US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 3, January 21, 1991
Title: Operation Desert Storm Launched
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: Address to the nation broadcast from the White House at
9:00 pm (EST); Washington, DC
Date: Jan 16, 19911/16/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait
Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization
[TEXT]
Just 2 hours ago, allied air forces began an attack on military
targets in Iraq and Kuwait. These attacks continue as I speak.
Ground forces are not engaged.
This conflict started August 2d when the dictator of Iraq
invaded a small and helpless neighbor. Kuwait--a member of the
Arab League and a member of the United Nations--was crushed; its
people brutalized. Five months ago, Saddam Hussein started this
cruel war against Kuwait. Tonight, the battle has been joined.
This military action, taken in accord with UN resolutions--and
with the consent of the United States Congress--follows months of
constant and virtually endless diplomatic activity on the part of the
United Nations, the United States, and many, many other countries.
Arab leaders sought what became known as an Arab solution--only
to conclude that Saddam Hussein was unwilling to leave Kuwait.
Others traveled to Baghdad in a variety of efforts to restore peace
and justice. Our Secretary of State, James Baker, held a historic
meeting in Geneva--only to be totally rebuffed. This past weekend,
in a last-ditch effort, the Secretary General of the United Nations
went to the Middle East, with peace in his heart--his second such
mission. And he came back from Baghdad with no progress at all in
getting Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait.
Now the 28 countries with forces in the Gulf area have
exhausted all reasonable efforts to reach a peaceful resolution;
have no choice but to drive Saddam from Kuwait by force. We will
not fail.
As I report to you, air attacks are underway against military
targets in Iraq. We are determined to knock out Saddam Hussein's
nuclear bomb potential. We will also destroy his chemical weapons
facilities. Much of Saddam's artillery and tanks will be destroyed.
Our operations are designed to best protect the lives of all the
coalition forces by targeting Saddam's vast military arsenal.
Initial reports from [Desert Storm forces commander] General
Schwarzkopf are that our operations are proceeding according to
plan.
Our objectives are clear. Saddam Hussein's forces will leave
Kuwait. The legitimate government of Kuwait will be restored to
its rightful place, and Kuwait will once again be free. Iraq will
eventually comply with all relevant UN resolutions. And then, when
peace is restored, it is our hope that Iraq will live as a peaceful and
cooperative member of the family of nations, thus, enhancing the
security and stability of the Gulf.
Some may ask, why act now? Why not wait? The answer is
clear: The world could wait no longer. Sanctions, though having
some effect, showed no signs of accomplishing their objective.
Sanctions were tried for well over 5 months, and we and our allies
concluded that sanctions alone would not force Saddam from Kuwait.
While the world waited, Saddam Hussein systematically
raped, pillaged, and plundered a tiny nation, no threat to his own. He
subjected the people of Kuwait to unspeakable atrocities--and
among those maimed and murdered, innocent children.
While the world waited, Saddam sought to add to the chemical
weapons arsenal he now possesses an infinitely more dangerous
weapon of mass destruction--a nuclear weapon.
And while the world waited, while the world talked peace and
withdrawal, Saddam Hussein dug in and moved massive forces into Kuwait.
While the world waited, while Saddam stalled, more damage
was being done to the fragile economies of the Third World, the
emerging democracies of Eastern Europe, to the entire world
including to our own economy.
The United States, together with the United Nations,
exhausted every means at our disposal to bring this crisis to a
peaceful end. However, Saddam clearly felt that by stalling and
threatening and defying the United Nations, he could weaken the
forces arrayed against him.
While the world waited, Saddam Hussein met every overture
of peace with open contempt. While the world prayed for peace,
Saddam prepared for war.
I had hoped that when the US Congress, in historic debate,
took its resolute action, Saddam would realize he could not prevail
and would move out of Kuwait in accord with the UN resolutions. He
did not do that. Instead, he remained intransigent, certain that time
was on his side.
Saddam was warned over and over again to comply with the
will of the United Nations. Leave Kuwait or be driven out. Saddam
has arrogantly rejected all warnings. Instead, he tried to make this
a dispute between Iraq and the United States of America.
Well, he failed. Tonight, 28 nations--countries from five
continents: Europe and Asia, Africa, and the Arab League--have
forces in the Gulf area standing shoulder-to-shoulder against
Saddam Hussein. These countries had hoped the use of force could
be avoided. Regrettably, we now believe that only force will make
him leave.
Prior to ordering our forces into battle, I instructed our
military commanders to take every necessary step to prevail as
quickly as possible and with the greatest degree of protection
possible for American and allied servicemen and women. I've told
the American people before that this will not be another Vietnam.
And I repeat this here tonight. Our troops will have the best
possible support in the entire world, and they will not be asked to
fight with one hand tied behind their backs.
I'm hopeful that this fighting will not go on for long and that
casualties will be held to an absolute minimum.
This is a historic moment. We have, in this past year, made
great progress in ending the long era of conflict and Cold War. We
have before us the opportunity to forge, for ourselves and for future
generations, a new world order--a world where the rule of law, not
the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations.
When we are successful--and we will be--we have a real
chance at this new world order--an order in which a credible United
Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and
vision of the UN's founders.
We have no argument with the people of Iraq--indeed, for the
innocents caught in this conflict, I pray for their safety.
Our goal is not the conquest of Iraq; it is the liberation of
Kuwait. It is my hope that somehow the Iraqi people can, even now,
convince their dictator that he must lay down his arms, leave
Kuwait, and let Iraq itself rejoin the family of peace-loving nations.
Thomas Paine wrote many years ago: "These are the times
that try men's souls." Those well-known words are so very true
today. But even as planes of the multinational forces attack Iraq, I
prefer to think of peace, not war. I am convinced not only that we
will prevail but that out of the horror of combat will come the
recognition that no nation can stand against a world united. No
nation will be permitted to brutally assault its neighbor.
No president can easily commit our sons and daughters to war.
They are the nation's finest. Ours is an all volunteer force--
magnificently trained, highly motivated. The troops know why
they're there. And listen to what they say, for they've said it better
than any president or prime minister ever could.
Listen to "Hollywood" Huddleston, Marine Lance Corporal. He
says, "Let's free these people so we can go home and be free again."
He's right. The terrible crimes and tortures committed by Saddam's
henchmen against the innocent people of Kuwait are an affront to
mankind and a challenge to the freedom of all.
Listen to one of our great officers out there, Marine
Lieutenant General Walter Boomer. He said, "There are things worth
fighting for. A world in which brutality and lawlessness are
allowed to go unchecked isn't the kind of world we're going to want
to live in."
Listen to Master Sergeant J.P. Kendall of the 82nd Airborne.
"We're here for more than just the price of a gallon of gas. What
we're doing is going to chart the future of the world for the next
hundred years. It's better to deal with this guy now than 5 years
from now.
And finally, we should all sit up and listen to Jackie Jones, an
Army Lieutenant, when she says, "If we let him get away with this,
who knows what's going to be next?"
I have called upon "Hollywood" and Walter and J.P. and Jackie
and all their courageous comrades in arms to do what must be done.
Tonight, America and the world are deeply grateful to them and to
their families. And let me say to everyone listening or watching
tonight: When the troops we've sent in finish their work, I am
determined to bring them home as soon as possible.
Tonight, as our forces fight, they and their families are in our
prayers. May God bless each and every one of them and the coalition
forces at our side in the Gulf--and may He continue to bless our
nation, the United States of America.
Statement by President Bush, January 16, 1991
The liberation of Kuwait has begun. In conjunction with the forces
of our coalition partners, the United States has moved under the
code name Operation Desert Storm to enforce the mandates of the
UN Security Council. As of 7:00 pm eastern standard time,
Operation Desert Storm forces were engaging targets in Kuwait and
Iraq.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 3, January 21, 1991
Title: Liberation of Kuwait
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: Remarks and excerpts from a news conference;
Washington, DC
Date: Jan 18, 19911/18/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait
Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization
[TEXT]
We're now some 37 hours into Operation Desert Storm and the
liberation of Kuwait and, so far, so good. US and coalition military
forces have performed bravely, professionally, and effectively. It
is important, however, to keep in mind two things:
First, this effort will take some time. Saddam Hussein has
devoted nearly all of Iraq's resources for a decade to building up
this powerful military machine. We can't expect to overcome it
overnight--especially as we want to minimize casualties to the US
and coalition forces and to minimize any harm done to innocent civilians.
Second, we must be realistic. There will be losses. There
will be obstacles along the way. War is never cheap or easy. And I
said this only because I am somewhat concerned about the initial
euphoria in some of the reports and reactions to the first day's
developments. No one should doubt or question the ultimate
success, because we will prevail. But I don't want to see us get
overly euphoric about all of this.
Our goals have not changed. What we seek is the same as what
the international community seeks: namely, Iraq's complete and
unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait and then full compliance
with the Security Council resolutions.
I also want to say how outraged I am by Iraq's latest act of
aggression--in this case against Israel. Once again, we see that no
neighbor of Iraq is safe. I want to state here publicly how much I
appreciated Israel's restraint from the outset, really from the very
beginning of this crisis. Prime Minister [Yitzhak] Shamir and his
government have shown great understanding for the interests of the
United States and the interests of others involved in this coalition.
Close consultations with Israel are continuing. So, too, are
close consultations with our coalition partners. Just a few minutes
ago, I spoke to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of Canada. And in that
vein, I also had a long and good conversation this morning with
Soviet President [Mikhail] Gorbachev in which we thoroughly
reviewed the situation in the Gulf. And, of course, I took the
opportunity from that call to express again my concern, my deep
concern over the Baltics and the need to ensure that there is a
peaceful resolution to the situation there.
Let me close here by saying how much we appreciate what our
fighting men and women are doing. This country is united. Yes,
there's some protest, but this country is fundamentally united. And
I want that message to go out to every kid that is over there serving
this country.
I saw in the paper a comment by one who worried from seeing
demonstrations here and there in this country on television that
that expressed the will of the country. So, to those troops over
there, let me just take this opportunity to say your country is
supporting you; the Congress overwhelmingly endorsed that. Let
there be no doubt in the minds of any of you: you have the full and
unified support of the United States of America. So I salute them.
They deserve our full support, and they are our finest.
Q: Has the United States asked Israel not to retaliate against
Iraq for its attack, what commitments has the United States
received in these consultations that we've had with Israel, and how
long do you think Israel can stay on the sidelines if these attacks
continue?
A: These questions, questions of what we're talking to Israel
about right now, I'm going to keep confidential. No question that
Israel's Scud--the attack on Israel was purely an act of terror. It
had absolutely no military significance at all. And it was that
attack that is symptomatic of the kind of leader that the world is
now confronting in Saddam Hussein and that, again, I repeat, the
man that will be defeated here.
But Israel has shown great restraint, and I've said that. I
think we can all understand that they are--they have their own
problems that come from this. But I don't want to go further into it
because we are right in the midst of consultations with Israel. I
think they, like us, do not want to see this war widened out, and yet
they are determined to protect their own population centers. And I
can tell you that our defense people are in touch with our
commanders to be sure that we are doing the utmost we can to
suppress any of these missile sites that might wreak havoc not just
on Israel, but on other countries that are not involved in this
fighting. So I'm going to leave it there, and I am confident that this
matter can be resolved.
Q: Are you worried that it could change the course of the
war?
A: I think that we ought to guard against anything that can
change the course of the war. So I think everybody realizes what
Saddam Hussein was trying to do--to change the course of the war,
to weaken the coalition. And he's going to fail. I want to say when
the Soviet Union made such a strong statement, that was very
reassuring. We are in close touch with our coalition partners, and
this coalition is not going to fall apart. I'm convinced of that.
Q: Two days ago you launched a war, and war is inherently a
two-way street. Why should you be surprised or outraged when
there is an act of retaliation?
A: Against a country that's innocent and is not involved in it-
-that's what I'm saying. Israel is not a participant. Israel is not a
combatant. And this man is elected to launch a terroristic attack
against the population centers in Israel with no military design
whatsoever. And that's why. And it is an outrage, and the whole
world knows it, and the whole world is--most of the countries in
the world are speaking out against it. There can be no consideration
of this in anything other than condemnation.
Q: Why is it that any move for . . . peace is considered an end
run at the White House these days . . . that people who still want to
find a peaceful solution seem to be running into a brick wall.
A: The world is united, I think, in seeing that these UN
resolutions are fulfilled. Everybody would like to find a way to end
the fighting. But it's not going to end until there is total
agreement--total cooperation with and fulfillment of these UN
resolutions. This man is not going to pull a victory off by trying to
wage terrorist attacks against a country that is not a participant in
all of this, and I'm talking about Israel.
And so I think everyone would like to see it end, but it isn't
going to end short of the total fulfillment of our objectives.
Q: You gave assurances on this platform a few weeks ago--
reiterated here today--that the coalition would withstand an
attempt to engage Israel, or perhaps even Israel's retaliation
against an attack. Can you give us some better idea today of what
the basis for your assurance is on that point?
A: A lot of diplomacy has gone on behind the scenes in this
regard, and I feel very confident about what I've said.
Q: A particularly touchy situation obviously exists with
regard to Jordan, whose position in the neighborhood is particularly
sensitive. Can you update us on any understandings that may exist,
any diplomatic initiatives that may be ongoing, to assure the
Jordanians or to convince them to take no action, or about what
would happen if they did?
A: I don't think there are any understandings on that with
Jordan at this point, and so I can't elaborate on that.
Q: There was some indication last night--I appreciate your
not wanting to tell us what is going on right now--but last night it
appeared that Israeli planes got off the ground and headed toward
Iraq. Did this government stop an Israeli retaliation that was
underway?
A: No.
Q: Secondly, are we trying to kill Saddam Hussein? We have
blown out several buildings where he could have been last night--
yesterday.
A: We're not targeting any individual.
Q: Do you have any message of reassurance to the people of
Israel that the restraint being shown by their government doesn't
place them in risk?
A: I think that they know of our determination to safeguard
them following this attack--or prior to this attack. And we are
going to be redoubling our efforts in the darndest search-and-
destroy effort that has every been undertaken out in that area. And
I hope that that is very reassuring to the citizens of Israel.
Q: Are you trying to caution against overconfidence with your
statement in--by concern that Saddam Hussein may have a lot more
staying power than was originally thought, or is it based on an
upcoming land warfare that is apt to be protracted?
A: No, I don't think there is any conclusion that he has a lot
more staying power than anybody thought. But what I am cautioning
against is a mood of euphoria that existed around here yesterday
because things went very, very well--from a military standpoint,
exceptionally well. This was received all around the world with
joy, but I just would caution again that it isn't going to be that easy
all the time. But we have not changed our assessment as to how
difficult the task ahead is.
Q: You said the Israelis have shown restraint. Are you
confident that they will show restraint?
A: Well, we are working on that, and I am very hopeful that
they will. They've been most cooperative. Secretary Baker talked
to Prime Minister Shamir last night. I'll probably be on the phone
with him in not so many minutes from now, and I could answer the
question better after that. But I think they realize the complexity
of this situation; we certainly do. But whatever happens, I'm
convinced that this coalition will hold together.
Q: Will you be able to tell Prime Minister Shamir with any
confidence that you have knocked out these missile sites?
A: The problem on that is we can tell him with confidence
what we've done in terms of some of the missile sites but not all,
because you're dealing with mobile missiles that can be hidden.
I'm getting a little off my turf here because I've vowed to
permit the Defense Department to respond to these military
questions. But I think that one is rather clear that, when you can
hide a mobile missile the way they've done, it's awfully hard to
certify that all of them have been taken care of.
Q: Granted you say that there are some rough days ahead. But
there's also been a considerable amount of discussion as to the
relatively unexpectedly low rate of response on the part of the
Iraqis; you've had some briefings on this. What are your thoughts?
What do you think explains this?
A: I don't know. But my thoughts are that as each hour goes
by, they're going to be relatively less able to respond. And I say
that with no bravado. I just simply say that because that's what's
happening over there. So there has been a--he may well have been
holding his mobile missiles back, for example. Wheeling them out
there when he thinks they will be undetected and then firing a few
of these missiles into the heart of downtown Haifa to try to make
some political statement. But there may be some more of that
ahead for--maybe aimed at other countries. Who knows? But in
terms of his ability to respond militarily, I can guarantee the world
that, as every hour goes by, he is going to be less able to respond,
less able to stand up against the entire world--the world opinion as
expressed in these UN resolutions.
Q: Do you have any hard intelligence information that would
indicate to you that there is indeed still a live chemical weapons
threat from Saddam Hussein?
A: I would expect there is a threat because chemical weapons
have been dispersed. He's used them on his own people. And that's
something that our troops have been warned against, the people of
Israel have been warned against, obviously, and others in the area
have been warned against. So I can't say that every chemical
weapon has been destroyed. But I think I said the other night in the
speech from--comments from the Oval Office there that his ability
to make chemical weapons will not exist. I can't tell you exactly
where that stands, but I would refer you to the Pentagon.
Q: This is the first time there's been sustained [combat]
between American soldiers and Arab forces. There's been an
enormous amount of concern about what the reaction of the Arab
world would be. Now that the war is underway, how concerned are
you about that problem? Is there anything that could be done by you
to minimize the damage to the links between Arab countries and the
United States.
A: You're not talking about this . . . in relationship to the
attack on Israel.
Q: More in terms of the Arab--
A: I've never believed that the Arabs would oppose what's
going on right now. I believe when you see the Arab League and
Egypt itself--which, I guess, is the largest in population of Arab
countries--strongly supporting what we're doing, that this idea that
all Arabs--the idea that he tried to sell--Saddam did--that Arabs
vs. America is phony, it's a phony argument.
There are Arab forces in the air probably right now--Kuwaiti
or Saudi forces. There is a strong Arab element in this coalition.
There are many countries in the Arab League that are opposed to
Saddam Hussein and have long felt that he was the bully of the
neighborhood. And it is about time that his aggression come to heel.
And so I don't worry about it long run. I do think when this is over
we will have some very sophisticated diplomacy to do. But I believe
at this point that many people in the--most people in the Arab
world understand and approve what the United Nations tried to do
and is trying to do now. So it doesn't concern me.
Now, there are some elements that, clearly, you might say, are
on the other side. And that would worry me in a sense, but it
worries me for the future, not so much for the present. I think that
what we want to--when all this is over, we want to be the healers.
We want to do what we can to facilitate what I might
optimistically call a new world order.
But that new world order should have a conciliatory
component to it. It should say to those countries that are on the
other side at this juncture--and there aren't many of them--look,
you're part of this new world order. You're part of this. You can
play an important part in seeing that the world can live at peace in
the Middle East and elsewhere. So there are some that oppose us.
There are some of the more radical elements that will always
oppose the West and the United States.
But there are countries involved there that may have leaned--
tilted, to use an old diplomatic expression, toward Saddam Hussein
and toward Iraq that will clearly be in the forefront of this new
world order. I am not going to write off Jordan. We've had a
longstanding relationship with King Hussein, but he's in a very
difficult position there. I have had some differences with him, but
they've been respectful, but I would like to see him be more publicly
understanding of what it is the United Nations is trying to do here
and the US role. We're not going to suggest that Jordan, because
they've taken this position, can't continue to be a tremendously
important country in this new world order.
So I don't accept the premise that Saddam Hussein tried to
sell the world that it was the Arabs against the United States.
There is overwhelming evidence to show that he is wrong. What he
was trying to do, obviously, is divert world attention away from the
brutal aggression against Kuwait. You heard it in the [Iraqi Foreign
Minister] Aziz press conference. I mean, if there ever was evidence
as to what I'm saying, it was the way he conducted himself in that
press conference.
So, so far, I think there has been understanding as to why
we're doing what we are doing. And I'd like to think respect--
because I think they--for the coalition because I think they see, as I
do, the Arab world, that, out of this, there's a chance for a lasting
peace. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 3, January 21, 1991
Title: Journalists Advised To Leave Iraq
Fitzwater
Source: White House Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater
Description: Personal Letter to Journalists; Washington, DC
Date: Jan 16, 19911/16/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait
Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization,
Media/Telecommunications
[TEXT]
In August of 1990, after the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, the State
Department advised you as citizens and journalists to leave Iraq for
their own safety. Today, I want to reemphasize my admonition as
stated here in the White House on January 10, January 14, and
January 15 that we advise all Americans and journalists to leave
Iraq.
Beginning today, the international coalition has the authority
of the United Nations to use force to evict Iraq from Kuwait. This
could begin at any time. I, therefore, want to reiterate one last
time my advice that journalists should leave Iraq immediately.
While we continue to hold Iraq responsible for the well-being
of Americans left in that country, we cannot guarantee their safety
nor that of anyone else there. I advise all who can leave Iraq to do
so at once.
That's a personal message from me. It's based on the many
advisories we've received from the State Department, and it's based
on my--just watching television and seeing any number of our
colleagues still there and my concern for their safety.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 3, January 21, 1991
Title: Use of Strategic Petroleum Reserve Authorized
Fitzwater
Source: White House Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater
Description: Statement from the White House; Washington, DC
Date: Jan 16, 19911/16/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait
Subject: Military Affairs, Resource Management,
Science/Technology
[TEXT]
The President tonight authorized Secretary of Energy James D.
Watkins, pursuant to the terms of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, to draw down and distribute the strategic
petroleum reserve (SPR) at such a rate as the Secretary may
determine.
The authorization to draw down the SPR is in conformance
with the emergency response plan agreed to in the International
Energy Agency (IEA) on January 11, 1991. The IEA plan provides
that, in anticipation of any possible temporary shortfall in oil
supplies in the event of hostilities in the Persian Gulf, 2.5 million
barrels of oil per day be made available by member countries. The
US contribution to meeting the IEA commitment is 1.125 million
barrels per day.
The President made a finding that events in the Persian Gulf
have resulted in a potential national energy supply shortage
constituting a "severe energy supply interruption," as defined in
Section 3(8) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The
President's action was a precautionary measure, taken in concert
with our IEA partners, designed to promote stability in world oil
markets.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 3, January 21, 1991
Title: Canada Supports Desert Shield Coalition
Mulroney
Source: Prime Minister of Canada Brian Mulroney
Description: Remarks and excerpts are from a question-and-answer
session with Secretary Baker in Ottawa, Canada
Date: Jan 14, 19911/14/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa, North America
Country: Iraq, Kuwait, Canada
Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization
[TEXT]
Prime Minister Mulroney: We've had a very useful meeting.
Secretary Baker has briefed me on his recent discussions with
leaders in Europe and the Mideast following which we reviewed the
deteriorating situation in the Gulf as the pause for peace comes to
an end. The failure of the UN Secretary General's mission is, of
course, profoundly disappointing. This may have been our last hope
for a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
In our discussions this morning, I told Mr. Baker that all
possible diplomatic means that might resolve the situation must be
examined, and no promising avenue should be overlooked. I also told
the Secretary that if Saddam Hussein continues to reject the path
of peace, Canada will stand with the United Nations in implementing
its resolutions as Canada has always done. I told the Secretary that
Canada remains committed to the 12 UN resolutions calling on Iraq
to get out of Kuwait.
The choice is now Saddam Hussein's. If war is to be averted,
he must withdraw his army from Kuwait. There is no question of
rewarding a dictator, even implicitly, for an act of aggression. We
know from the history of this century that one cannot buy peace in
this way. UN Resolution 678 provides a pause for peace but also
envisages the possibility of using force after January 15.
Parliament supported this resolution last November 29. Members of
Parliament will have an opportunity in the coming days to reaffirm
their support of the UN resolutions.
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 3, January 21, 1991
Title: Canada Supports Desert Shield Coalition
Baker
Source: Secretary Baker
Description: Remarks and excerpts are from a question-and-answer
session with Prime Minister Mulroney in Ottawa, Canada
Date: Jan 14, 19911/14/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa, North America
Country: Iraq, Kuwait, Canada
Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization
[TEXT]
Secretary Baker: . . .I would like to echo, Mr. Prime Minister, what
you have said in expressing disappointment at the results of the
Secretary General's meeting in Baghdad. It seems to me that this is
one more rejection by Saddam Hussein of a peace envoy to Baghdad.
It is one more act of defiance of the rest of the world. And it is one
more indication of Saddam Hussein's callous disregard of the well-
being of the Iraqi people. I also agree strongly, Prime Minister,
with what you said about the choice being up to Saddam Hussein.
We are speaking here, after all, about implementing 12 solemn
resolutions of the UN Security Council. We are talking about an
international coalition of many countries allied to support the
principle that unprovoked aggression should not succeed.
We really are talking here about restoring peace: restoring
peace to the Gulf, restoring peace to Kuwait--a peace which was
violently and brutally breached on the 2d of August. It is the hope
as well, Prime Minister, of the United States, as the clock ticks
down to midnight, January 15, that there will be an opportunity to
resolve this crisis peacefully and politically. But that opportunity
now must come from Baghdad. . . .
Q: There is total solidarity among the coalition?
Secretary Baker: I think there is total solidarity among the
coalition, yes, sir. There, of course, are one or two differences
with respect to one or two individual countries that I will not go
into here. But generally speaking, let me say as I said last night to
our traveling press corps, at the completion of this trip, I am very
satisfied that the coalition is fully prepared--politically,
economically, and militarily--to deal with possible alternatives as
we approach midnight, January 15. . . . (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 3, January 21, 1991
Title: Terrorism: US Precautions and Travel Advisories
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Jan 16, 19911/16/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait
Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization, Travel,
Terrorism
[TEXT]
In view of threatening public statements by Iraq and planning
activities undertaken by terrorist groups supported by Baghdad, the
US government believes that acts of terrorism directed against
American interests are likely in the event of hostilities. President
Bush has said that the United States will hold Saddam Hussein
directly responsible for any terrorist attack Iraq sponsors.
Some of the steps that the US government is taking to help
counter this threat are the following.
-- Since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, we have released four
public announcements warning of the risk of Iraqi-sponsored
terrorist activities. These warnings remain in effect.
-- The Department has authorized or ordered the drawdown of
personnel from most US diplomatic facilities in North Africa and
the Middle East. We have publicized this information in travel
advisories, and we strongly urge that Americans considering travel
abroad review all travel advisories affecting the region or country
to which they may be planning to travel.
-- Ambassador Busby, who is the State Department
Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism, has worked closely with the
Federal Aviation Administration, which has implemented major
enhancements of aviation security standards for both domestic and
international service by US airlines. The international measures
have been carefully coordinated with our major aviation partners.
-- Ambassador Busby has traveled extensively since August
to discuss the terrorist threats with our allies and is working very
closely with them in coordinating whatever measures we are
planning.
-- The Department has asked all US diplomatic missions
worldwide to review their respective security situations.
-- American embassies and consulates throughout the world
have been briefing local American communities on steps that they
can take to increase their personal security in this time of
heightened tension.
As we have said before to you, while it is likely that terrorist
events may occur for which we have no forewarning, should specific
and credible information on a threat to the American public be
received, the Department of State will provide information for
travelers and other concerned parties.
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 3, January 21, 1991
Title: Travel Advisories
Date: Jan 16, 19911/16/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait
Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization, Travel
[TEXT]
Travel Advisories
The State Department issues travel advisories to inform traveling
Americans of conditions abroad which may affect them adversely.
Such advisories usually concern physical dangers, unexpected
arrests or detentions, serious health hazards, and other conditions
abroad with serious consequences.
Travel advisories which describe a potential for violence and
physical danger usually reflect a trend or pattern of violence over a
period of time in which the government of the country involved is
unwilling or unable to afford normal protection. For that reason,
isolated international terrorist or criminal attacks--which can and
do occur virtually anywhere--generally do not trigger travel
advisories.
Travel advisories are not instruments of political policy.
They are issued on the basis of objective evidence about emerging
or existing circumstances; they are modified or canceled when
those circumstances change. Travel advisories are issued only
after careful review of information from our diplomatic post in the
affected country and in coordination with various bureaus of State
Department and other concerned federal agencies.
How To Get Travel Advisories
Contact: Passport agencies located in: Boston, Chicago, Honolulu,
Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia,
San Francisco, Seattle, Stamford, and Washington, DC (see local
telephone book listing: "United States Government, Department of
State, Passport Agency"). Travel advisories also are available from
field offices of the US Department of Commerce and US embassies
and consulates abroad.
Write to:
Citizens Emergency Center, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Rm. 4811,
NS, US Department of State, Washington, DC 20520-4818
Phone: Citizens Emergency Center: 202-647-5225 or--0900 from
a touchtone phone (recorded information).
Computer Network
-- Travel advisories are part of the State Department's new
Computer Information Delivery Service (to learn more about this
service, call the CIDS Message Center at 703-802-5700 and see
Dispatch Vol. 1, No. 18, p. 373).
-- The State Department also directly maintains a database
of travel advisories on Compuserve (type GO STATE at any "!" prompt
for access).
-- Call the Official Airline Guides Electronic Edition at 800-
323-4000 to obtain information on accessing travel advisories
through the OAG on any of the following computer services:
Compuserve, Dialcom, Dialog, Dow Jones News/Retrieval, General
Videotext-Delphi, GEnie, iNet-America, iNet-Bell of Canada,
NewsNet, IP Sharp, Telenet, Western Union-Easylink.
-- Infosys America Inc. provides full texts through Travel
Online BBS on the SmartNet International Computer Network in the
US, Canada, and overseas (modem telephone number: 314-625-
4054).
-- Interactive Office Services, Inc. (for information on
access, call Travel+Plus 617-876-5551 or 800-544-4005) offers
on-line travel information through: Deplhi, MCI (RCA Hotline),
Unison, NYNEX Info Look, Bell South TUG, Graphnet, FTCC Answer
Bank.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 3, January 21, 1991
Title: Soviet Use of Force in the Baltics
Seitz
Source: Raymond G.H. Seitz, Assistant Secretary for
European and Canadian Affairs
Description: Statement before the Conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) Commission; Washington, DC
Date: Jan 17, 19911/17/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Eurasia
Country: USSR (former), Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania
Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization, CSCE, NATO,
Regional/Civil Unrest
[TEXT]
The President and Secretary Baker have made clear that the United
States condemns the use of force and intimidation by the Soviet
government against the freely elected governments of Lithuania,
Latvia, and Estonia and the citizens of those states. We are
outraged by the killing of unarmed civilians in Vilnius by Soviet
military units on January 13. We hold the Soviet leadership
responsible for the actions of the Soviet military. The President's
reaction on hearing of these events was unequivocal. "There is no
justification," he said, "for the use of force against peaceful and
democratically elected governments."
By their actions, the Soviets have violated their commitments
under the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe to
respect the will of the people expressed in democratic elections.
These violent actions violate the spirit and content of the CSCE
Charter of Paris signed by Soviet President Gorbachev scarcely 2
months ago. Soviet actions run directly counter to the reforms the
Soviet government has itself sought to implement over the last
several years, since these reforms are based crucially on the rule of
law. The President and Secretary Baker have consistently
emphasized that the United States has never recognized the forcible
annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union. To quote the
Secretary: "We support--and will continue to support--the
aspirations of the Baltic peoples to determine their own future."
We thus view Soviet actions in the Baltic states with abhorrence.
They are an attempt to suppress democratic development and to
prevent the Baltic peoples from choosing their own destinies. They
are a serious mistake for the Soviet Union itself and the
democratization Gorbachev has sought to foster, as well as for the
Soviet Union's relations with the United States and many other
countries in North America, Western, Central, and Eastern Europe,
and elsewhere.
The President is following events in the Baltic states closely.
As he said on January 13, the Soviet program of democratic change
has provided the basis for the significant improvement in relations
between the United States and the Soviet Union in the past few
years. Increasing cooperation between the United States and the
Soviet Union is a vital factor for stability and peace, and it is in the
interest of people everywhere that this cooperation continue.
However, if the Soviet Union turns back from the path of
democratization and peaceful change, this can only damage the
relationship between our two countries. As Secretary Baker
observed on January 13, "enduring US-Soviet cooperation, indeed
partnership, depends on continued reform--for partnership is
impossible in the absence of shared values."
We have communicated to the Soviets our abhorrence of the
use of force and intimidation and our strong view that peaceful
dialogue with the legitimate representatives of the Baltic peoples
is the only way to resolve this crisis. The President has spoken to
President Gorbachev on this subject, and on January 13 Ambassador
Matlock expressed our condemnation of Soviet actions to Deputy
Foreign Minister Kovalev. He reiterated that the United States does
not recognize the forcible annexation of the Baltic states.
Secretary Baker wrote and spoke to former Foreign Minister
Shevardnadze last week on the Baltics. On returning from his trip
to the Middle East, he called in the Soviet Charge to convey our
strong protest over Soviet actions in the Baltics. He delivered the
same message through a phone call to the new Soviet Foreign
Minister Aleksandr Bessmertnykh on that same day.
We are in contact with Baltic representatives virtually on an
hourly basis. This week I received a delegation of Baltic diplomats,
and both the State Department Counselor, Robert Zoellick, and I met
with a member of the Estonian government, as did the National
Security Council staff. The Latvian Deputy Prime Minister and one
of the vice presidents of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of
Lithuania are arriving in Washington tonight. They will be received
here at a high level. The Baltic states are turning to us and to the
Western allies for support in their efforts to continue to build
democracy and to defend the gains for which they have struggled so
long and paid so dearly.
While condemning the actions of the Soviet authorities in the
Baltics, we must keep in mind that genuine democratic movements
and nascent democratic institutions have been forming in the Soviet
Union for some time. The continuation of these positive
developments is of vital importance to the people of the Soviet
Union and to democracy in the Baltic states. We too have a stake in
it, for it is the basis for the continued growth of cooperation
between the US and Soviet governments. While considering the
measures we might have to take in response to Soviet actions in the
Baltics, we must continue to encourage the Soviet authorities to
return to the path of democratic reform and give our support to
those who are working for democratization in the Soviet Union.
The common international response rejecting the Soviet
actions in the Baltic states has been swift, forceful, and
unprecedented. This is an issue for the international community
because it involves basic standards of behavior. If we are to have
an effect on the Soviet leaders, we must present a unified front so
they understand that continuing down the path of violence or
repression will disrupt relations with the West and with
governments around the world. We are working multilaterally with
our NATO allies, with the European Community (EC), and with the
CSCE governments now meeting in Valletta. Our aims are to support
the Baltics and to make clear to the Soviets the risk they run by
engaging in this unacceptable behavior.
For example, the North Atlantic Council statement of January
14 appeals to the Soviets to honor their CSCE commitments and
notes the negative consequences that the continued use of force by
the Soviets in the Baltics could have for relations between the
allies and the Soviet Union. The EC has made clear that the use of
force in Lithuania is unacceptable and inconsistent with the
fundamental principles of the CSCE process and has linked continued
cooperation between the community and the Soviet Union with an
end to the use of violence and intimidation by Soviet forces in the
Baltic states. The Council of Europe (COE) has reacted strongly to
developments in the Baltics and has indicated that the Soviet
Union's special status vis-a-vis the COE Assembly is at risk. East
European states have also rejected the Soviet Union's behavior, and
we are in touch with them as well. And, of course, the President
stated last Sunday that these events threaten to set back or reverse
reform and this "could not help but affect our relationship."
Importantly for this commission, we are also actively
consulting with other CSCE signatories in order to determine what
the next steps will be in our response to Soviet actions there.
Given the Soviets' commitments to the Helsinki Final Act and
subsequent CSCE documents--commitments to which the Soviets
freely subscribed--the CSCE community also has an obligation to
demand a halt to these actions.
Yesterday, in his opening statement at the Valletta Meeting of
Experts on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, our head of
delegation lodged a strong condemnation of Soviet actions, noting
that these actions also run counter to the entire CSCE process and
the spirit of the Valletta meeting.
We and others are sponsoring Baltic non-governmental
organizations into the Valletta sessions and will work with other
participants to seek access for other Baltic representatives, should
they attend. We also supported an Austrian call for a special
meeting of the CSCE to address Soviet actions in the Baltics. Today
in Vienna, the Soviets refused to agree to such a special meeting.
During the ensuing discussion, however, the US delegation and
others stressed the unacceptability of Soviet repression and the
need for a prompt restoration of rights to the Baltic peoples and
their freely elected governments.
Moreover, we are presently consulting with our allies on the
invocation of the human dimension mechanism. We believe the use
of this instrument can drive home to the Soviet authorities that the
actions in the Baltics are a fundamental contradiction of all that
CSCE stands for and promises.
In addition, the whole range of programs of cooperation with
the Soviet Union is under review, including programs in the
commercial and financial areas. As for the February summit, you
have seen the statement of the White House spokesman that it is "up
in the air."
In presenting to you our assessment of events in the Baltic
states, I have emphasized our consultations with other
governments, particularly through the CSCE process, in pressing the
Soviets to engage in peaceful dialogue with the legitimate
represent-atives of the Baltic peoples. As the President observed:
"Legitimacy is not built by force; it's earned by the consensus of the
people, and by the protection of human and political rights." It
would be tragic if the difficult but very real progress toward
democratization that has been achieved in the Soviet Union in the
past few years were to be undone by an ill-considered return to the
methods of the police state. It would be tragic for the Baltic
peoples who, as the President said, have "acted with dignity and
restraint." And it would be wrong for the population of the Soviet
Union, for it would signal a return to the old thinking of repression
by the authorities there. We ask the Soviet authorities to undo
what has been done.
North Atlantic Council Statement, January 14, 1991
The Member Nations of the Atlantic Alliance are deeply concerned
by developments in the Baltic Republics, in particular the use of
military force against Lithuanian institutions and citizens with
resulting loss of life. Allies strongly condemn the use of violence
by the Soviet armed forces and actions to undermine the
democratically elected authorities of Lithuania, as well as actions
of intimidation against the other Baltic Republics.
Allies appeal to the Soviet authorities to implement fully the
Soviet Union's CSCE commitments, most recently reflected in the
Charter of Paris for a New Europe, and to pursue the process of
peaceful reform and democratic change. Allies reiterate their
support for this process.
Allies strongly reiterate the views expressed in the
communique issued on December 18, 1990 by the North Atlantic
Council meeting in ministerial session in which they supported the
expectations and legitimate aspirations of the Baltic peoples
through open dialogue by the Soviet authorities with democratically
elected leaders which would lead to a negotiated solution based on
the principles of the Helsinki Final Act, and for all concerned to
exercise restraint.
Allies agree that the continuation of these alarming
developments, in particular, the use of force, would have negative
consequences for the political situation in Europe as a whole and on
their relations with the Soviet Union.
The North Atlantic Council will continue to monitor the
situation in Lithuania and the other Baltic Republics very
closely.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 3, January 21, 1991
Title: US-Japan Relations
Baker
Source: Secretary Baker
Description: Message to the Japanese people, released through the
Japanese media; Japan
Date: Jan 12, 19911/12/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: East Asia
Country: Japan
Subject: Trade/Economics, Security Assistance and Sales
[TEXT]
The past year has been filled with events of deep historic
significance, including the ending of the division of Europe, the
unification of Germany, and the rebirth of democracy in Eastern
Europe; the brutal invasion and occupation of Kuwait by Saddam
Hussein; and a troubling stalemate in our effort to build a more
prosperous world economic order through the Uruguay Round. These
events demonstrate two important points about the present
moment. First, we have entered a new era in which the values
shared by the American and Japanese people are more important
than ever. Second, as world leaders, the United States and Japan
must continue to work together to resolve the emerging challenges
of this new era.
Amidst these rapid changes our two countries share not only
great opportunities but also great responsibilities for maintaining a
peaceful, stable, democratic, and prosperous world system. Working
together, the United States and Japan have a rare historic
opportunity to shape the world of the 21st century.
In order to do this, however, our two countries must deal
courageously with today's new challenges. The current crisis in the
Persian Gulf and the fate of the Uruguay Round are benchmark issues
that will define the nature of the post-Cold War international
system. Frankly, America needs Japan's leadership and active
support on both of these critical issues, which are tests of how
well both our countries are meeting their international
responsibilities. The wholehearted support of the Japanese people
for meeting Saddam Hussein's challenge to the United Nations, the
rule of law, and the principle of peaceful relations among nations is
essential to the united response of the international community.
Likewise, the whole world looks to Japan, as a great trading nation,
to lead the way toward an expansion of the world's open trading
system. An "activist" role by Japan on these major political and
economic issues is very much in Japan's own national interest,
because no country depends more on global stability and prosperity
than Japan.
We are the world's two largest democratic economies, the
world's two most advanced technological powers, and the two
largest donors of development assistance. Our close cooperation
should make the critical difference in ensuring the successful
resolution of a wide range of global issues. We both have a great
interest in sustaining a peaceful, stable, democratic and prosperous
world order. We have a shared responsibility to act decisively in
ways that advance our mutual interest in Asia and around the world.
Our security alliance--whose 30th anniversary we celebrated
in 1990--is and must remain the anchor for US-Japan cooperation
and the foundation for peace and stability in the Asia/Pacific
region. But our interests and our relationship have grown beyond
just the Asia/Pacific region. Ours is a relationship that is now
global in scope.
In the new era which we are entering, we face a host of new
challenges that transcend traditional definitions of security. These
challenges begin with the danger of nuclear and weapons
proliferation, but they quickly move beyond the military dimension.
The new challenges we face include illicit drug trafficking, refugee
flows, and international terrorism. They include our efforts to
promote economic development in the Third World and to promote
the transition from communist to market economies in Eastern
Europe and elsewhere. Perhaps the most daunting challenge we face
is the safeguarding of our environment.
We have committed our two countries to the forging of a
global partnership. To reach this ambitious goal requires not only
the closest possible policy coordination between the United States
and Japan, it also requires that we deepen our people-to-people
contacts and mutual understanding. We therefore were very pleased
to learn that the Diet [Japanese parliament] has recently funded the
US-Japan Global Partnership Fund in order to help accomplish this
objective.
Given the complexity of our economic, political and security
relations--particularly in this period of global transition and
adjustment--we should expect that there will be a certain degree
of friction and frustration as well as friendship and cooperation in
our relationship. We should candidly acknowledge that this is a
normal situation for two partners with such important common
responsibilities and wide-ranging yet diverse international
interests and concerns. But we should also recognize that the
strong bonds of trust and good will between our two countries give
us the ability to overcome problems and misunderstandings when
they occur. In fact, the record of the past several years has shown
that when we work together in a spirit of cooperation, we can
overcome the tensions and immediate problems in our relationship.
In particular, we need to recognize that competition is the very
basis of economic activity. The mutual commitment we have made
to harmonize our economic relationship through the Structural
Impediments Initiative is a unique effort which will strengthen the
economic bonds between us and lead to a healthier, stronger
economic relationship.
I have said and believe that the United States has no single
relationship more important than our ties with Japan. And we know
of the strong feelings of friendship and mutual respect that many
millions of Japanese and Americans feel for one another. Both our
countries, and the whole world, should be grateful for that
friendship. We both are better for it. The future hopes of many
nations for peace and prosperity depend upon it. Working together
in this new era, the US and Japan have much to contribute to the
international community. Given our past record of cooperative
success, I am sure that our two peoples are equal to these great
new challenges.
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 3, January 21, 1991
Title: US-Japan Relations
Description: Washington DC
Date: Jan 14, 19911/14/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: East Asia
Country: Japan
Subject: Trade/Economics, Security Assistance and Sales
The following White House Statement, dated January 14, 1991, was
issued following meeting between President Bush and Japanese
Foreign Minister Taro Nakayama.
The President met with Foreign Minister [Taro] Nakayama
approximately one-half hour this afternoon. The Foreign Minister
presented Prime Minister [Toshiki] Kaifu's greeting to the President
and reaffirmed Japan's commitment to the UN Security Council
resolutions calling for the complete, immediate, and unconditional
withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait.
The President noted that the coalition must remain steadfast
and implement the UN resolutions. The President strongly urged
Japan to provide the maximum cooperation possible in the Gulf.
The Foreign Minister noted that Japan, as an ally and a good
friend, would fully support the United States as the crisis continues
to unfold. The Foreign Minister announced that Japan was assuming
all start-up costs for the UN refugee program being put in place, on
a contingency basis, in the Middle East.
The President reaffirmed his intention to visit Japan as soon
as circumstances permit.
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 3, January 21, 1991
Title: US-Japan Relations
Description: Washington DC
Date: Jan 14, 19911/14/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: East Asia
Country: Japan
Subject: Trade/Economics, Security Assistance and Sales,
Military Affairs
[TEXT]
The following Department statement, dated January 14, 1991,
was issued following US-Japan ministerial meeting held in
Washington, DC, January 14, 1991.
On January 14, 1991, Foreign Minister Taro Nakayama and Secretary
Baker signed a new multi-year agreement on special measures
related to the expenses of maintaining US forces in Japan.
Japan currently pays over $3 billion per year in host nation
support. This currently includes housing for US military personnel,
the improvement of facilities used by US forces, and more than 50%
of the cost of Japanese workers at US military facilities. At the
present time, this represents about 40% of the total cost of
maintaining US forces in Japan.
This new "host nation support" agreement provides for Japan
to assume, over 5 years beginning in Japanese fiscal year 1991
(starting April 1, 1991), payments for 100% of the Japanese labor
and utilities costs currently borne by US forces in Japan.
As Japan increases its contribution for the expenses of
maintaining US forces in Japan, the government of Japan will be
paying, when Japanese labor and utilities costs are fully borne by
that government at the end of Japanese FY 1995, about 50% of the
total cost of stationing US forces in Japan (based on current cost
projections and exchanges rates). Such willingness to assume an
even greater share of the cost of maintaining US forces in Japan is
an important contribution to strengthening our security partnership
and is appreciated.
The US-Japan Security Treaty continues to be a strong bond
between our two countries and serves as a main pillar of our
relationship. The treaty has made, and will continue to make, an
indispensable contribution to the peace and stability of East Asia
and the Pacific. The special agreement on host nation support that
Foreign Minister Nakayama and Secretary Baker signed today not
only will contribute to the effective management of Japan-US
security arrangements, it also should be seen as a step of great
significance for the overall relationship between the two countries.
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 3, January 21, 1991
Title: US-Japan Relations
Description: US-Japan Joint Press Statement issued following
US-Japan ministerial in Washington, DC
Date: Jan 14, 19911/14/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: East Asia
Country: Japan
Subject: Trade/Economics, Security Assistance and Sales
[TEXT]
Japanese Foreign Minister [Taro] Nakayama met in Washington on
with Secretary Baker on January 14, 1991. They agreed that the
United States and Japan share a responsibility to promote peace and
prosperity among nations and to respond to violations of
international law. They pledged to continue their efforts in support
of the United Nations resolutions to block back Iraq's aggression
against Kuwait. They reaffirmed that they desire a peaceful
resolution to the Gulf crisis, but that the only way to achieve such
an outcome is for Iraq to comply promptly and completely with the
UN resolutions.
Secretary Baker expressed appreciation for Japan's political
support and financial and other commitments to the multinational
effort in the Gulf, which to date exceed $4 billion. This includes
financial assistance and in-kind provision of equipment and
transportation services for countries in the multinational defense
force; special economic assistance to the front-line countries; and
significant financial support for the refugee effort. Foreign
Minister Nakayama told Secretary Baker that Japan would continue
to consider additional steps it could take as the situation in the
Gulf evolves. Secretary Baker welcomed Japan's announcement
today that it would fully fund UNDRC's [UN Disaster Relief
Organization] call for $38 million to finance immediate start-up
needs for new eventualities in the refugee area.
The ministers agreed that the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation
and Security remains the foundation of the US-Japan relationship
and that it has long served, and has long been welcomed throughout
the region, as a guarantor of peace and stability and will continue
to fulfill that role in the post-Cold War period. Secretary Baker
expressed appreciation for Japan's strong commitment to maintain
and enhance the US-Japan security relationship through the new
special agreement, signed today, that increases support for
American forces in Japan. The ministers also agreed to seek an
early meeting of the Security Consultative Committee to review a
broad range of security and related issues.
The ministers discussed recent Soviet actions in the Baltic
states, including the violence against innocent people, which both
ministers found deeply disturbing.
Both ministers underscored the importance of continuing the
good cooperation on economic issues demonstrated in the past year.
They agreed that smooth and effective follow up in the Structural
Impediments Initiative is central to our bilateral economic
relationship and also beneficial to the rest of the world. They
expressed strong agreement that the failure of the Uruguay Round
would have severe and adverse effects on the stable development of
the world economy. They emphasized the critical need for all
participants to redouble their efforts to lead the Round to a
successful conclusion, and expressed their determination to work
together, actively and positively, in all areas toward this goal.
The Secretary welcomed Japan's decision to create a fund,
with an endowment of 50 billion yen, to further the US-Japan global
partnership and promote increased dialogue and interchange
between the peoples of our two countries. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 3, January 21, 1991
Title: El Salvador: Release of Withheld Aid
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Jan 16, 19911/16/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Central America
Country: El Salvador
Subject: Security Assistance and Sales, Terrorism,
Regional/Civil Unrest
[TEXT]
The White House yesterday announced the President's determination
that the $42.5 million in fiscal year 1991 military assistance for El
Salvador may be released. The President's decision was based on
the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front's (FMLN) violation of
the conditions in the legislation against "engaging in acts of
violence directed at civilian targets" and acquiring or receiving
"significant shipments of lethal military assistance from outside El
Salvador."
On November 20, 2 weeks after the aid legislation was
enacted, the FMLN launched the most sustained offensive of the last
year, which has to date claimed 1,500 casualties. FMLN attacks
from November 20 to December 31 alone killed 16 civilians and
injured another 108 civilians. The President's decision makes it
clear to the FMLN that there is a price for increased violence but
also an incentive for peace.
In the interest of promoting a negotiated settlement and
achieving a cease-fire soon, the President decided to suspend the
delivery of this aid for 60 days. If the FMLN takes a serious and
constructive approach to the peace talks so that they result in a
political settlement and a UN-supervised cease-fire within 60 days,
these funds will be used to support a peace settlement and national
reconstruction.
In deciding whether or not to release these funds, the United
States will also continue to weigh progress in the investigation and
prosecution of the Jesuits case, which remains an essential
criterion for continuance of military assistance to El Salvador.
The United States is prepared to go the last mile for peace in
El Salvador. The time for war is over; the time for a peace
settlement is now. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 3, January 21, 1991
Title: Child Custody Unit Helps Parents Keep Track
Date: Jan 21, 19911/21/91
Category: Fact Sheets
Subject: State Department, Travel
The Department of State has established a special child custody
unit to help Americans whose children have been taken out of the
country by an estranged spouse.
"The Department is committed to the welfare of American
children taken from the United States by one parent without the
permission of the other," says Carmen A. DiPlacido, Director of the
Office of Citizens Consular Services, which operates the child
custody unit. "From the moment of our first contact with the left-
behind parent, our foremost concern is our responsibility to these
children."
Since the Department began keeping statistics in 1978, more
than 3,000 international parental child abduction cases have been
reported to the office, including about 300 in 1990. More than 700
cases are active worldwide.
The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International
Child Abduction establishes guidelines for the return of children
abducted to countries that are a party to the convention. The
convention, which came into force for the United States in 1988,
has 16 party countries: Australia, Austria, Belize, Canada, France,
Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United
States. Denmark, Ireland, and New Zealand may join soon.
If a child is taken to one of these countries, the parent in the
United States completes an application and sends it to the Office of
Citizens Consular Services, the central authority for the United
States under the convention. "Our office forwards the application
to the central authority in the country to which the child was
taken," Mr. DiPlacido explains. "The central authority then works
with local law enforcement agencies to locate the child and, if
necessary, assist the aggrieved parent in obtaining the voluntary
return of the child."
If the abducting parent refuses to return the child, the central
authority assists the aggrieved parent in bringing legal action under
convention guidelines. Once the child is returned, the parents can
use local courts to decide their differences on child custody and
visitation rights in the place of the child's habitual residence. Most
important, the child is returned expeditiously to familiar
surroundings, relatives, and friends.
"When a child is returned under the convention, the emotional
and often bitter issues of custody and visitation are taken out of
the international arena and litigated where they should be, in the
country of the child's habitual residence," says Mr. DiPlacido. The
convention does not require custody decrees or arrest warrants,
although the Department of State encourages parents to continue
their domestic legal efforts even while the convention process is
proceeding.
The procedure is the same for a child abducted to the United
States. In countries that are not parties to the Hague Convention,
"our job is more complex," he notes. "When we are notified that a
child has been abducted to a non-Hague Convention country, the
office advises the parent of domestic and foreign remedies. The
Department's posts abroad also assist in locating the child and
checking on the child's welfare once he or she is found.
US embassies and consulates have no police power abroad and
cannot force the return of the child to the United States or enforce
US custody decrees overseas. "We urge parents to engage legal
counsel in the country in which the child is located and to take
action in the courts there," says Mr. DiPlacido. "We also urge
parents to seek US court orders and, if possible, arrest warrants in
the United States. All of these courses of action have been
successful in individual cases."
The office provides information on foreign legal systems and
child custody laws, as well as lists of lawyers willing to serve
American citizens. In some cases, US embassies monitor foreign
court proceedings, assist parents in contacting local government
officials and make representations to them, and alert foreign
authorities and social service agencies if evidence exists of child
abuse or neglect. "We work within the constraints we face to
assist the parent to the fullest extent possible," he adds.
The number of abductions to countries that honor the Hague
Convention has declined, while reported abductions elsewhere have
increased, indicating that it has been a deterrent to abductions. As
a result, the Department of State actively urges countries that have
not become a party to the convention to do so. "Solutions to the
international parental child abduction problem such as the Hague
Convention are worthy of our continued efforts because they are in
the best interest of the child," says Mr. DiPlacido. "Such measures
have enhanced our ability to respond to aggrieved parents and deal
with this problem."
--Jim Pinkelman, Dispatch Staff (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 3, January 21, 1991
Title: Gist: US Nuclear Testing Policy
Date: Jan 21, 19911/21/91
Category: Policy Briefs (Gist)
Region: Eurasia, North America
Country: USSR (former), United States
Subject: Arms Control, Nuclear Nonproliferation,
International Law
[TEXT]
Background
For more than four decades, a strong nuclear deterrent has ensured
US security and helped preserve freedom. As long as nuclear
weapons play a critical role in US national security strategy, they
must continue to be tested underground to ensure their safety,
reliability, effectiveness, and survivability. In this context, the
United States and Soviet Union ratified two nuclear testing treaties
and verification protocols in December 1990.
Nuclear Testing Talks
Nuclear testing talks between the United States and the Soviet
Union began in Geneva in November 1987, when the two countries
agreed to negotiate effective verification protocols for two
existing but then unratified treaties--the Threshold Test Ban
Treaty (1974), which covers tests of nuclear weapons, and the
Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty (1976), which covers the use of
nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes such as excavations. The
treaties ban individual nuclear explosions--whether for testing
nuclear weapons or for peaceful purposes--with a yield exceeding
150 kilotons (150,000 tons of TNT). However, neither treaty could
be verified effectively in its original form. Following six rounds of
talks, the negotiating teams completed work in May 1990 on these
verification protocols, which were signed at the Washington
summit, May 30-June 3, 1990. The TTBT and PNET entered into
force when Secretary Baker and Foreign Minister Shevardnadze
exchanged instruments of ratification in Houston on December 11, 1990.
Effective Verification
The two protocols, which contain similar provisions, provide for
effective verification of compliance with the treaties. The
protocols give each side the right to employ hydrodynamic yield
measurement, on-site inspection, and seismic monitoring in the
territory of the testing party. Each side will have the right to use
these methods in the measurement of explosions whose planned
yields exceed agreed levels.
For effective verification of compliance with these treaties,
the United States requires and has achieved the right to make
direct, on-site hydrodynamic yield measurements of all Soviet
tests exceeding 50 kilotons. The US hydrodynamic method is
CORRTEX (continuous reflectometry for radius vs. time experiment),
the most accurate, nonintrusive technique the United States has
identified. This verification method determines the yield of a
nuclear test by measuring, at the detonation site, the speed of the
supersonic shock wave in the earth caused by the detonation. The
speed of the shock wave is determined by measuring the rate at
which it crushes a coaxial cable buried near the explosive device.
Seismic monitoring is the traditional method of calculating
the strength of an explosion. Seismic monitors measure the
explosion's shock waves as they move through the earth, as is done
in measuring the strength of earthquakes, in order to arrive at an
estimate of explosive yield.
On-site inspections will permit each side to take core
samples and rock fragments from the area of the nuclear test in
order to confirm geological and geophysical data associated with
each explosion.
In addition, national technical means will be used to monitor
all explosions.
How Do the Protocols Work?
Under the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty protocol, the United
States and the Soviet Union have the right to make direct on-site
hydrodynamic measurements (CORRTEX for the United States) of
peaceful nuclear explosions with a planned yield exceeding 50
kilotons and on-site inspections for explosions with planned yields
above 35 kilotons. In addition, both sides have the right to use a
network of local, on-site seismic monitors to identify the number
of explosions in a group explosion with a planned aggregate yield
exceeding 150 kilotons.
Under the Threshhold Test Ban Treaty protocol, both countries
will have the right to make direct on-site hydrodynamic
measurements (again, CORRTEX for the United States) of all nuclear
weapons tests whose planned yield exceeds 50 kilotons. For tests
with planned yields above 35 kilotons, on-site inspections will be
allowed. In addition, under the Threshhold Test Ban Treaty, in-
country seismic monitoring will be permitted for all tests with
planned yields above 50 kilotons, using three designated seismic
stations that are off-site but within the testing country's territory.
The Threshhold Test Ban Treaty protocol also contains some
special verification provisions for tests performed in non-standard
configurations and for tests involving multiple nuclear explosions.
In addition, the protocol provides that, in any of the first
5 calendar years following entry into force of the treaty, if one side
does not conduct at least two tests with planned yields above
50 kilotons (the criteria becomes one such test in the sixth year and
thereafter), the other side may use the hydrodynamic measuring
method on up to two tests (on one test in the sixth year and
thereafter) with planned yields below the 50-kiloton level in that
year.
Further Limits on Nuclear Testing
The United States has a step-by-step approach to further limits on
nuclear testing, as Secretary Baker reaffirmed at the February 1990
Moscow ministerial. The United States believes it is necessary to
observe the implementation of the two treaties and their
verification protocols. This will give both sides valuable additional
experience with the complex, on-site monitoring and verification
methods in these protocols. After a period of observation, the
United States will be better able to assess the verification process
and to determine additional moves that make sense from a national
security standpoint. The United States has not yet identified
further limitations on nuclear testing beyond those now contained
in the Threshold Test Ban Treaty that would be in the US security
interest.
A comprehensive test ban remains a long-term US objective.
Such a ban must be viewed in the context of a time when the United
States no longer needs to depend on nuclear deterrence to ensure
international security and stability, and when it has achieved:
-- Broad, deep, and verifiable arms reductions;
-- Greatly improved verification capabilities;
-- Expanded confidence-building measures; and
-- Greater balance in conventional forces.
Why Testing Is Essential
Underground nuclear testing is necessary to maintain the credibility
of the US deterrent by ensuring that nuclear weapons are:
Safe--Testing permits improvements to be made in safety
and security features of nuclear weapons.
Reliable--Testing is needed to detect deterioration or other
potentially serious problems that may arise in stockpiled weapons.
Effective--Testing enables the United States to modernize
weapons as needed in relation to improvement and growth in Soviet
military capabilities.
Survivable--Testing allows the United States to ensure that
military and command and control equipment are survivable.(###)