fell to single digits a few months after Menem
took office, by the end of 1989 hyperinflation had returned and the
value of the currency (the austral) had plunged. Since April 1990,
further austerity measures have reduced inflation dramatically.
The root cause of Argentina's chronic economic problems remains
the government's fiscal deficit.
Argentina is the third-largest debtor among developing
countries, with more than $60 billion in external debt. Argentina
recently began to make small interest payments on its $39 billion
debt to commercial banks. Interest arrears are currently about $7
billion. The Menem government seeks to reduce its debt burden by
allowing debt-equity swaps in privatizations. Payments due on
much of Argentina's non-bank debt were rescheduled in the Paris
Club (official government creditors) in December 1989.
Foreign Policy Issues
Under President Menem, Argentina has pursued a foreign policy
designed to produce practical benefits for the country. Pursuit of
closer economic integration with its neighbors, particularly Brazil
and Uruguay, and strong ties to the West, especially to the United
States, are key elements of this policy. The positions of the Menem
government generally have coincided with US positions on major
issues. Argentina's overtures to the United Kingdom led to
resumption of diplomatic relations between the two countries in
February 1990. (Relations had been broken in early 1982 during the
war over the Falkland Islands, which are known in Argentina as the
Islas Malvinas). Argentina has two ships participating in the
multinational naval force in the Persian Gulf.
Nuclear and Military Issues
Argentina has the most advanced nuclear-energy program in Latin
America. Argentina signed the Treaty of Tlatelolco, a hemispheric
non-proliferation accord, but has not yet ratified it. President
Menem has renewed Argentina's commitment to the peaceful uses of
nuclear energy. Despite its commitment to safeguards agreements
for its nuclear exports, Argentina has declined to adopt full-scope
safeguards on significant portions of its national nuclear program,
a policy that limits the cooperation available from the United
States and other key nuclear suppliers.
The United States is seriously concerned about Argentina's
involvement in developing the Condor II ballistic missile. The
United States works closely with its Missile Technology Control
Regime partners to deny exports of sensitive technology to
programs such as Condor. President Menem has stated that the
Condor program has been "deactivated."
US-Argentina Relations
The primary US goal in Argentina is to strengthen democracy by
encouraging political pluralism and economic reforms that will
promote sustained growth and social stability. US policy toward
Argentina aims to support the consolidation of democratic
institutions, assure maximum cooperation between our countries,
and resolve any differences in the spirit of mutual respect and
understanding.
US-Argentine relations are cordial and cooperative and
involve daily official and private contacts at all governmental,
business, social, and cultural levels. Based on a shared respect for
democracy, ties have strengthened since the return of democratic
government to Argentina in December 1983. President Menem's
successful visits to the United States in September 1989 and
October 1990 reflected this improvement in bilateral relations.
(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 15, December 10, 1990
Title: Country Profile: Argentina
Date: Dec 4, 199012/4/90
Category: Country Data
Region: South America
Country: Argentina
Subject: History, Trade/Economics,
International Organizations
[TEXT]
Official Name: Republic of Argentina
Geography
Area: 2.8 million sq. km. (1.1 million sq. mi.); about the size of the
US east of the Mississippi River.
Cities: Capital--Buenos Aires (metropolitan area pop. 10.5 million).
Other major cities--Cordoba, Rosario, La Plata, Mendoza.
Terrain: Varied.
Climate: Varied, predominantly temperate.
People
Nationality: Noun and adjective--Argentine(s).
Population (1989 est.): 32.4 million.
Annual growth rate (1989 est.): 1.5%.
Density: 27.8 per sq. mi.
Ethnic groups: European 97%, mostly Spanish and Italian.
Religions: Roman Catholic 92%, Protestant 2%, Jewish 2%, other 4%.
Languages: Spanish (official), English, Italian, German, French.
Education: Years compulsory--7. Adult literacy--92%.
Health: Infant mortality rate--27/1,000. Life expectancy--70 yrs.
Work force: Agriculture--19%. Industry and commerce--36%.
Services--20%. Transport and communications--6%. Other--19%.
Government
Type: Republic.
Independence: July 9, 1816.
Constitution: 1853.
Branches: Executive--president, vice president, cabinet.
Legislative--bicameral Congress (46-member Senate, 254-member
Chamber of Deputies). Judicial--Supreme Court.
Subdivisions: 23 provinces, 1 district (federal capital).
Political parties: Justicialista (Peronist), Radical Civic Union,
numerous smaller national and provincial parties.
Suffrage: Universal.
Flag: Horizontal blue and white bands emblazoned with "Sun of May."
Economy
GDP (1990 est.): $84.3 billion.
Annual growth rate (1990 est.): -3.5%.
Per capita GDP (1990 est.): $2,564.
Inflation rate (1990 est.): 1,500%.
Natural resources: Fertile plains (pampas). Minerals--lead, zinc,
tin, copper, iron, manganese, oil, uranium.
Agriculture (15% of GNP, about 70% of exports by value): Products--
grains, oilseeds and byproducts, livestock products.
Industry (23% of GNP): Types--food processing, motor vehicles,
consumer durables, textiles, metallurgy,
chemicals.
Trade (1989): Exports--$9.5 billion (US--15%): grains, meats,
oilseeds. Imports--$4.2 billion (US--25%): machinery, fuel and
lubricating oils, iron and steel products, wood and lumber,
automotive equipment and parts, chemicals. Major trading partners-
-European Community, USSR, US, Brazil.
External financing: IBRD and IDA--$887 million in FY 1989 (July 1,
1988-June 30, 1989); IDB--$12 million in CY 1989.
Membership in International Organizations
UN and some of its specialized and related agencies, Organization of
American States (OAS), Latin American Integration Association,
Nonaligned Movement, Group of 77, Latin American Economic System
(SELA), New Group of 15, Rio Group (informal group of Latin
American states which deals with multilateral regional issues).
(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 15, December 10, 1990
Title: US-Soviet Economic Relations
Date: Dec 10, 199012/10/90
Category: Policy Briefs (Gist)
Region: Eurasia, North America
Country: USSR (former), United States
Subject: Trade/Economics
[TEXT]
The changes in the Soviet Union resulting from the process of
political and economic reform are leading to further normalization
of economic relations between the United States and the Soviet
Union. President Gorbachev aims to restructure the Soviet economy
and society through a reform process known as perestroika
(restructuring). In October 1990, he announced an economic reform
plan, "Basic Guidelines for the Stabilization of the Economy and the
Transition to a Market Economy." The plan, later approved by the
Supreme Soviet, contains measures that would replace the command
economy with a market system. At Malta in December 1989,
President Bush outlined for President Gorbachev a program of
technical economic cooperation to advance the process of market-
oriented economic reform in the Soviet Union.
At the Washington summit in June 1990, the two presidents
signed a new trade agreement. Two additional steps are needed
before the Soviets receive most-favored-nation status: President
Bush must grant the Soviet Union a waiver of the Jackson-Vanik
Amendment to the 1974 Trade Act, and he must submit the trade
agreement to Congress for approval. The President has stated that
he is prepared to take these steps when the Supreme Soviet passes
emigration legislation meeting international standards.
Bilateral trade with the Soviet Union has doubled since 1986,
but it accounted for less than 1% of total US trade in 1989. Factors
tending to limit trade include the centrally planned nature of the
Soviet economic system, an inconvertible ruble, the
uncompetitiveness of Soviet finished goods, the rigid centralized
trading system, and the inability to purchase industrial inputs
within the Soviet Union because resources are allocated rather than
sold. New emphasis is being placed on expanding trade and
investment opportunities that will build upon improved relations.
US Trade Policy
As Secretary Baker has stated, "Mutually beneficial, non-strategic
commercial exchanges are the best way to expand Soviet
participation in the international economy." Toward that end, the
United States signed a civil aviation agreement and a maritime
transportation agreement with the Soviet Union at the June 1990
summit. We also have negotiated a long-term grains agreement and
are continuing negotiations on bilateral investment and tax
treaties.
Responding to historic changes in the strategic environment,
President Bush announced last May a set of proposals to modernize
the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls
(COCOM), the Western security organization charged with
safeguarding our strategic technology through the use of controls on
the export of strategic Western goods and services to the USSR and
other countries.
Decisions made at the June 1990 COCOM high-level meeting
incorporated all the essential elements of the President's
proposals. The effect of its comprehensive trade liberalization
measures will be to make available to the Soviet Union many of the
previously controlled items in areas such as computers,
telecommunications, and machine tools. COCOM members also
affirmed their belief that COCOM remains an essential element of
Western security.
The United States favors the integration of the Soviet Union
into the international economic community. Therefore, the United
States supported the Soviet Union's application for observer status
in the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT), which was
granted last May. This step is expected to promote market-oriented
reform in the Soviet Union. The United States also has encouraged
the Soviets to develop contacts with the International Monetary
Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Economic Cooperation
The United States wants Soviet economic reform and restructuring
to succeed. Such efforts by the Soviet Union would create a more
open society, transfer resources to non-military purposes and
promote Soviet integration into the world economic system. At the
December 1989 summit meeting in Malta, the President proposed to
the Soviets several initiatives in the area of technical economic
cooperation. Secretary Baker proposed during his meeting with
Foreign Minister Shevardnadze in Paris last July the expansion of
technical cooperation and gave him a list of additional projects for
consideration. These are designed to help the Soviets identify the
issues involved in adopting market-oriented economic policies,
devise a strategy of meaningful economic reform, and implement
that strategy.
Projects and contacts in this technical cooperation effort
already are underway at the expert level. They are currently
concentrated on small business development, formation of financial
markets, banking reform, tax administration, anti-trust policy,
statistical cooperation, and development of a private housing
market.
At the Houston economic summit meeting in July 1990, the
United States supported the decision of its G-7 partners to ask the
IMF, the World Bank, the OECD, and the designated president of the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, in consultation
with the European Community, to study the Soviet economy, make
recommendations for its reform, and establish criteria for Western
assistance that would support these reforms. This study should be
completed by the end of 1990.
A joint US-Soviet Commercial Commission plays an important
role in promoting bilateral trade. In addition, the private US-USSR
Trade and Economic Council meets annually to promote trade and
investment between the two countries. More than 100 US
companies are registered to undertake joint ventures in the Soviet
Union.
US-Soviet Basic Indicators--1989
US USSR
Population (million) 249 289
GNP ($ billion) 5,198 2,664
Per Capita GNP ($) 20,890 9,230
Exports ($ billion) 364 109
Imports ($ billion) 493 115
Source: Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook 1990
(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 1, No 15, December 10, 1990
Title: Status Report: INF Treaty On-Site Inspections
Date: Nov 30, 199011/30/90
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: Eurasia
Country: USSR (former)
Subject: Arms Control, International Organizations,
Nuclear Nonproliferation
[TEXT]
The following was released by the Public Affairs Office of the On-
Site Inspection Agency (OSIA) on November 30, 1990.
Since July 1, 1988, inspectors from the On-Site Inspection Agency
(OSIA) have conducted 382 inspections in the Soviet Union under the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. In the same
period, OSIA coordinated 163 Soviet inspections to US sites in this
country and Western Europe.
The INF Treaty between the United States and Soviet Union
entered into force on June 1, 1988, when President Reagan and
Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev exchanged the articles of
implementation at the Moscow summit. The treaty calls for
elimination of all US and Soviet ground-launched missile systems
with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers (about 300 to 3,400 miles)
within 3 years after entry into force. In the treaty's memorandum
of understanding, the Soviets declared 1,846 missiles for
elimination and the United States 846.
OSIA is responsible for conducting and coordinating the
treaty's inspection provisions. For the frst time in US and Soviet
history, on-site inspections were included in the verification
process of an arms control agreement between the countries.
The period since entry into force of the treaty has been
marked by almost continuous elimination of missiles, launchers and
related equipment. Beginning with the first Soviet SS-12 missile
destruction at Saryczek in August 1988, US inspectors have
witnessed the elimination of 1,780 Soviet missiles through
November 8, 1990. Since the initial elimination at Longhorn Army
Ammunition Plant near Marshall, Texas, on September 8, 1988,
Soviet inspectors have viewed the destruction of 654 US missiles.
All declared shorter-range INF systems, those with ranges
from 500 to 1,000 kilometers, were eliminated 1 month in advance
of the treaty deadline of November 30, 1989. The US Pershing 1-A
was the first shorter-range system to be eliminated, with the final
missile eliminated on July 6, 1989. The Soviet Union eliminated the
last of its declared shorter-range missiles, the SS-12, on July 26,
1989, and the SS-23 on October 27, 1989.
The Soviet Union destroyed the last of 80 SSC-X-4 non-
deployed cruise missiles on October 5, 1988, and the last of six SS-
5s on August 16, 1989. With the destruction of the last declared
SS-4 on May 22, 1990, the only remaining Soviet system
enumerated in the treaty is the SS-20.
Continuous portal monitoring operations began in both
countries in July 1988. At Magna, Utah, and Votkinsk, USSR,
permanent groups of up to 30 inspectors each are situated outside
the gates of former INF missile production and final assembly
plants to check existing vehicles for treaty-limited items.
US, Soviet INF Inspections and Eliminations (1) June 1,
1988-November 30, 1990
Inspections:
By Soviets in US By US in USSR
Initial 31 117
Monitor elimination 77 115
Short notice 50 49
Closeout 10 102
TOTAL 168 383
Eliminations:
Subject to elimination Eliminated
Soviet Systems
SS-20 654 588
SS-12 718 718
SS-23 239 239
SS-4 149 149
SS-5 6 6
SSC-X-4 80 80
TOTAL 1,846 1,780
US Systems
Pershing I 169 169
Pershing II 234 170
GLCM (2) 443 315
TOTAL 846 654
(1) Source : INF Treaty Memorandum of Understanding, June 1, 1988
Update.
(2) Ground-launched cruise missiles.
(###)