US Department of State 

Dispatch, Vol 2, No 5, February 4, 1991


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:


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
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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. (###)