US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 5, February 4, 1991
Title: State of the Union Address
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: State of the Union Address--excerpts relating to
foreign policy; Washington, DC
Date: Jan 29, 19911/29/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait
Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization,
State Department
[TEXT]
Members of the US Congress, I come to this house of the people to
speak to you and all Americans, certain that we stand at a defining
hour. Halfway around the world, we are engaged in a great struggle
in the skies and on the seas and sands. We know why we're there.
We are Americans, part of something larger than ourselves.
For two centuries, we've done the hard work of freedom. And,
tonight, we lead the world in facing down a threat to decency and
humanity.
What is at stake is more than one small country. It is a big
idea: a new world order where diverse nations are drawn together
in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind-
peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law. Such is a world
worthy of our struggle and worthy of our children's future.
The community of nations has resolutely gathered to condemn
and repel lawless aggression. Saddam Hussein's unprovoked
invasion, his ruthless, systematic rape of a peaceful neighbor,
violated everything the community of nations holds dear. The world
has said this aggression would not stand-and it will not stand.
Together, we have resisted the trap of appeasement, cynicism,
and isolation that gives temptation to tyrants. The world has
answered Saddam's invasion with 12 UN resolutions, starting with a
demand for Iraq's immediate and unconditional withdrawal and
backed up by forces from 28 countries of 6 continents. With few
exceptions, the world now stands as one.
The end of the Cold War has been a victory for all humanity. A
year and a half ago, in Germany, I said that our goal was a Europe
whole and free. Tonight, Germany is united. Europe has become
whole and free, and America's leadership was instrumental in
making it possible.
Our relationship with the Soviet Union is important, not only
to us but to the world. That relationship has helped to shape these
and other historic changes. But like many other nations, we have
been deeply concerned by the violence in the Baltics, and we have
communicated that concern to the Soviet leadership.
The principle that has guided us is simple: Our objective is to
help the Baltic peoples achieve their aspirations, not to punish the
Soviet Union. In our recent discussions with the Soviet leadership,
we have been given representations, which, if fulfilled, would
result in the withdrawal of some Soviet forces, a reopening of
dialogue with the republics, and a move away from violence.
We will watch carefully as the situation develops. And we
will maintain our contact with the Soviet leadership to encourage
continued commitment to democratization and reform. If it is
possible, I want to continue to build a lasting basis for US-Soviet
cooperation, for a more peaceful future for all mankind.
The triumph of democratic ideas in Eastern Europe and Latin
America-and the continuing struggle for freedom elsewhere all
around the world-all confirm the wisdom of our nation's founders.
Tonight, we work to achieve another victory, a victory over tyranny
and savage aggression.
We in this union enter the last decade of the 20th century
thankful for our blessings, steadfast in our purpose, aware of our
difficulties, and responsive to our duties at home and around the
world.
For two centuries, America has served the world as an
inspiring example of freedom and democracy. For generations,
America has led the struggle to preserve and extend the blessings
of liberty. And, today, in a rapidly changing world, American
leadership is indispensable. Americans know that leadership brings
burdens and sacrifices. But we also know why the hopes of
humanity turn to us. We are Americans. We have a unique
responsibility to do the hard work of freedom. And when we do,
freedom works.
The conviction and courage we see in the Persian Gulf today is
simply the American character in action. The indomitable spirit
that is contributing to this victory for world peace and justice is
the same spirit that gives us the power and the potential to meet
our toughest challenges at home.
We are resolute and resourceful. If we can selflessly confront
the evil for the sake of good in a land so far away, then surely we
can make this land all that it should be....
This nation was founded by leaders who understood that power
belongs in the hands of people. And they planned for the future. And
so must we, here and all around the world. As Americans, we know
there are times when we must step forward and accept our
responsibility to lead the world away from the dark chaos of
dictators, toward the brighter promise of a better day. Almost 50
years ago, we began a long struggle against aggressive
totalitarianism. Now we face another defining hour for America and
the world.
There is no one more devoted, more committed to the hard
work of freedom, than every soldier and sailor, every marine,
airman, and Coast Guardsman, every man and woman now serving in
the Persian Gulf.
....What a wonderful, fitting tribute to them. Each of them has
volunteered-volunteered to provide for this nation's defense, and
now they bravely struggle, to earn for America, for the world, and
for future generations, a just and lasting peace. Our commitment to
them must be the equal of their commitment to their country. They
are truly America's finest.
The war in the Gulf is not a war we wanted. We worked hard
to avoid war. For more than 5 months, we, along with the Arab
League, the European Community, and the United Nations, tried every
diplomatic avenue. UN Secretary General Perez de Cuellar,
Presidents Gorbachev [of the Soviet Union], Mitterrand [of France],
Ozal [of Turkey], Mubarak [of Egypt], and Benjedid [of Algeria], Kings
Fahd [of Saudi Arabia] and Hassan [of Morocco], Prime Ministers
Major [of the United Kingdom] and Andreotti [of Italy]-just to name
a few-all worked for a solution. But time and again, Saddam
Hussein flatly rejected the path of diplomacy and peace.
The world well knows how this conflict began and when. It
began on August 2nd, when Saddam invaded and sacked a small,
defenseless neighbor. And I am certain of how it will end. So that
peace can prevail, we will prevail.
Tonight, I am pleased to report that we are on course. Iraq's
capacity to sustain war is being destroyed. Our investment, our
training, our planning-all are paying off. Time will not be Saddam's
salvation. Our purpose in the Persian Gulf remains constant: to
drive Iraq out of Kuwait, to restore Kuwait's legitimate
government, and to ensure the stability and security of this critical
region.
Let me make clear what I mean by the region's stability and
security. We do not seek the destruction of Iraq, its culture, or its
people. Rather, we seek an Iraq that uses its great resources not to
destroy, not to serve the ambitions of a tyrant, but to build a better
life for itself and its neighbors. We seek a Persian Gulf where
conflict is no longer the rule, where the strong are neither tempted
nor able to intimidate the weak.
Most Americans know instinctively why we are in the Gulf.
They know we had to stop Saddam now, not later. They know that
this brutal dictator will do anything, will use any weapon, will
commit any outrage, no matter how many innocents must suffer.
They know we must make sure that control of the world's oil
resources does not fall into his hands, only to finance further
aggression. They know that we need to build a new, enduring peace
based not on arms races and confrontation, but on shared principles
and the rule of law. And we all realize that our responsibility to be
the catalyst for peace in the region does not end with the
successful conclusion of this war.
Democracy brings the undeniable value of thoughtful dissent,
and we have heard some dissenting voices here at home: some-a
handful-reckless; most responsible. But the fact that all voices
have the right to speak out is one of the reasons we've been united
in purpose and principle for 200 years.
Our progress in this great struggle is the result of years of
vigilance and a steadfast commitment to a strong defense. Now,
with remarkable technological advances like the Patriot missile,
we can defend against ballistic missile attacks aimed at innocent
civilians.
Looking forward, I have directed that the SDI [Strategic
Defense Initiative] program be refocused on providing protection
from limited ballistic missile strikes-whatever their source. Let
us pursue an SDI program that can deal with any future threat to the
United States, to our forces overseas, and to our friends and allies.
The quality of American technology, thanks to the American
worker, has enabled us to successfully deal with difficult military
conditions and help minimize precious loss of life. We have given
our men and women the very best, and they deserve it.
We all have a special place in our hearts for the families of
our men and women serving in the Gulf. They are represented here
tonight by Mrs. Norman Schwarzkopf. We are all very grateful to
General Schwarzkopf [Commander in Chief of the Central Command]
and to all those serving with him. And I might also recognize one
who came with Mrs. Schwarzkopf, Alma Powell, wife of the
distinguished chairman of the Joint Chiefs [General Colin Powell].
And to the families, let me say our forces in the Gulf will not stay
there 1 day longer than is necessary to complete their mission.
The courage and success of the RAF [British Royal Air Force]
pilots, of the Kuwaiti, Saudi, French, the Canadians, the Italians,
the pilots of Qatar and Bahrain-all are proof that for the first time
since World War II, the international community is united. The
leadership of the United Nations, once only a hoped-for ideal, is now
confirming its founders' vision.
I am heartened that we are not being asked to bear alone the
financial burden of this struggle. Last year, our friends and allies
provided the bulk of the economic costs of Desert Shield, and now,
having received commitments of over $40 billion for the first 3
months of 1991, I am confident they will do no less as we move
through Desert Storm.
But the world has to wonder what the dictator of Iraq is
thinking. If he thinks that by targeting innocent civilians in Israel
and Saudi Arabia that he will gain advantage, he is dead wrong. If
he thinks that he will advance his cause through tragic and
despicable environmental terrorism, he is dead wrong. And if he
thinks that by abusing the coalition prisoners of war, he will
benefit, he is dead wrong.
We will succeed in the Gulf. And when we do, the world
community will have sent an enduring warning to any dictator or
despot, present or future, who contemplates outlaw aggression. The
world can, therefore, seize this opportunity to fulfill the long-held
promise of a new world order-where brutality will go unrewarded
and aggression will meet collective resistance.
Yes, the United States bears a major share of leadership in
this effort. Among the nations of the world, only the United States
of America has had both the moral standing and the means to back it
up. We are the only nation on this Earth that could assemble the
forces of peace. This is the burden of leadership and the strength
that has made America the beacon of freedom in a searching world.
This nation has never found glory in war. Our people have
never wanted to abandon the blessings of home and work for distant
lands and deadly conflict. If we fight in anger, it is only because
we have to fight at all. And all of us yearn for a world where we
will never have to fight again.
Each of us will measure, within ourselves, the value of this
great struggle. Any cost in lives, any cost, is beyond our power to
measure. But the cost of closing our eyes to aggression is beyond
mankind's power to imagine. This we do know: Our cause is just,
our cause is moral, our cause is right.
Let future generations understand the burden and the
blessings of freedom. Let them say we stood where duty required
us to stand. Let them know that together we affirmed America, and
the world, as a community of conscience.
The winds of change are with us now. The forces of freedom
are together and united. And we move toward the next century,
more confident than ever that we have the will at home and abroad
to do what must be done-the hard work of freedom.
May God bless the United States of America. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 5, February 4, 1991
Title: Persian Gulf War: Supporting a Noble Cause
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: Excerpts from an address before the National Religious
Broadcasters Convention, Sheraton Washington Hotel,
Washington, DC
Date: Jan 28, 19911/28/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait
Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization
[TEXT]
In the Persian Gulf . . . despite protestations of Saddam Hussein, it
is not Iraq against the United States, it's the regime of Saddam
Hussein against the rest of the world. Saddam tried to cast this
conflict as a religious war. But it has nothing to do with religion
per se. It has, on the other hand, everything to do with what
religion embodies-good versus evil, right versus [wrong], human
dignity and freedom versus tyranny and oppression.
The war in the Gulf is not a Christian war, a Jewish war, or a
Muslim war-it is a just war. And it is a war in which good will
prevail. We're told that the principles of a just war originated with
classical Greek and Roman philosophers like Plato and Cicero. And
later they were expounded by such Christian theologians as
Ambrose, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas.
The first principle of a just war is that it support a just
cause. Our cause could not be more noble. We seek Iraq's
withdrawal from Kuwait-completely, immediately, and without
condition; the restoration of Kuwait's legitimate government; and
the security and stability of the Gulf. We will see that Kuwait once
again is free, that the nightmare of Iraq's occupation has ended, and
that naked aggression will not be rewarded.
We seek nothing for ourselves. As I have said, US forces will
leave as soon as their mission is over, as soon as they are no longer
needed or desired. And let me add, we do not seek the destruction
of Iraq. We have respect for the people of Iraq, for the importance
of Iraq in the region. We do not want a country so destabilized that
Iraq itself could be a target for aggression.
But a just war must also be declared by legitimate authority.
Operation Desert Storm is supported by unprecedented UN
solidarity, the principle of collective self-defense, 12 Security
Council resolutions, and, in the Gulf, 28 nations from 6 continents
united-resolute that we will not waiver and that Saddam's
aggression will not stand.
I salute the aid-economic and military-from countries which
have joined in this unprecedented effort, whose courage and
sacrifice have inspired the world. We're not going it alone-but,
believe me, we are going to see it through.
Every war-every war-is fought for a reason. But a just war is
fought for the right reasons-for moral, not selfish, reasons. Let me
take a moment to tell you a story-a tragic story-about a family
whose two sons, 18 and 19, reportedly refused to lower the Kuwaiti
flag in front of their home. For this crime, they were executed by
the Iraqis. Then, unbelievably, their parents were asked to pay the
price of the bullets used to kill them.
Some ask whether it's moral to use force to stop the rape, the
pillage, the plunder of Kuwait. And my answer: Extraordinary
diplomatic efforts having been exhausted to resolve the matter
peacefully, then the use of force is moral.
A just war must be a last resort. As I have often said, we did
not want war. But you all know the verse from Ecclesiastes: There
is "a time for peace, a time for war." From August 2, 1990-last
summer, August 2nd-to January 15, 1991 (166 days), we tried to
resolve this conflict. Secretary of State Jim Baker made an
extraordinary effort to achieve peace: more than 200 meetings
with foreign dignitaries, 10 diplomatic missions, 6 congressional
appearances; over 103,000 miles traveled to talk with, among
others, members of the United Nations, the Arab League, and the
European Community. And, sadly, Saddam Hussein rejected out of
hand every overture made by the United States and by other
countries as well. He made this just war an inevitable war.
We all know that war never comes easy or cheap. War is never
without the loss of innocent life. And that is war's greatest
tragedy. But when a war must be fought for the greater good, it is
our gravest obligation to conduct a war in proportion to the threat.
And that is why we must act reasonably, humanely, and make every
effort possible to keep casualties to a minimum. And we've done so.
I'm very proud of our military in achieving this end.
From the very first day of the war, the allies have waged war
against Saddam's military. We are doing everything possible,
believe me, to avoid hurting the innocent. Saddam's response?
Wanton, barbaric bombing
of civilian areas. America and its allies value life. We pray that
Saddam Hussein will see reason. To date, his indiscriminate use of
those Scud missiles-nothing more than weapons of terror: they
have no military-they can offer no military advantage, weapons of
terror. It outraged the world, what he has done.
The price of war is always high. And so it must never, ever,
be undertaken without total commitment to a successful outcome.
It is only justified when victory can be achieved. I have pledged
that this will not be another Vietnam. And let me reassure you here
today, it won't be another Vietnam.
We are fortunate, we are very fortunate to have in this crisis
the finest armed forces ever assembled: an all-volunteer force,
joined by courageous allies. And we will prevail because we have
the finest soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and Coast Guardsmen
that any nation has ever had.
But above all, we will prevail because of the support of the
American people-armed with a trust in God and in the principles
that make men free. . . .
State Department Gulf Crisis Information (in box)
Emergencies: 202-647-0900
(24 hours)
Questions or comments about the Administration's Persian Gulf
policy:
202-647-6575 or 6576
Monday-Friday, 8:30 am-5 pm (Eastern Standard Time) (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 5, February 4, 1991
Title: News Conference on Iraq
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: Excerpts from a news conference at the White House,
Washington, DC
Date: Jan 25, 19911/25/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait
Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization, Environment
[TEXT]
...Q. What can you do about the Iraqi dumping of oil in the
Gulf? Is there any way you can offset it?
President Bush:. There's a lot of activity going on right
now trying to figure out what the best course of action is to clean
this mess up, to stop this spill.
Saddam Hussein continues to amaze the world. First, he uses
these Scud missiles that have no military value whatsoever. Then,
he uses the lives of prisoners of war, parading them and threatening
to use them as shields; obviously, they have been brutalized. And
now he resorts to enormous environmental damage in terms of
turning loose a lot of oil-no military advantage to him whatsoever
in this. It's not going to help him at all-
Q. It won't stop an invasion?
President Bush: Absolutely not. It has nothing to do
with that. And so I don't know. I mean, he clearly is outraging the
world. But back to your question, there were some meetings that
were concluded about 2 hours ago. A course of action that I will not
comment [on], I think, is close to agreement. I'm not going to
comment on what it is, but I can assure you that every effort will
be made to try to stop this continuing spill into the Gulf and also to
stop what has been done from moving further south. It's a little
hard to do when the man has taken over this other country, Kuwait,
and is using their assets in this way. But we will try hard, and you
can be rest assured that the scientists and the oil people, the
military are all involved-the Saudis and the Kuwaitis and the US
side-all involved in the closest consultation.
Q. Are you speaking of a retaliation?
President Bush:. No, I'm speaking of what we do about
this spill right now. We'll get to that later.
Q. You said the other night that no one should cry for Saddam
Hussein when he's brought to justice. Do you envision war crime
trials for Saddam? And, also, can you say categorically that when
this is all over Saddam will not be allowed to remain in power?
President Bush:. No, I'm staying with our objectives.
The violation of the Geneva conventions are clear, and we'll have to
see how that works out. We'll have to see what a post-liberation
Kuwait looks like there in Iraq. But our objectives remain the same.
Q. As you pointed out, Saddam has done a number of things,
none of them really a military offensive. Are you coming to the
conclusion that he's not going to fight?
President Bush:. No, I haven't reached that conclusion
at all, because these Scud missile attacks certainly invite instant
retaliation if you can find the mobile launchers. And we're keeping
on in that quest, as I indicated the other day.
Q. Well, what's he doing?
President Bush:. I think what he's trying to do is to
rally support in some of the countries where he may have some. I
think he's trying with the attacks on Israel to divide the coalition
and to mount anti-Israel sentiment in parts of the world.
What he is doing with-when you dump oil reserves out, unless
he's trying to show how tough he will be for Saudi Arabia or
something like that, I can't figure out. What he's doing when he
brutally parades American prisoners, I can't figure that out either-
or British prisoners, or an Italian airman. But it is not a
performance that is winning him any points anywhere in my view.
Q. A lot of Americans would like to know, since all these
problems seems to get back in your statements to Saddam Hussein,
why you don't target him. Is it because of the embarrassment you
encountered in trying to bring Manuel Noriega to ground?
President Bush:. There's no embarrassment in that. It
took 6 or 7 days, but there wasn't any embarrassment. I felt no
embarrassment at all. There was a man who was wanted for crimes
in this country, and he's in prison, and he's going to have his day in
court. So I would like to argue with the predicate a little bit
because there wasn't any embarrassment. But we've set our
objectives. Our coalition partners are in accord with these
objectives, and we will stay with these objectives.
Q. But why not go after Saddam Hussein?
President Bush:. Because we've set our objectives.
We've got our objectives in accord with the coalition, and we'll stay
with them-that's why.
Q. Can I switch topics a moment? You're going to be meeting
with the Soviet Foreign Minister [Alexander Bessmertnykh] on
Monday after he meets with [Secretary of State] Jim Baker on
Saturday. According to some of your aides, the scenario goes
something like this: You now lean somewhat strongly toward
postponing the February summit in Moscow, but if Bessmertnykh
comes here and has good news on START [strategic arms reduction
talks] and also says, listen, if you cancel this summit, [Soviet
President] Mikhail Gorbachev is likely to be overthrown by more
conservative people in Moscow, within the Kremlin, that you might
change your mind. Any truth to any of that?
President Bush:. I am looking forward to the
consultations that Secretary Baker will have with Mr.
Bessmertnykh. Mr. Bessmertnykh knows the United States very
well, and he knows the difficulties that we have with any use of
force in the Baltics. So I would stop it right there. I am not going
to go into some hypothesis that some aide may have discussed with
you or anybody else. We're going to see how this plays out. We have
an arms control agenda that I want to see fulfilled, but whether it
would be ready in time for the meeting that is now scheduled, I
don't know. We're having some difficulties there, frankly. And I
expect Jim Baker will be discussing these difficulties.
We have some problems, obviously, on the Baltic states. We
have a lot of common ground still with the Soviet Union. It is a
country that has been strongly supportive of our objectives in the
Persian Gulf. We have an agenda that Baker and Bessmertnykh will
talk about, and then I look forward to seeing Mr. Bessmertnykh, then
I'd be in a better position to respond definitively to your question.
Q. Could I just ask, is it less important than it used to be for
you to help Gorbachev survive politically? Are you so disappointed
in his actions in the Baltics that you have a different view of it?
President Bush:. I am disappointed in the Soviet
actions in the Baltics because use of force is not the way to resolve
that problem. I've had an opportunity to talk-discuss that with the
President, and I know the difficulties that he faces. I have not lost
sight of the fact that Mr. Gorbachev was the catalyst, really, for
much of the change that has taken place in Eastern Europe, had a lot
to do with the reunification of Germany, which is obviously in the
German interests and, I think, in the interests of the United States-
a lot to do with common ground in the Persian Gulf.
But the problems in the Baltic states, the use of force there,
causes us great difficulty. So the Bessmertnykh-Baker talks will
touch on a wide array of issues, some where we have very much
common ground, some where we have common objectives that are
not fulfilled, and some where we might have clear differences. At
that point, I will take a look again at the whole problem and see
what must be done. I'm sure the Soviets will be doing the same
thing.
Q. The reports from Israel now indicate that the injuries to
civilians, perhaps deaths, may have been caused by Patriot missiles
themselves not striking their targets or, at least, if they struck
them, parts of them fell back on the civilian population, which
raises anew the question of the sufficiency of the Patriot missile
and the question about whether you are now contemplating
additional measures to try to deal with this obviously persistent
problem?
President Bush:. We are certainly dealing with that all
the time, and we want to find ways to stop it. We want to find
ways to stop these brutal, senseless, nonmilitary-value attacks on
civilian populations.
Q. Can you give us a sense of your level of confidence in the
Israelis continuing to show restraint here? Obviously, it can't be
any easier for them now than before.
President Bush:. No, although this one-I felt I might be
asked that question walking in here-and there's still-I'm still not
certain that we know all the details exactly of what happened on
this. I will again express enormous confidence in the Patriots.
They are doing very, very well. But whether this was debris falling
down from an intercept, or not, I simply don't want to comment on
it, because we don't yet know it for sure.
Q. One more try on Saddam Hussein. Given that your military
commanders have said that they're hoping that this army quits
rather than fights and results in a bloody ground offensive, why
wouldn't it be entirely militarily appropriate to target Saddam
Hussein?
President Bush:. Because we are not in the business of
targeting Saddam Hussein. I've set out our goals, and I think that-I
will say this, as I said the other day in echoing my support for what
Prime Minister [John] Major of the United Kingdom said, no one will
weep when he's gone. But having said that, we have spelled out our
objectives and I will stay with them.
But who knows what would happen if he left today? I would
like to think that what I have said over and over again would
resonate in Iraq, and that is that we have no argument with the
people of Iraq. We don't want to see a destabilized Iraq when this is
all over. But we also don't want to see a continuation of this
aggression. We will not tolerate a continuation of this brutality.
And so we have a mix of problems. But the problems are not with
the people in the streets of Baghdad. . . . (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 5, February 4, 1991
Title: No Place For Discrimination in America
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: Excerpts from remarks at a meeting with Arab-American
leaders, Washington, DC
Date: Jan 25, 19911/25/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait
Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization,
Human Rights
.....I want to take this opportunity to make-to tell you something
that bothers me, because I've heard from some, and then I've read
accounts that suggest Arab-Americans in this country-because of
the conflict abroad-are being discriminated against, and it's
causing pain in families in this country. There is no room for
discrimination against anybody in the United States of America.
And I want you to suggest to me if there are things that I can do as
President to get that message out loud and clear to every Arab-
American-whether he agrees with me on this war or not is
unimportant.
The message is there is no place for discrimination in the
United States of America. And if there's anybody in the
communities around this country that are being hurt by it, we have
got to come together and do everything we can to see that it doesn't
go on.
Secondly, on the war, I know there may be some divisions of
one kind or another-that's fine. But it is going well, and I am more
determined than ever to bring this to a successful conclusion. The
coalition is working very well, holding together with great strength
and great conviction. And I want to tell you a little more about that
now when we get into the substance of our meeting here....(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 5, February 4, 1991
Title: Robert Zoellick Nominated as Under Secretary For
Economic and Agricultural Affairs
Description: White House Statement; Washington, DC
Date: Jan 30, 19911/30/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: North America
Country: United States
Subject: State Department, Resource Management
[TEXT]
The President today announced his intention to nominate Robert B.
Zoellick, of the District of Columbia, to be Under Secretary of State
for Economic and Agricultural Affairs. He would succeed Richard
Thomas McCormack. Mr. Zoellick will continue to serve as Counselor
of the Department of State in Washington, DC.
Since 1989, Mr. Zoellick has served as Counselor of the US
Department of State in Washington, DC. Prior to this, Mr. Zoellick
served on the State Department transition, 1988-89. Mr. Zoellick
also has served in several capacities at the US Department of
Treasury in Washington, DC: Counselor to the Secretary of Treasury
and Executive Secretary, 1988; Executive Secretary and Special
Adviser to the Secretary, 1986-87; Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Financial Institutions Policy, 1985-86; Acting Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Financial Institutions Policy, 1985-86; and Special
Assistant to the Deputy Secretary, 1985. In addition, Mr. Zoellick
has served as a law clerk for the US Court of Appeals for the DC
Circuit, 1982-83; as a staff assistant in the Office of the Assistant
Attorney General in the Criminal Division at the United States
Justice Department, 1978-79; and as a research assistant for the
Council on Wage and Price Stability in the Executive Office of the
President, 1975-76.
Mr. Zoellick was graduated from Swarthmore College (BA,
1975); Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government (MPP,
1981); and Harvard Law School (JD, 1981). He was born July 25,
1953, in Evergreen Park, Illinois. Mr. Zoellick is married and
resides in Washington, DC. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 5, February 4, 1991
Title: US-USSR and the Persian Gulf
Date: Feb 4, 19912/4/91
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: United States, USSR (former), Iraq, Kuwait
Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization,
United Nations
[TEXT]
Following is the US-USSR joint statement released January 29,
1991, reiterating the US and Soviet commitment to the UN
resolutions and coalition efforts aimed at ending Iraq's occupation
of Kuwait.
In the course of the discussions held in Washington on January 26-
29, 1991, USSR Minister of Foreign Affairs Alexander Bessmertnykh
and US Secretary of State James Baker devoted considerable
attention to the situation in the Persian Gulf.
The ministers reiterated the commitment of their countries
to the UN Security Council resolutions adopted in connection with
Iraq's aggression against Kuwait. They expressed regret that
numerous efforts of the United Nations, other international
organizations, individual countries, and envoys were all rebuffed by
Iraq. The military actions authorized by the United Nations have
been provoked by the refusal of the Iraqi leadership to comply with
the clear and lawful demands of the international community for
withdrawal from Kuwait.
Secretary of State Baker emphasized that the United States
and its coalition partners are seeking the liberation of Kuwait, not
the destruction of Iraq. He stressed that the United States has no
quarrel with the people of Iraq, and poses no threat to Iraq's
territorial integrity. Secretary Baker reiterated that the United
States is doing its utmost to avoid casualties among the civilian
population and is not interested in expanding the conflict. Minister
of Foreign Affairs Bessmertnykh took note of the American position
and agreed that Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait must remain the
goal of the international community. Both sides believe that
everything possible should be done to avoid further escalation of
the war and expansion of its scale.
The ministers continue to believe that a cessation of
hostilities would be possible if Iraq would make an unequivocal
commitment to withdraw from Kuwait. They also believe that such
a commitment must be backed by immediate, concrete steps leading
to full compliance with the Security Council resolutions.
The Iraqi leadership has to respect the will of the
international community. By doing so, it has within its power to
stop the violence and bloodshed.
The ministers agreed that establishing enduring stability and
peace in the region after the conflict, on the basis of effective
security arrangements, will be a high priority of our two
governments. Working to reduce the risk of war and miscalculation
will be essential, particularly because a spiraling arms race in this
volatile region can only generate greater violence and extremism.
In addition, dealing with the cause of instability and the sources of
conflict, including the Arab-Israeli conflict, will be especially
important. Indeed, both ministers agreed that without a meaningful
peace process-one which promotes a just peace, security, and real
reconciliation for Israel, Arab states, and Palestinians-it will not
be possible to deal with the sources of conflict and instability in
the region. Both ministers, therefore, agreed that in the aftermath
of the crisis in the Persian Gulf, mutual US-Soviet efforts to
promote Arab-Israeli peace and regional stability, in consultation
with other parties in the region, will be greatly facilitated and
enhanced.
The two ministers are confident that the United States and
the Soviet Union, as demonstrated in various other regional
conflicts, can make a substantial contribution to the achievement
of a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 5, February 4, 1991
Title: Allies Provide Support for Coalition Effort
Baker
Source: Secretary Baker
Description: Statement and question and answers; Washington, DC
Date: Jan 26, 19911/26/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia
Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization,
Security Assistance and Sales
[TEXT]
I'm pleased to announced today that we have received a pledge of
$13.5 billion from the government of Saudi Arabia for the first 3
months of 1991 to help defray the cost of US operations in the Gulf.
This $13.5 billion from Saudi Arabia combined, of course, with the
$13.5 billion from Kuwait and $9 billion from Japan brings the
current international support in 1991, the first 3 months of 1991,
to $36 billion. We are expecting that we will receive additional
commitments from other sources. I think this represents not only a
generous contribution toward the objective of liberating Kuwait; it
also, I feel, clearly underscores the strength and the determination
of the coalition partners to makes sure that the UN Security Council
resolutions are fully implemented.
Q: Does that cover US costs?
A: This is strictly for US costs.
Q: And does that cover them?
A: No, this $36 billion is for the first 3 months of 1991
toward defraying US costs.
Q: What part does it go toward
defraying costs?
A: I'm not going to get into a figure with respect to what the
total figure is, beyond saying, as I just said, we expect to receive
more contributions.
Q: But it is what you asked for?
A: This is what we asked the government of Saudi Arabia for,
just as the $13.5 billion is what we asked the government of Kuwait
for, just as the $9 billion is what we asked the government of Japan
for.
Q: Has the United States been in contact with Iran regarding
those Iraqi planes that keep landing there?
A: Yes, the United States has been in touch with Iran through
diplomatic channels with respect to the aircraft that have been
landing there, and we have been assured that Iran intends to remain
totally neutral in this conflict, and that aircraft from either side of
this conflict that arrive in Iran will remain there for the duration
of the conflict.
Q: What if the planes land and take off again. Would you
consider that the Iranians weren't keeping their word?
A: We've been assured that the planes will remain in Iran for
the duration of the conflict.
Q: Were they defectors?
A: I can't answer that.
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 5, February 4, 1991
Title: Persian Gulf: Allies Provide Support for Coalition Effort
Baker
Source: Secretary Baker
Description: Remarks by Secretary Baker and Shaikh Saud Nasir
Al-Sabah following their meeting, Washington, DC
Date: Jan 25, 19911/25/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia
Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization,
Security Assistance and Sales
[TEXT]
Secretary Baker: Let me say that the Ambassador and I have
had a good meeting this morning. We have been reviewing the
progress of Operation Desert Storm. I'll let the Ambassador, of
course, speak for himself, but I think it's fair to say that we're both
pleased to see the recovery of the first piece of Kuwaiti territory
in the effort to liberate Kuwait.
We also talked about responsibility-sharing. As many of you
know, I made a trip through the region earlier and talked to some of
our coalition partners about responsibility-sharing, and made it
clear at that time that, in the event that hostilities broke out, there
would probably be additional costs that would have to be addressed.
The Ambassador has given me the response of the government of
Kuwait, and I have to say that we are extraordinarily pleased with
the forthcoming responsibility-sharing.
Ambassador Al-Sabah: I am extremely indebted to the
Secretary for giving me the opportunity to have regular meetings
with him since the start of Desert Storm. We've had the chance to
exchange views and opinions on the developments taking place.
Also, we had the chance to discuss the burden-sharing, the
sharing of responsibilities with regard to the cost of Desert Storm
operations, and we are pleased to announce that my government has
decided to contribute $13.5 billion for the first 3 months of 1991
toward this operation.
We believe this is a small and insignificant contribution to
the contribution that our friends in the United States have made,
not just in financial, but in human resources and financial resources
that they have put into this operation, which we are deeply indebted
to. And I hope we can proceed accordingly and see a quick and
speedy conclusion to this whole operation, with a minimum loss of
life.
Q: It hasn't been very quick and speedy. Are you disappointed
with the pace?
Secretary Baker: No, I'm certainly not. I never thought
that. And I don't think that our military planners, our Secretary of
Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ever thought
that. And I think that they have spoken to that question real
recently.
Q: Will you be postponing the summit with the Soviets?
A: We're going to be discussing that, among other issues,
tomorrow when the new Soviet Foreign Minister comes to
Washington. We'll have to discuss that with the Soviets, and no
decision, as of yet, has been made on that.
Q: Is it really your assessment that Iraq is trying to mount a
worldwide terrorist threat, or is it much the rhetoric of Saddam
Hussein?
A: No, we don't think it's rhetoric. We have evidence, solid
evidence, of efforts to accomplish terrorist acts. And so we take
them at their word when they say that they are serious about this.
We're serious about it. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 5, February 4, 1991
Title: US-Mongolian Relations
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: Remarks following an official visit by the Mongolian
President, Washington, DC
Date: Jan 23, 19911/23/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: East Asia
Country: Mongolia
Subject: Democratization, Trade/Economics
[TEXT]
President Bush: Mr. President, it's been my great honor to
welcome you to the White House for this historic visit to our
country, the first ever by the head of state of Mongolia. Mongolia
and the United States are countries separated by thousands of miles
and a world of differences-in culture, history, and outlook. And yet,
in this past year, our two nations have moved closer together,
drawn toward one another by universal principles and ideals.
In the past year, Mongolia has opened its controlled economy
to free market reform, opened its closed political system, and
opened its doors to the world. Opposition parties are now legal.
Mongolia held its first multiparty elections in July, a free and fair
vote that produced the first popularly elected legislature in
Mongolia's history. This transition toward broader political
freedom has a parallel in increased freedom of belief as well, with
the reopening of several monasteries. Your party's positive
approach toward reform has meant peaceful change.
In our discussions today, I made clear the strong support the
United States is ready to offer as Mongolia moves forward toward
greater freedom. President Ochirbat said he
appreciated our support for Mongolia's efforts at democracy and
restructuring, and he hopes to lay a firm foundation for positive
development of bilateral relations, based on mutual benefit, non-
interference in each other's internal affairs.
Already, the United States has begun a program of technical
assistance to Mongolia. Just this month, a team from USAID [US
Agency for International Development] traveled to Ulaanbaatar to
brief 20 mid-level managers on free market reform and found 200
officials ready to exchange ideas, including many members of the
Mongolian legislature. And this summer, for the first time ever,
Peace Corps volunteers will begin working in Mongolia.
Later this afternoon, our two countries will sign agreements
opening the way to expanded trade and closer contact in the areas of
science and technology. And today, I have issued the waiver to open
the door granting Mongolia most-favored-nation status, a step that
I hope will spur increased trade between our two countries.
In addition to these matters of mutual interest, I reviewed
with President Ochirbat world affairs of surpassing concern,
including Operation Desert Storm. Mongolia was among the very
first to condemn Iraq's brutal invasion of Kuwait and to call for
Iraq's complete and unconditional withdrawal.
After our talks, I know that you believe as I do that no nation
must be permitted to assault and brutalize its neighbor.
The action of Iraq's dictator, the actions of one misguided
man, cannot obscure mankind's bright destiny of
democracy and freedom. The future lies with the process of
revolution and renewal now taking place in your nation. A
democratic revolution that is destined to bring peace, freedom, and
prosperity to the people of Mongolia, as it has to this country and so
many others around the world.
So once again, it has been my distinct pleasure to welcome
you to Washington and to this White House. God bless you, and may
God bless the people of Mongolia. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 5, February 4, 1991
Title: US-Mongolian Relations
Ochirbat
Source: Mongolian President Punsalmaagiyn Ochirbat
Description: Remarks following an official visit to Washington, DC
Date: Jan 23, 19911/23/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: East Asia
Country: Mongolia
Subject: Democratization, Trade/Economics
[TEXT]
President Ochirbat: Mr. President, at the outset, let me
express our sincere thanks to [you] for the invitation to pay an
official working visit to the United States of America and a warm
welcome accorded to us, availing myself of this opportunity to
address you, the representatives of mass media, in this room of the
White House-a house which has witnessed many outstanding
historical events. I bring the friendly greeting of the Mongolian
people to the American people.
This is the first visit ever paid by the head of state of
Mongolia to the United States of America. It is an evidence of a
dynamic development of Mongol-American bilateral relations-
particularly, if you will recall, that formal relations were
established between the two countries only 4 years ago.
President Bush and I had a frank exchange of views on
bilateral relations and international issues of mutual interest. And
I am extremely pleased to say that this meeting opened up broad
vistas for furthering ties between the two countries. We highly
appreciate the full support voiced during our meeting by President
Bush on behalf of the US Administration for democratic processes
that are gaining momentum in Mongolia.
President Bush and I agreed to see to it that the Mongol-
American relations be developed vigorously on the basis of the
universally recognized principles of state sovereignty,
independence, non-interference in each other's internal affairs,
equality, and mutual benefit.
We have also agreed to that there is broad possibility for
cooperation in encouraging US investment and carrying out
technological renovation in Mongolia, expanding bilateral trade,
facilitating Mongolia's switch to a market economy, and training
qualified personnel. I believe that the trade agreement and the
agreement on scientific and technological cooperation between the
two countries, which are to be signed today, will be of much
importance in making the best of these potentialities.
And, of course, of the exchange of views on international
issues, both sides unanimously emphasize the importance of pulling
together the efforts of all states in order to strengthen the positive
changes that are taking place in the world.
As for the Persian Gulf crisis, we deeply regret the outbreak
of an armed conflict there, which is jeopardizing
international stability. Should the Iraqi leadership meet the
demands of the international community and withdraw its troops
from Kuwait, this situation would not have occurred.
The Mongolian People's Republic strongly hopes that the
military operations by allied forces aimed at restoring Kuwait's
independence and sovereignty would not escalate, and peace and
tranquility will prevail soon in the Persian Gulf region.
Just as democracy, freedom, and human rights are the lofty
ideals that should be upheld by all, this is what the Mongolian
government is strongly committed to in its domestic and foreign
policies.
Thank you very much for the warm welcome accorded to us,
the delegates of the Mongolian people. I wish you and the American
people happiness and well-being. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 5, February 4, 1991
Title: US--Mongolian Agreement on Science and Technology
Date: Jan 23, 19911/23/91
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: East Asia
Country: Mongolia, United States
Subject: Resource Management, Environment,
Science/Technology, International Law
[TEXT]
Following is a summary of the main points of the agreement signed
in Washington, DC, by Secretary Baker and Foreign Minister
Gombosuren, January 23, 1991.
This bilateral science and technology agreement is intended to
cover a broad range of government scientific and technological
cooperation between the United States and Mongolia. Specific areas
of cooperation will be worked out by US and Mongolian experts. US
and Mongolian scientists already have established contacts in areas
including agriculture, global climate change, and rangeland
management. In addition, US government technical agencies have
expressed significant interest in establishing cooperative programs
with their counterparts in Mongolia.
The Mongolian government formally proposed this agreement
when Secretary Baker visited Ulaanbaatar in August 1990. During
subsequent consultations in Washington, DC, the US Department of
Agriculture and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration, in particular, supported the Department of State's
effort to arrange such an agreement with the Mongolians. The
Department presented a draft agreement to the government of
Mongolia last November. The final accord is being signed today.
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 5, February 4, 1991
Title: Mongolia
Date: Jan 23, 19911/23/91
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: East Asia
Country: Mongolia, United States
Subject: History, Trade/Economics, Democratization
[TEXT]
Mongolia: Overview
Mongolian President Punsalmaagiyn Ochirbat met with President
Bush on January 23 to review 4 years of friendly bilateral relations
and to discuss international issues of common interest, including
the situation in the Persian Gulf. President Ochirbat also met with
Secretary of State James A. Baker, III, Cabinet members, Members
of Congress, and the media. This is President Ochirbat's first visit
to the United States.
Location and Population.
Mongolia is in central
Asia between China to the south and the Soviet Union to the north.
It is slightly smaller than Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and
Louisiana combined. Its population is 2 million people, with
500,000 in the capital city of Ulaanbaatar.
Government and Politics
. Mongolia was a
communist state until July 1990, when a democratic government
was elected. Power is divided between a president and a prime
minister, both of whom were elected by the People's Great Hural
(National Assembly or Lower House) in September 1990. A cabinet
nominated by Prime Minister Dashiyn Byambasuren was approved by
the Small Hural (Upper House) in October 1990. Mongolia has a
multiparty system. The president and prime minister belong to the
Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party (MPRP), the communist party
that dominated the country from 1921 to 1990. The vice president,
first deputy prime minister, and several other government officials,
however, belong to other parties. The MPRP won 85% of the seats in
the People's Great Hural and 60% of the seats in the Small Hural.
The birth of perestroika (restructuring) in the Soviet Union and
the democracy movement in Central and Eastern Europe had an
effect in Mongolia. The first demonstrations were held in
Ulaanbaatar in December 1989 and gave impetus to rapid change.
The first organized opposition group, the Mongolian Democratic
Association, appeared in December 1989. In the face of popular
sentiment for faster reform, the leadership of the MPRP resigned in
March 1990. In May, the constitution was amended, deleting
reference to the MPRP's role as the guiding force in the country,
legalizing opposition parties, creating a standing legislative body
(the Upper House), and establishing the office of president.
Mongolia's first multiparty elections were held on July 29, 1990.
Economics and Trade. Although almost all Mongolian foreign trade
has been conducted with the Soviet Union and East European
countries, links with non-communist countries are developing. The
rapid changes of 1990 marked the beginning of Mongolia's efforts to
develop a market economy. Transforming the traditional centrally
planned economy into a market economy will probably be a difficult
and prolonged process. Foreign aid has been necessary in the past,
with the Soviet Union the principal source. Mongolia is now seeking
foreign assistance and investment from the West to replace
declining Soviet aid and to promote the development of a market
economy.
In the past decade, Mongolia's industrial sector has become
increasingly important. Nevertheless, minerals, animals, and
animal-derived products still constitute a large percentage of
Mongolia's exports. Principal imports include machinery, petroleum,
cloth, and building materials.
Foreign Relations
. Historically, Mongolia's foreign
relations have focused on its two large neighbors, China and the
Soviet Union. During the period of Sino-Soviet tension, Mongolia
sided with the Soviet Union. Mongolian relations with China began
to improve in the mid-1980s. Soviet troop withdrawals from
Mongolia began in 1987 and are to be completed by 1992. In May
1990, a Mongolian head of state visited China for the first time in
28 years. Mongolia is now seeking to establish a more non-aligned
foreign policy.
US-Mongolian Relations
. The 1987 establishment
of relations with the United States marked a new effort by Mongolia
to develop relations outside the socialist world. The US government
recognized Mongolia in January 1987 and established its first
embassy in Ulaanbaatar in June 1988, which opened formally in
September 1988 with the presentation of credentials by the US
ambassador. Secretary Baker visited Mongolia in August 1990, the
first US Secretary of State to do so.
The US government has sought to support Mongolia's movement
toward democracy and market-oriented reform and to expand
relations with Mongolia, primarily in the cultural and economic
fields. In 1989 and 1990, a cultural accord, Peace Corps agreement,
consular convention, and Overseas Private Investment Corporation
agreement were signed. A trade agreement also has been initialed.
(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 5, February 4, 1991
Title: Country Profile: Mongolia
Date: Jan 23, 19911/23/91
Category: Country Data
Region: East Asia
Country: Mongolia, United States
Subject: Resource Management, Environment,
Science/Technology, International Law
[TEXT]
Official Name: Mongolian People's Republic
People
Noun and adjective: Mongolian(s).
Population (1989): 2.1 million.
Annual growth rate (1989): 2.5%.
Ethnic groups: Predominantly Mongol (78% Khalka, 12% other
Mongolian groups), 5% Kazakh, 2% Chinese, 2% Russian, 2% other.
Languages: Khalkha Mongol, more than 90%; minor languages include
Kazakh, Chinese, and Russian.
Religions: Tibetan Buddhist Lamaism is the predominant religion of
94% of the population, Muslim 6% (primarily in the southwest) and
Shamanism. Religious activity, though guaranteed in the 1960
constitution, had been limited by the communist regime; however,
beginning in January 1990, monasteries and mosques began to reopen.
Education: Years compulsory-8 years. Literacy-over 90%.
Life expectancy (1985): 65.6 yrs.
Government
Type: Democratic government elected July 1990.
Independence: 1921.
Constitution: 1960, major amendments 1990 with review
continuing and major revisions expected in 1991.
Branches: Executive-Power divided between a president and a prime
minister, both elected by the People's Great Hural in September
1990. A cabinet nominated by the prime minister was approved by
the Baga Hural in October 1990. Legislative-People's Great Hural
(National Assembly) was elected in July 1990. The Baga Hural
(Small Hural) was elected in September 1990 based on a party
preference vote in the July 1990 election. Judicial-blend of
Russian, Chinese, and Turkish systems of law, administered by
courts and Office of the Procurator-Supreme Court elected by
People's Great Hural. Legal code under revision. No provision for
judicial review of legislative acts. Mongolia recently accepted
International Court of Justice jurisdiction.
Political parties: The following parties were registered for the
July 1990 election: Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party (MPRP-
communist party-dominated country from 1921-90), Mongolian
Democratic Party (MDP), Social Democratic Party (SDP), Party of
National Progress (PNP), Party of Free Labor, Green Party.
Suffrage: Universal 18 and older, except mentally ill.
Elections: People's Great Hural elections held every 4 yrs. (last
election July 29, 1990).
Administrative subdivisions: 18 aymacs (provinces) and 3
autonomous cities (Ulaanbaatar, Darhan, and Erdenet).
Defense expenditures: About 12% of total GNP (ending December
1977, more recent figures not available); 405 million tugriks.
National holidays: International Socialist Workers' Day, May l;
People's Revolution Day, July 11.
Flag: Three vertical bands-red, sky-blue, red; on the left red band,
golden five-pointed star and, underneath, the golden soyombo (the
Mongolian national emblem, composed of a flame, sun, moon, two
triangles, four rectangles and two fish) are arranged.
Economy
GDP (1990 Mongolian estimate based on official exchange rate.):
$1.9 billion.
Per capita GDP (1990 estimate based on official exchange rate):
$932.
Annual growth rate (1975-88): 5.7%.
Natural resources: Coal, copper, molybdenum, iron, phosphates, tin,
nickel, zinc, wolfram, fluorspar, gold, uranium.
Agriculture: Products-livestock, wheat, oats, barley, hay fodder,
vegetables. Rural population (1990)-43%.
Industry (27.2% of GNP est.): Animal-derived products, building
materials, minerals.
Communications: Railroad-1,815 km. (1990), all broad gauge (1.524
m.). Highways-49,150 km. total; composed of concrete, asphalt,
crushed stone, gravel, and earth (42,610 km. are unpaved).
Trade: Exports-livestock, animal products, wool, hides, fluorspar,
nonferrous metals, and minerals. Imports-machinery and
equipment, petroleum, clothing, consumer durables, building
materials, sugar, tea, chemicals, and food products. Partners
(1989)-93.5% with communist countries (USSR 73.3%). US-Mongolia
trade-$1.6 million (1989). Total turnover-About $1.7 billion (1989
Mongolian estimate).
Aid received: Heavily dependent on USSR.
Official exchange rate (July 1990): 5.63 tugriks=US$1.
Fiscal year: Calendar year.
Membership in International Organizations
UN and some of its specialized and related agencies, including
UNESCO, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
International Labor Organization (ILO), International
Telecommunication Union (ITU), Universal Postal Union (UPU), World
Health Organization (WHO), World Meteorological Organization
(WMO); Interparliamentary Union; Council for Mutual Economic
Assistance (CEMA); Economic and Social Commission for Asia
and the Pacific (ESCAP). (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 5, February 4, 1991
Title: Focus on Central and Eastern Europe: Summary of Initiatives
Date: Feb 14, 19912/14/91
Category: Focus on Emerging Democracies
Region: E/C Europe
Country: Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria,
Czechoslovakia (former), Romania, Yugoslavia (former)
Subject: Trade/Economics, Development/Relief Aid,
Media/Telecommunications, Democratization,
International Law, Environment
[TEXT]
US Assistance in Central and Eastern Europe
The United States instituted its program to support the transition
to democracy and market economies in Central and Eastern Europe in
1989. The initial focus of the program, which included urgent
humanitarian aid, technical assistance, and direct economic aid,
was on Poland and Hungary, where the transition was most
advanced. Since then, the United States has expanded its assistance
to include Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Yugoslavia.
The United States has committed about $1.5 billion in grants
and other assistance to Central and Eastern Europe since 1989. If
debt relief were included, the total commitment through fiscal year
(FY) 1991 would reach about $2 billion. In addition, the United
States is the major contributor to the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund (IMF), which have committed $14
billion to programs in Central and Eastern Europe.
In FY 1991, new US grant assistance to the region will total
about $450 million. These special-assistance grant programs are
funded primarily through the mechanisms of the US Agency for
International Development and implemented by various US agencies
and through private-sector organizations. In addition, the United
States will provide new food aid worth about $75 million. These
programs complement the traditional programs that various US
agencies carry out under their own budgets.
US assistance is based on the concept of a "new democratic
differentiation," according to which assistance is tailored to the
specific needs of each country as it moves positively toward four
objectives: progress toward political pluralism, including free and
fair elections; progress toward economic reform through
development of a market-oriented economy with a substantial
private sector; enhanced respect for internationally recognized
human rights; and a willingness to build a friendly relationship with
the United States.
In program terms, US assistance supports three main
objectives:
-- Development of the institutions and practices of
democratic, pluralistic societies based on Western values of human
rights and individual freedoms;
-- Transformation of centrally planned economies to market-
based economies led by the private sector and integrated into the
world economy; and
-- Improvement in the basic quality of life while countries of
the region undergo the process of political reform and economic
restructuring.
Programs
I. Support for Democracy and Pluralism
A. Support for free political process:
-- Election monitoring-the 1991 focus is on Bulgaria,
Romania, and Yugoslavia at the local, regional, and national levels.
-- Training and material support for democratic political
organizations, including labor unions.
-- Local government reform and public administration.
-- National legislatures: training and assistance in
establishing information/research systems.
-- Citizen networks: help in establishing non-partisan civic
groups to open participation in the political process.
B. Rule of law:
-- Help in drafting constitutions and laws.
-- Help in establishing an independent judiciary.
C. Social process/cultural pluralism:
-- Educational reform.
-- Civic education/ethnic issues.
-- Books: provision of Western texts in political science,
economics, etc.; translation programs; development of publishing
capability.
-- English teaching: basic, comprehensive programs to
increase English-language capability. The US Information Agency
(USIA) has long had an English-teaching program in the area and will
manage an expanded program. Peace Corps volunteers are teaching
English in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland and soon will be in
Bulgaria.
-- USIA carries out a full range of educational and cultural-
exchange programs throughout the region.
D. Independent media:
-- Establishment of independent broadcasting entities
through the International Media Fund.
-- Journalism training.
In addition to base programs of individual agencies, including
USIA and the Peace Corps, in FY 1991 approximately $35 million in
special assistance is being committed to these programs. During FY
1990, similar programs received approximately $12 million in
special-assistance funding.
II. Support for Economic Reform
A. Structural adjustment:
-- Stabilization Fund for Poland: the United States has
contributed $200 million in grant funds as the basis for a $1-billion
multilateral fund to stabilize the Polish currency (the zloty) and
control inflation. When the need for the fund is ended, the $200
million becomes available to the Polish government.
-- The United States is the major contributor, at almost 20%,
to IMF and World Bank programs in the region and took the lead in
obtaining some $5 billion in new IMF lending authority designed to
meet new requirements in the region.
-- EBRD: with a first-year contribution of about $70 million,
the United States is a founding member of the new European Bank
for Reconstruction and Development, which will provide loans for
new enterprises or privatization of state-owned enterprises; at
least 60% of EBRD loans will be to private-sector projects.
-- The United States has taken the lead in establishing the
new Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Center
for Cooperation with European Economies in Transition and the
Partners in Transition program for Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and
Poland.
B. Private-sector development:
-- US-Hungarian and US-Polish Enterprise Funds have been
established to invest in the private sectors in the two countries.
These funds now have available $130 million of an authorized $300
million. The United States is establishing a similar fund for
Czechoslovakia.
-- Agricultural and rural development: through assistance to
private farmers, farmer-to-farmer exchanges (Volunteers in
Overseas Cooperative Assistance), and technical assistance in
agribusiness and rural development, the United States provides help
to productive agriculture based on private enterprise.
Approximately $40 million will be committed to these programs
through FY 1991; this does not include counterpart funds generated
by US food-aid programs.
-- Technical assistance to facilitate privatization and
restructuring of state enterprises and institutions (including
through the International Executive Service Corps) and encourage
small-business development; funded at approximately $30 million
in FY 1991.
-- Management-training and market-economics education
programs to help establish practices of market-oriented business
and establish training and education capability in the region; about
$10 million in FY 1991; Peace Corps volunteers will provide
additional management training directed at select enterprises in
Poland and other countries in the region.
-- Training in financial services and development of private-
housing sectors; $25 to $30 million.
-- Citizens Democracy Corps: a presidential initiative to
facilitate US private-sector assistance to the region is now
operating under the chairmanship of Drew Lewis, former Secretary
of Transportation and Chairman of Union Pacific.
C. Trade and Investment:
-- The US government seeks to normalize bilateral trade and
investment relations with countries that meet the requirements of
US laws.
-- The United States has concluded a comprehensive business
and economic agreement with Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary,
and Poland. We are negotiating such a bilateral investment treaty
with Yugoslavia.
-- The United States has granted most-favored-nation status
to Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Yugoslavia and is prepared
to do so with Bulgaria as soon as that country meets the
requirements of US law.
-- The Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation have established active programs in
Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Yugoslavia.
-- The Trade and Development Program is doing feasibility
studies, worth about $10 million, designed to promote US
investment in those countries.
D. Environment and Energy:
-- The International Environmental Center in Budapest,
Hungary, was created to facilitate pollution control and approach
other environmental problems on a regional basis. The
US contribution is $10 million over
3 years.
-- An air-and-water-quality technical-assistance and
equipment program in Krakow, Poland, provides data for emergency
and long-term emission-control strategies.
-- A clean-fossil-fuels project was created to retrofit
existing coal-burning power plants in the Krakow region of Poland;
the project is funded by the United States at $10 million to date,
with more money to follow.
-- A regional project to increase energy efficiency will be
funded by the United States at $10 million in FY 1991.
-- Other environmental and energy technical-assistance
programs will total about $10 million in FY 1991. In addition,
Peace Corps volunteers will provide technical assistance in Poland
and elsewhere in the region.
-- A project to assess equipment designed to reduce pollution
has been authorized at $20 million.
-- There also are energy-efficiency financing projects with
the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the
European Community; $14 million in FY 1991.
The United States will fund programs in the environment and
energy areas totaling $65 million in FY 1991.
III. Support for Quality of Life
A. Humanitarian Assistance
1. Medical assistance, including:
-- Medical supplies to Poland.
-- Special assistance for Romanian children, which
totals about $7 million to date; in addition, Peace Corps volunteers
will carry out a program to help improve conditions for
institutionalized children.
-- An influenza-prevention program in Czechoslovakia,
Hungary, and Poland; other emergency-medical-supply programs to
total about $5 million in FY 1991.
-- Funding for US private-sector humanitarian
initiatives in the region; $7.5 million in FY 1991.
-- Technical assistance in the development of health-
care systems.
2. Food aid:
-- In 1990, food aid was provided to Poland (more than
$130 million) and Romania (approximately $70 million).
-- Food-aid programs for Bulgaria and Hungary have
been started in FY 1991, and requests from Poland and Romania are
being considered.
B. Social Safety Net/Labor-Market Transition
-- Labor-mobility and unemployment programs in
Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland.
-- Technical assistance in developing unemployment and
labor-reform programs. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 5, February 4, 1991
Title: Panama After Operation Just Cause
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: Central America
Country: Panama
Subject: Military Affairs, Trade/Economics,
International Law, History
[TEXT]
Background
On December 20, 1989, President Bush ordered the deployment of US
forces into Panama to protect American lives, to defend democracy,
to apprehend Noriega and bring him to trial on drug-related charges,
and to ensure the integrity of the Panama Canal Treaties. One year
after "Operation Just Cause," these objectives have been
accomplished, and Panama is on the difficult road to full political,
economic, and social recovery. Panamanians overwhelmingly
consider Operation Just Cause to be a liberation, not an invasion
(see footnote)
The US troop presence in Panama, under the auspices of the
Panama Canal Treaty, is below the pre-May 1989 level of 10,000
and well below the Operation Just Cause level of 27,000. For fiscal
years 1990 and 1991, the United States is providing about $452
million in economic aid and $500 million in loans and guarantees,
which is the largest assistance package in the hemisphere and the
third largest in the world (after Israel and Egypt). This package
includes aid for food and housing, job creation efforts, helping
businesses affected by the looting which followed the military
operation, police training, administration of justice, and ecological
protection of the canal watershed. Funds also will be used to help
pay arrears to international financial institutions and to promote
public and private investment.
Panama's Economy
The government of President Guillermo Endara inherited an economy
that had been looted by the Noriega administration. The gross
mismanagement, under-investment, and deterioration in public
sector infrastructure of the Noriega years caused economic
stagnation and widespread unemployment, massive capital flight,
and one of the largest per capita debt burdens in the world.
Nonetheless, led by Second Vice President and Minister of
Economics and Planning Billy Ford, the Endara government has put
Panama on the path to economic recovery. Panamanian GDP is
estimated to have grown about 5% in real terms in 1990, even with
increased petroleum costs resulting from the Iraqi takeover of
Kuwait. Output linked to domestic demand is up strongly,
traditional exports are regaining pre-crisis levels, and imports are
rapidly increasing (in spite of quotas and tariffs which remain as
high as 270%). Capital is returning as Panama's banking system
recovers; deposits increased by $2 billion to $14 billion through the
first three quarters of 1990. The value of construction permits has
risen threefold in the first 9 months of 1990 compared with the
previous year. Inflation in Panama's dollar-based economy remains
low, and unemployment has decreased from a post-Operation Just
Cause high of more than 35% to about 21%.
The Paris Club in November 1990 rescheduled Panama's
official debt, and growing public investment and private sector
confidence are expected to boost further economic growth and bring
down unemployment in 1991 and beyond.
Panamanian Political Affairs
The Endara government is the first democratically elected
government to actually rule Panama in more than two decades. The
new government assumed power on December 20, 1989, having been
denied office by Noriega after overwhelmingly winning the May
1989 elections. One of its greatest achievements has been to
guarantee basic political rights, such as the right of the
Panamanian population to determine their leaders, the right to
speak and publish against the government, and the right of
assembly. The print and electronic media have all returned to
private hands.
The government of Panama also has made progress in reducing
corruption and officially sanctioned graft, and it has begun to
remove Noriega's mid-level officials at some ministries and
autonomous agencies. It has several dozen high-level Noriega
regime officials in custody for alleged criminal wrongdoings,
although prosecutions have not yet taken place.
The Legislative Assembly, after a slow first session spent
primarily in reorganization, performs with increasing competence
and efficiency. It recently passed a tough budget law and is
working on constitutional reform. Legislative elections were
repeated in late January 1991 to fill nine seats disputed after the
May 1989 national elections due to tampering by the Noriega regime.
With US assistance, First Vice President and Minister of
Government and Justice Ricardo Arias Calderon is transforming
Noriega's former Panama Defense Forces (PDF) into an apolitical
national police called the Public Force. The government's decision
to integrate many ex-PDF officers into the new Public Force
initially was of concern to many Panamanians. Some of those fears
have been assuaged since most of the officers above the rank of
captain now have been replaced; 142 officers were forced to retire
in September 1990. Although a former head of the Public Force,
Eduardo Herrera Hassan, and 50-70 ex-PDF supporters attempted an
unsuccessful rebellion in December 1990, the government is
progressing steadily toward achieving its goal of an apolitical
police force. Assisting this process remains a key US objective.
There are other internal political issues which confront the
Endara government, among them the administration of justice. Its
appointments to the Supreme Court have been generally praised, and
the Supreme Court has issued important decisions about money
laundering, wire taps, and habeas corpus appeals. Legislation has
been drafted to reform Panama's criminal justice procedures and
improve the efficiency of the administration of justice. The
judiciary system is plagued, however, by limited resources,
cumbersome procedures, antiquated jails, and ambiguous lines of
authority and responsibility. This has caused prolonged preliminary
and pre-trial detentions and a significant case backlog.
The government also confronts difficult labor issues. Its
recent attempts to change labor laws in order to attract new
investment have been met with strikes and labor unrest. The United
States has supported strongly the development of democratic labor
union institutions and respect for their rights and peaceful means
of resolving differences.
Bilateral Issues
The renewal of democracy in Panama has shown that the US
bilateral relationship with Panama remains fundamentally strong.
The Panama Canal Treaty process has returned to normal and
progresses toward the turnover of the canal to Panama on December
31, 1999. In September 1990, in accord with the Panama Canal
Treaty, the first Panamanian national was installed as
Administrator of the Panama Canal Commission. A Panamanian body
has been appointed to oversee long-range planning of canal issues,
and various legislative proposals for reverted areas are under
consideration.
Panama's performance on narcotics has been positive. Law
enforcement agencies have had considerable narcotics control
successes, including large drug seizures. The development of a
national drug awareness campaign and new legislation to use seized
assets in the fight against narcotics are having increasingly
beneficial effects. US-funded narcotics training programs and
assistance have contributed to these achievements.
Panama has signed various agreements with the United States
such as the Mutual Cooperation Agreement on narcotics, ship
boarding procedures, the Essential Chemicals Agreement, and the
Bilateral Narcotics Control Accord. These agreements, together
with practical steps to fight money laundering, reflect the Endara
government's will to fight the drug scourge alongside other
responsible nations. The United States and Panama currently are
negotiating a Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement, which would
provide for mutual cooperation in criminal investigations.
International Relations
Panama now enjoys close relations with the Central American
republics and has restored full diplomatic relations with most
hemispheric countries. It participates as an observer in the Central
American integration process. President Endara attended the
December 15-17 meeting of Central American presidents in
Puntarenas, Costa Rica, and Panama sent a representative to the
November 20-21 Washington meetings on the Partnership for
Democracy and Development for Central America. Panama has
complied fully with sanctions against Iraq, which is especially
important since Panama's ship registry is the second largest in the
world. It has actively opposed Cuba's assistance to the Salvadoran
guerrillas.
Conclusion
Panama has made significant advances in the year since Operation
Just Cause, although there remains much work to be done.
Democracy in Panama has been restored, the Panamanian economy is
once again beginning to prosper, and the bilateral relationship with
the United States has proven to be strong. Compared with the dark
days under Noriega, this is a remarkable turnaround.
Footnote: In September-October 1990, CID -- a Costa Rican-based
Gallup Associate -- found that 70% of surveyed Panamainans
continue to consider Operation Just Cause a liberation. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 5, February 4, 1991
Title: Department Statements on China and Pakistan
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Jan 28, 19911/28/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: East Asia, Southeast Asia
Country: China, Pakistan
Subject: Human Rights, Development/Relief Aid,
Arms Control
[TEXT]
Dissidents in China
We are disappointed by the convictions of Wang Dan and four others.
We have seen no evidence that their offenses consisted of more than
the nonviolent expression of political views. If so, these
convictions would appear to violate the UN's Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, which guarantees the right of political expression.
Naturally, we welcome the release of some 66 others.
We are disappointed as well that these trials are being
conducted without any independent observers present, which
inevitably raises concerns as to whether the trials meet
internationally recognized standards of due process and fairness.
We have advised Chinese authorities of our position on the
trials on numerous occasions, most exhaustively during the
December visit to China of Assistant Secretary [for Human Rights
and Humanitarian Affairs Richard] Schifter. We have urged them not
to punish further those who did not engage in violent actions and to
open the trials to foreign observers.
Officers of our embassy in Beijing have attempted, so far
without success, to attend the trials, as have journalists and other
interested persons.
We are particularly concerned by reports that in some cases
even relatives of the accused were prevented from attending the
trials and that some defendants, reportedly including Mr. Wang,
were not allowed to choose their own defense attorneys.
Aid to Pakistan
Since total foreign assistance funding has declined in fiscal year
(FY) 1991, most non-earmarked programs have had to be reduced.
Since Pakistan's assistance program is not earmarked in FY 1991 (it
was in previous years), its cuts are part of that general decline in
non-earmarked programs.
Under the Pressler amendment, Pakistan is not eligible to
receive assistance unless the President certifies to the Congress
that Pakistan "does not possess a nuclear explosive device and that
the proposed US assistance program will reduce significantly the
risk that Pakistan will possess a nuclear explosive device."
Since the President has not yet made such a certification for
FY 1991, no assistance can be provided to Pakistan at this time.
This issue remains under discussion between the United States and
Pakistan. (###)