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.(###)