US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 7, February 18, 1991
Title: Statement from Baghdad: A Cruel Hoax
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: Comments to the American Association for the
Advancement of Science; Washington, DC
Date: Feb 15, 19912/15/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait
Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization
[TEXT]
Before talking about the subject at hand, I do want to make a few
comments on the statement that came out of Baghdad early this
morning.
When I first heard that statement, I must say I was happy that
Saddam Hussein had seemed to realize that he must now withdraw
unconditionally from Kuwait, in keeping with the relevant UN
resolutions. Regrettably, the Iraq statement now appears to be a
cruel hoax, dashing the hopes of the people in Iraq and, indeed,
around the world.
It seems that there was an immediate celebratory atmosphere
in Baghdad after this statement, and this reflects, I think, the Iraqi
people's desire to see the war end, a war the people of Iraq never
sought.
Not only was the Iraq statement full of unacceptable old
conditions, but Saddam Hussein has added several new conditions.
We've been in touch with members of the coalition, and they
recognize that there is nothing new here, with the possible
exception of recognizing for the first time that Iraq must leave
Kuwait.
Let me state once again: They must withdraw without
condition. There must be full implementation of all the Security
Council resolutions. There will be no linkage to other problems in
the area, and the legitimate rulers of Kuwait must be returned to
Kuwait.
Until a massive withdrawal begins, with those Iraqi troops
visibly leaving Kuwait, the coalition forces, acting under UN
Resolution 678, will continue their efforts to force compliance
with all the resolutions of the United Nations.
But there's another way for the bloodshed to stop and that is
for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their
own hands, to force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside and
to comply with the UN resolutions and then rejoin the family of
peace-loving nations.
We have no argument with the people of Iraq. Our differences
are with Iraq's brutal dictator. And the war, let me just assure you
all, is going on schedule. Of course, all of us want to see the war
ended soon and with a limited loss of life. And it can, if Saddam
Hussein would comply unconditionally with these UN resolutions and
do now what he should have done long, long ago.
So, I'm sorry that-after analysis and reading the statements
out of Baghdad in their entirety-there is nothing new here. It is a
hoax. There are new demands added. I feel very sorry for the people
in Iraq, and I feel sorry for the families in this country who
probably felt as I did this morning when they heard the television,
that maybe we really had a shot for peace today. But that's not the
case, and we will continue. We will pursue our objectives with
honor and decency, and we will not fail. . . . (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 7, February 18, 1991
Title: Civilian Casualties At Iraqi Military Sites
Fitzwater
Source: White House Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater
Description: White House Statement; Washington, DC
Date: Feb 13, 19912/13/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait
Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization
[TEXT]
Last night, coalition forces bombed a military command and control
center in Baghdad that, according to press reports, resulted in a
number of civilian casualties.
The loss of civilian lives in time of war is a truly tragic
consequence. It saddens everyone to know that innocent people may
have died in the course of military conflict. America treats human
life as our most precious value. That is why even during this
military conflict in which the lives of our servicemen and women
are at risk, we will not target civilian facilities. We will continue
to hit only military targets. The bunker that was attacked last
night was a military target. We have been systematically attacking
these targets since the war began.
We don't know why civilians were at this location, but we do
know that Saddam Hussein does not share our value in the sanctity
of life. Indeed, he, time and again, has shown a willingness to
sacrifice civilian lives and property that further his war aims.
Civilian hostages were moved in November and December to
military sites for use as human shields. POWs reportedly have been
placed at military sites. Roving bands of execution squads search
out deserters among his own ranks of servicemen. Command and
control centers in Iraq have been placed on top of schools and public
buildings. Tanks and other artillery have been placed beside private
homes and small villages. And only this morning we have
documentation that two MiG-21s have been parked near the front
door of a treasured archaeological site which dates back to the 27th
century BC.
His environmental terrorism spreads throughout the Persian
Gulf, killing wildlife and threatening human water supplies. And
finally, Saddam Hussein aims his Scud missiles at innocent
civilians in Israel and Saudi Arabia. He kills civilians intentionally
and with purpose.
Saddam Hussein created this war. He created the military
bunkers. And he can bring the war to an end. We urge him once
again to save his people and to comply with the UN resolutions.
(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 7, February 18, 1991
Title: Civilian Casualties At Iraqi Military Sites
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Excerpt: State Department Statement; Washington, DC
Date: Feb 13, 19912/13/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait
Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization
[TEXT]
We deeply regret any civilian casualties that result from our
actions. It is not the policy of the US government to intentionally
target civilians; it is the policy of Saddam Hussein. For our part,
we've gone to extreme lengths-often at the risk to our own pilots-
not to target civilians or areas where they live.
Indeed, any civilian casualties are a result of a war that
Saddam imposed on the world. Had he complied with the will of the
international community, ended his aggression, and withdrawn from
Kuwait, there would be no war.
Unfortunately and tragically, the Iraqi people are paying the
price for that aggression. The US didn't invade, annex, and destroy
Kuwait; Saddam did.
-- It is Saddam-not the allied coalition-who continues to put
his narrow ambitions above the well-being of his people and the
welfare of his country.
-- It is Saddam-not the allied coalition-who continues to
purposefully attack civilian targets in Israel and Saudi Arabia.
-- It is Saddam-not the allied coalition-who abuses prisoners
of war and destroys the ecology of the Gulf.
-- It is Saddam-not the allied coalition-who continues to
defy the will of the entire international community.
-- And it is Saddam who has the ability to stop the violence
by immediately withdrawing from Kuwait. But once again his
personal, ruthless ambition makes him indifferent to the costs to
his own people.
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 7, February 18, 1991
Title: International Aspects Of 1991 National Drug Control
Strategy
Date: Feb 18, 19912/18/91
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: North America, South America, Central America
Country: United States
Subject: Narcotics
[TEXT]
President Bush presented the third National Drug Control Strategy
to the Congress on January 31, 1991. He stated: "Our strategy is
comprehensive. . . . Our strategy works. And the thrust of our
strategy remains the same: cutting down the supply and then
suppressing the demand."
The international strategy is to reduce, and ultimately
eliminate, the drug threat to US security and the security and
stability of other nations. It aims at disrupting and dismantling
overseas drug-trafficking enterprises to complement our domestic
supply reduction programs and to enhance our demand reduction
efforts. It also calls for extending diplomatic initiatives to
increase hemispheric trade, improve control mechanisms for money
laundering and precursor chemicals, and launch joint demand
reduction efforts overseas.
The 1991 strategy seeks to enhance the political commitment
of drug producer and transit countries to strengthen their laws,
legal institutions and programs to punish and, where appropriate,
extradite drug traffickers and drug money launderers. It also
contains economic assistance programs for the Andean nations.
Andean Initiative
In fiscal year (FY) 1991 the United States plans to provide about
$370 million in resources and equipment to the Andean countries.
The Administration proposes almost $500 million for FY 1992 ($214
million in law enforcement and security assistance and $285
million in economic assistance). Economic assistance will be
conditioned on drug control performance and adherence to sound
economic policies and respect for human rights. This assistance is
aimed at four near-term goals:
-- Strengthen Colombian, Peruvian, and Bolivian political
commitment and institutional capability to disrupt and dismantle
cocaine trafficking organizations.
-- Increase the effectiveness of their law enforcement and
security activities against the cocaine trade.
-- Inflict significant damage on the cocaine trafficking
organizations and their operations.
-- Strengthen and diversify their legitimate economies to
help them overcome the destabilizing effects of eliminating
cocaine, a major source of income. This involves providing balance-
of-payments assistance, supporting income-earning alternatives in
coca-growing and surrounding areas, and supporting trade and
investment programs that generate jobs, income, and foreign
exchange.
Potential Source and Transit Countries
As counter-drug efforts take effect in the Andean countries,
growing and processing operations may relocate, and drug
traffickers may seek new smuggling routes. Brazil, Ecuador, and
Venezuela are potential coca source countries. Mexico and The
Bahamas are the primary transit countries, but many others in the
Caribbean, Central America, and South America are potential transit
countries. Mexico will receive more than $18 million in bilateral
assistance for drug control programs in FY 1991, and the
Administration will ask Congress for $26 million for FY 1992. In
addition, $52 million will be provided for drug control programs in
transit countries during FY 1991, and the Administration will
request Congress to appropriate more than $54 million for FY 1992.
Efforts to counter drug developments in these countries will
include:
-- Continuing Department of Defense detection and
surveillance efforts, while assisting potential transit countries to
improve their own intelligence capabilities and their ability to act
on shared intelligence;
-- Encouraging drug-producing and transit countries to
strengthen their laws, legal institutions, and programs to apprehend
and bring drug traffickers and money launderers to justice;
-- Increasing law enforcement and other programs with
Mexico as the transit country of principal concern; and
-- Paying particular attention to Panama and Guatemala, as
special cases.
Heroin Producing and Distribution Areas
In FY 1991, the Administration will provide more than $38 million
for programs to attack Asian heroin production and trafficking and
is seeking $43 million from Congress for these programs in FY
1992. The United States also seeks to provide additional funding
through multilateral institutions to attack heroin production and
distribution.
To counter the increasing flow of cheap, pure, and easily
available heroin into the United States, the US government
cooperates with other countries to promote the use of their own
resources to dismantle cultivation, refining and ancillary
industries, and to reduce demand for drugs. It also solicits
diplomatic assistance to influence producers to which we have
limited access. Finally, the United States aims to increase
interdiction of drugs destined for the United States.
Border Interdiction and Security
Interdiction efforts-intercepting, disrupting, and destroying the
products, communications, transportation, and proceeds of the
illegal drug business-have prevented a significant amount of drugs
from reaching the United States. These efforts, though difficult and
costly, demonstrate our national will to oppose drug traffickers on
every available front, and it increases the chances of apprehending
traffickers and their agents, thereby making the supply of drugs
erratic and unreliable. The United States will maintain its present
level of interdiction and seek to increase its effectiveness. The
President's budget proposes $2.1 billion in FY 1992, mostly to
maintain equipment and systems already procured and now coming
on line.
Among other things, in pursuing interdiction, the United
States will:
-- Use innovative technologies from federal laboratories and
private industry for various interdiction problems including
detection of concealed drugs, controlling movements across our
borders, and enhancing data collection and information processing;
-- Impose additional sanctions for pilots who violate flight
planning, entry notification, or border clearance rules, and seek
additional legislation making it a criminal offense to refuse orders
of federal authorities to land an aircraft or bring-to a vessel;
-- Continue vigorous enforcement of laws and pursue
international cooperation to halt illegal diversion of precursor
chemicals; and
-- Provide additional resources to disrupt drug trafficking on
our southwest border, including increased border inspections. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 7, February 18, 1991
Title: First Anniversary of Cartagena Accords on Drugs
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Feb 15, 19912/15/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: North America, South America
Country: United States, Ascension Island, Peru, Colombia
Subject: Narcotics
[TEXT]
One year ago, at Cartagena, Colombia, the four Presidents of Peru,
Bolivia, Colombia, and the United States met. It was clear at that
meeting that all four countries had come to a realization: Drugs
were not just a problem for those countries that consumed them nor
the responsibility of those countries that supplied them.
Tragically, addiction, crime, violence, and corruption had become
ties that bound our nations together. Common problems demanded
common solutions.
In the past year, the four countries combined have taken steps
toward eliminating the scourge of drugs that none could have
contemplated alone.
For the United States, we remain firmly committed to the
strategy of alternative development, eradication, and interdiction
agreed on at Cartagena. In FY 1991, the United States plans to
provide $370 million in economic and anti-narcotics aid to the
Andean countries and has proposed almost $500 million in aid for FY
1992. We will continue to help these countries use this aid
effectively, following their own anti-narcotics plans, sound
economic policies, and respect for human rights.
Last year, as a result of a special policy review, new trade
preferences were granted which will boost the Andean countries'
exports to the United States by about $27 million. Among other
trade and investment efforts, the Andean trade preference
initiative, recently reintroduced in Congress, seeks to use
preferential access to our market as an incentive for expanding
trade in legitimate items, giving entrepreneurs the opportunity to
channel their energies into alternative products.
Nor is the United States asking the Andean countries to go it
alone. Our strategy, to cut both supply and demand, is working.
Drug use in the United States is down 11% since 1988. Cocaine use
is down 49% among young people. As President Bush said last month
when he announced the National Drug Control Strategy: "We're
putting more agents on the streets, hiring more prosecutors in the
courtrooms, and building more prisons. And as we encourage more
people to stop using drugs, we intend to provide them with more
help."
With our help, these countries can defeat the menace of drugs. Coca
cultivation has leveled off or declined in all the Andean countries.
Their justice systems are punishing drug traffickers and stopping
drug shipments. Economic reform and growth will make their
societies less vulnerable to drug money.
A year is not a long time in the history of the Americas, but
last year may well be seen as a crucial point in that history, when
four threatened nations combined against the narco-criminals and
began to work together against the evils of trafficking and
addiction. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 7, February 18, 1991
Title: Foreign Service Preparing To Meet Challenges of Tomorrow
Date: Feb 18, 19912/18/91
Category: Features
Region: North America
Country: United States
Subject: State Department
[TEXT]
In recent months, President Bush and Secretary Baker have spoken
of an emerging "new world order" that will present a fresh set of
challenges to the United States. Ambassador Edward Perkins,
Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Personnel, is
working to ensure that America's diplomats meet the demands of
the post-Cold War period.
A rapidly changing world and the increasingly multi-faceted
nature of US foreign policy mean that the precepts on which the
Foreign Service operates also must grow and adapt, says
Ambassador Perkins. "If we're going to do the job that the rest of
the world demands, we have to change as well," he adds. "We must
bring in people to the Foreign Service who have a broader base in
terms of education and experience and who can bring new and
different skills to the conduct of American foreign policy."
The Foreign Service officers (FSOs) of tomorrow will have to
be "multi-functional and multi-cultural and able to deal with new
power centers and new sets of economic and political problems," he
says. FSOs will have to be comfortable with "instant
communication," be able to make decisions based increasingly on
economic and commercial factors, and deal with emerging issues
such as health, the environment, narcotics, and refugees, set
against a backdrop of evolving political systems, new regional
alliances, and small-scale conflicts.
To meet that challenge, the Foreign Service is expanding its
recruiting net to attract people with a variety of backgrounds,
experience, and perspectives. As a result, the resume of a new
Foreign Service officer 5 years from now may look different from
that of an officer 5 or 10 years ago.
"The Foreign Service is looking at people with backgrounds in
science, technology, or business administration, and people who are
comfortable with economics," says Ambassador Perkins. "We need
more people with Arabic, Chinese, and African language skills to
deal with the changing power centers and new issues."
All recruits, he notes, should have solid grounding in two
areas: English and quantitative analysis. "If recruits bring foreign
language and computer skills, so much the better," he adds.
"Computer knowledge, for example, is almost essential these days
to get a job done. But at the same time, we can teach those skills.
The other skills are basic and must be a part of every Foreign
Service officer's resume."
The recruiting process is only the beginning, he explains. "We
are looking to expose recruits to a wide variety of experiences as
they rise to managerial positions so that they bring a diverse
background. Many issues today have a scientific cast to them. So an
officer, for example, might spend time in OES [Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs] learning about
those kinds of issues."
Economic and commercial issues are vital, the Ambassador
notes. "The greatest challenge the United States has is to develop
and increase our trade opportunities. That is one of the key areas
upon which our country's very survival will depend." In an
increasingly competitive world, countries such as India, Thailand,
Singapore, South Korea, and Brazil are challenging the United States
and other Western countries for market share and economic
leadership, he observes. Foreign Service officers will have to
understand those countries, learn about their economy, and be able
to help US business respond to these new challenges around the
globe.
"Not everyone in the Foreign Service must be an economist," he
says, "but every officer should have a good understanding of the
language of economics and the concepts of business. So if an
officer is dealing with a particular problem, he or she knows, at the
very least, when and how to call for an economist."
The Foreign Service will continue to have economic officers,
as well as administrative, commercial, political, cultural and labor
officers and other specialists. But, the Ambassador says, "growing
up in one field, in one stream, will be greatly diminished."
Ambassadors, deputy chiefs of missions, and other senior
officials often find themselves managing the resources from several
agencies and bringing to bear all those resources to achieve a goal,
Ambassador Perkins notes. So the Foreign Service works to arrange
tours by State officers in other agencies, such as the Department of
Commerce, the Department of Agriculture, and the US Agency for
International Development, to learn about their operations.
Environmental concerns are a top priority of US foreign policy.
Ambassador Perkins notes that Foreign Service officers in many
countries must deal in areas such as agricultural development,
water resource management, forestry, and related problems, making
scientific and agricultural knowledge and skills in development
administration more important.
Administrative and support staff also must have or acquire
new experience or skills. "Years ago, a secretary's primary
responsibilities included taking dictation and typing," the
Ambassador observes. "In today's fast-moving, electronic and
scientific age, a secretary must know about computers, be able to
edit letters and other material, and decide how to best manage an
office."
As the Director General and the Department's Director of
Personnel, Ambassador Perkins demands equal opportunity
employment, saying that the Foreign Service should represent the
diverse makeup of the United States. "We haven't capitalized on one
of America's great strengths over its 200-year history, which is its
diversity," he asserts. "I strongly advocate a significant number of
applicants representing racial, ethnic, gender, and geographic
diversity, whatever the class of officers. We've got to get to the
point where diversity is considered a plus, not just because it is
our moral duty, but because it is essential to the Department's
mission." The Foreign Service is a mirror to the rest of the
world. "Because of that, the Department must take the lead in
utilizing and reflecting that diversity to other countries.
With respect to women and minorities in the work force of the
Civil Service and the Foreign Service, Ambassador Perkins is firmly
committed to quantitative and qualitative representation. He has
made an unequivocal promise to Secretary Baker to work toward
this goal so that the results will leave no doubt that a diverse work
force has been achieved.
Ambassador Perkins also seeks to ensure that women and
minorities are represented at all levels of the Department and not
concentrated in lower-level "support" positions. He says that equal
employment opportunity will have been achieved ". . . when we can
look at the overall picture and be satisfied."
Although many commentators and analysts are fond of
discussing real or imagined rifts between career and non-career
officers, Ambassador Perkins says that relations between the two
are good. "Both communicate with the other effectively, but that
doesn't happen automatically. It is something that career and non-
career people must work at constantly," he notes. "Each must
recognize the strengths of the other, and both must work toward the
unified goal of carrying out US foreign policy."
Ambassador Perkins says he aims to ensure that the Civil
Service and the Foreign Service work together to carry out US
foreign policy. He wants employees in both services to receive
good, substantive opportunities for training, assignments, and
promotion. "We want to ensure that all of our employees, whether
Civil Service, Foreign Service, or non-career, have the support they
need to do a good job while they are here." (###)
-Jim Pinkelman, Dispatch Staff
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 7, February 18, 1991
Title: Brief History of the State Department, 1861-95
Date: Feb 18, 19912/18/91
Category: Features
Region: North America
Country: United States
Subject: History
[TEXT]
The following was prepared by the Offices of the Historian and of
Public Communication.
Civil War
Under William Henry Seward the office of Secretary of State
became a position of crucial power and importance during the Civil
War. Secretary Seward was President Abraham Lincoln's principal
counselor on domestic matters as well as on the vital diplomatic
effort to prevent European powers from recognizing or assisting the
Confederacy.
He was so close to Lincoln that he, too, was a target of the
assassination plot which resulted in the President's death in 1865.
Seward, who was badly injured in the attack, recovered to serve a
full 8 years as Secretary of State; finishing his term under
President Andrew Johnson.
As the United States plunged into Civil War, Britain and
France were inclined to recognize the Confederate States-with
which they had important economic ties-as a legitimate,
belligerent power. The Lincoln Administration feared that
mishandling these delicate relations could provoke decisive
intervention by the European powers.
By 1862, the Confederates had some major battlefield
successes, and it fell to Union diplomats to preserve the image
abroad of a strong federal government. The diplomatic front became
as critical as the military in the early conduct of the war. After an
American warship caught the British ship Trent, carrying several
Confederate commissioners bound for Europe, Secretary Seward's
hostility toward Britain became public, and bilateral relations
soured. Since Lincoln well understood that the North could not fight
both the Confederacy and Britain at the same time, US diplomats
were ordered to defuse the crisis. The breathing space gained by
the diplomats-before the eventual Union victory was certain-played
a crucial role in its success.
The Civil War produced an outstanding team of American
diplomats. At Seward's urging, President Lincoln sent Charles
Francis Adams, son of former President John Quincy Adams, to
London with the critical task of persuading Britain not to intervene
on behalf of the Confederacy. Former New Jersey Senator William L.
Dayton was equally successful as Minister to France, where he kept
Emperor Louis Napoleon's ministers from exploiting the Civil War to
French advantage. Other posts were filled by distinguished
historian John Lothrop Motley, who was named Minister to Austria,
and Carl Schurz, a refugee from the Central European revolution of
1848, who became President Lincoln's Minister to Spain.
The Department's Increasing Responsibilities
After the Civil War, the Department gained the structure to deal
with its increasingly complicated responsibilities. In 1870 and
again in 1873, Secretary Hamilton Fish strengthened the
Department's bureau structure and implemented a series of
administrative reforms, including an attendance check on
Department employees.
Distinguished Career Officers
. The
Department was again well served by long-term employees during
this period; especially notable was William Hunter. Hunter served
in the Department for more than 40 years; including a period as
Chief Clerk (1852-66). He also served as Acting Secretary during
the convalescence of Secretary Seward and his son, Assistant
Secretary Frederick Seward, after the April 1865 assassination
attempt. Hunter later held the position of Second Assistant
Secretary until his death in 1886. His successor was the respected
Alvey A. Adee who filled that post until his death in 1924. Adee's
contemporary, John Bassett Moore, was a world-renowned
international relations specialist and served the Department for 20
years. The long service of William Hunter, Alvey Adee, and John
Bassett Moore as the top career officers of the Department from
1841-1924 profoundly affected the conduct of American foreign
affairs.
Presidential Succession
. After the
assassination of President James Garfield in 1881, Congress
recognized the need for a more detailed succession law.
Acknowledging the preeminent position of the Secretary of State in
the Cabinet, Congress placed the Secretary second-after the Vice
President-in the line of succession. This act remained in place
until 1947 when a new law put the Speaker of the House and the
President Pro Tempore of the Senate ahead of the Secretary of
State.
Diplomatic and Consular Services
. The three
decades after the Civil War were the quietest period in US
diplomatic history as the nation seemed to withdraw from global
affairs. The American presence in commerce abroad, however,
increased at a spectacular rate. Even a series of depressions and an
especially severe economic crisis in 1893 did not slow exports, as
Americans searched for new buyers--and profits--overseas. Between
the end of the Civil War and the outbreak of the Spanish-American
War 34 years later, American exports tripled, and the United States
was second only to Great Britain in export trade. In 1890,
Secretary James G. Blaine declared that US prosperity depended
upon the overseas sale of American surpluses. The consular service
became the lead instrument in the search for American
markets abroad.
Congress began to explore measures to place both the consular
and the diplomatic services on a more efficient and tightly managed
basis. In 1895, President Grover Cleveland issued regulations
requiring the filling of vacancies on the basis of oral and written
examinations, including language tests. Other measures were
adopted to deal with the salaries and inspection of consular posts.
Presidential diplomatic appointments in the latter part of the
century included some distinguished Americans. Historian George
Bancroft, a former Minister to Britain, was named Minister to
Prussia and the new German Empire (1867-74). Playwright and poet
George H. Boker was Minister to Russia (1875-78). Congressman
Elihu Washburne-whose service as Secretary of State from March 5-
16, 1869, remains the shortest tour of duty-carried on with great
effectiveness and physical courage as Minister in France,
particularly in the siege of Paris during the Franco-Prussian War
and the bloody Paris Commune. American author James Russell
Lowell served from 1877 to 1880, and Civil War Gen. Lew Wallace,
author of Ben Hur, was Minister to Turkey from 1881-85.
Key Events, 1861-95
1867: Alaska Purchase ended Russian territorial presence and
completed US expansion on the North American mainland.
1867: United States acquired Midway Island as a coaling station for
its fleet.
1889: First International Conference of American States initiated
system of collaboration among Western Hemisphere republics.
Seward's Folly
Secretary Seward, who was generally interested in opportunities
for territorial expansion, disappointed those who hoped for
annexation of all or part of Canada. His greatest acquisition
triumph was hardly considered as such at the time. In the face of
much public outcry about a "national icehouse," Seward eventually
gained congressional support in 1867 for the purchase of Alaska.
(Anonymous, 1867)
Delegates at the First International Conference of American
States held in Washington, DC, from October 2, 1889, to April 19,
1890. At the invitation of Secretary of State James G. Blaine, 17
Latin American nations sent delegates to the conference. It created
the Bureau of American Republics-the predecessor of the Pan-
American Union-to facilitate inter-American commercial relations.
(National Archives photo)
Secretaries of State, 1861-95
William Henry Seward: (1861-69)
Elihu Washburne: (1869)
Hamilton Fish: (1869-77)
William Maxwell Evarts: (1877-81)
James G. Blaine : (1881)
Frederick Frelinghuysen: (1881-85)
Thomas Francis Bayard: (1885-89)
James G. Blaine: (1889-92)
John Watson Foster: (1892-93)
Walter Quintin Gresham: (1893-95)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 7, February 18, 1991
Title: Country Profile: Turkey
Date: Feb 18, 19912/18/91
Category: Country Data
Region: Europe
Country: Turkey
Subject: History, Trade/Economics,
International Organizations
[TEXT]
Official Name: Republic of Turkey
Geography
Area: 766,640 sq. km. (296,000 sq. mi.); slightly larger than Texas.
Cities: Capital-Ankara (pop. 3.7 million). Other cities-Istanbul (6.8
million), Izmir (2.6 million), Adana (1.9 million).
Terrain: Narrow coastal plain surrounds Anatolia; an inland plateau
becomes increasingly rugged as it progresses eastward. Turkey
includes one of the more earthquake-prone areas of the world.
Climate: Moderate in coastal areas, harsher temperatures inland.
People
Nationality: Noun-Turk(s). Adjective-Turkish.
Population (1989 est.): 55 million. Annual growth rate: 2%.
Ethnic groups: Turkish, Kurdish, other.
Religions: Muslim 98%, Christian, Jewish.
Languages: Turkish (official), Kurdish, Arabic.
Education: Years compulsory-6. Attendance-95%. Literacy-89%.
Health: Infant mortality rate-62/1,000. Life expectancy-66 yrs.
Work force (18.7 million): Agriculture-50%. Industry and commerce-
21%. Services-29%.
Government
Type: Republic.
Independence: 1923.
Constitution: November 7, 1982.
Branches: The 1982 constitution established a unicameral 400-
member parliament (the Grand National Assembly) and strengthened
the presidency. The number of seats in parliament was raised to
450 in 1987. An advisory Presidential Council, consisting of the
members of the previous National Security Council, also was
established for an interim 6-year period. The judicial system was
left intact. Executive-president (chief of state), prime minister,
Council of Ministers (cabinet). Legislative-Grand National Assembly
(450 members) chosen by national elections at least every 5 years.
Judicial-Constitutional Court, Court of Cassation, Council of State,
High Council of Judges and Prosecutors.
Political parties: Motherland Party (ANAP), Social Democrat
Populist Party (SHP), Correct Way Party (DYP), Democratic Left
Party (DSP), several smaller parties.
Suffrage: Universal, 21 and older.
Central government budget (1989 est.): $15.5 billion (32,933 billion
Turkish lira).
Defense: 2.8% of estimated 1989 GDP, or 13.2% of 1989 budget.
National holiday: Republic Day, October 29.
Flag: White crescent and star on a red field.
Economy
GNP (1989 est.): $81 billion.
Annual GNP growth rate (1983--89): 5.3%.
Per capita income (1989 est.): $1,433. Avg. annual inflation rate
(1989): about 69%.
Natural resources: Coal, chromite, copper, boron, oil.
Agriculture (15% of GNP): Major cash crops-cotton, sugar beets,
hazelnuts, wheat, barley, and tobacco. Provides more than 55% of
jobs; 25% of exports.
Industry (32% of GNP): Major growth sector. Types-Food processing,
textiles, basic metals, chemicals, and petrochemicals.
Trade (1989): Exports-$12 billion: tobacco, cotton, textiles, cement,
raisins, nuts, leather, glass, ceramics. Imports-$16 billion:
petroleum, pharmaceuticals and dyes, iron and steel, machinery,
plastics and rubber, transport vehicles. Major partners-France,
Germany, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, UK, US, USSR.
Fiscal year: Calendar year.
US economic aid (FY 1946--90): $4.3 billion.
US military aid (FY 1946--90): more than $14 billion.
Membership in International Organizations
UN, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Council of Europe,
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),
Islamic Conference Organization (OIC), European Community (EC)
associate member, INTELSAT.
History
The legendary Mustafa Kemal, a Turkish World War I hero later
known as "Ataturk" or "father of the Turks," founded the republic of
Turkey in 1923 after the collapse of the 600-year-old Ottoman
Empire. The empire, which at its peak controlled vast stretches of
northern Africa, southeastern Europe, and western Asia, had failed
to keep pace with European social and technological developments.
The rise of nationalism impelled several ethnic groups to seek
independence, leading to the empire's fragmentation. This process
culminated in the disastrous Ottoman participation in World War I
as a German ally. Defeated, shorn of much of its former territory,
and partly occupied by forces of the victorious European states, the
Ottoman structure was repudiated by Turkish nationalists who
rallied under Ataturk's leadership. The nationalists expelled
invading Greek forces from Anatolia after a bitter war. The
temporal and religious ruling institutions of the old empire (the
sultanate and caliphate) were abolished.
The new republic concentrated on westernizing the empire's
Turkish core-Anatolia and a small part of Thrace. Social, political,
linguistic, and economic reforms and attitudes introduced by
Ataturk before his death in 1938 continue to form the ideological
base of modern Turkey. Referred to as "Kemalism," it comprises
secularism, nationalism, and modernization and turns toward the
West for inspiration and support. The continued validity and
applicability of Kemalism are the subject of frequent discussion
and debate in Turkey's political life.
Turkey entered World War II on the Allied side shortly before
the war ended and became a charter member of the United Nations.
Difficulties faced by Greece after World War II in quelling a
communist rebellion and demands by the Soviet Union for military
bases in the Turkish Straits caused the United States to declare the
Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American
intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece and
resulted in large-scale US military and economic aid. After
participating with United Nations forces in the Korean conflict,
Turkey in 1952 joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO).
Military Coups and Coalitions.
One-party rule
(Republican People's Party-RPP) established by Ataturk in 1923
lasted until elections in 1950. The Democrat Party then governed
Turkey until 1960, when growing economic problems and internal
political tensions culminated in a military coup. A new
constitution was written, and civilian government was reinstated
with the convening of the Grand National Assembly (GNA) in 1961.
In addition, the new constitution established a National Security
Council (NSC) composed of the chief of the Turkish general staff and
representatives of the army, air force, and navy.
Coalition governments, dominated by the RPP, ruled Turkey for
the next 5 years. In 1965 and 1969, the Justice Party (JP), led by
Suleyman Demirel, won sizable majorities of GNA seats and ruled alone.
Political agitation surfaced in 1968 and increased as left-
and right-wing extremists took to the streets. In March 1971,
senior military leaders grew dissatisfied with the JP's inability to
cope with domestic violence. In a so-called coup by memorandum,
they called for the JP's replacement by a more effective
government.
Demirel's government resigned and was replaced by a
succession of "above party" governments, which ruled until the
October 1973 general elections. Those elections saw the RPP
reemerge as the largest party and its chairman, Bulent Ecevit,
become prime minister of a coalition government composed of the
RPP and the conservative, religiously oriented National Salvation
Party. In 1974, the coalition faltered. Ecevit resigned, early
elections were called, and a prolonged government crisis ensued.
From 1975 to 1980, unstable coalition governments ruled, led
alternately by Demirel and Ecevit. By the end of 1979, an
accelerating decline in the economy, coupled with mounting
violence from the extreme left and right, led to increasing
instability. Demirel's government began an economic stabilization
program in early 1980, but by summer, political violence was
claiming more than 20 victims daily. A severely divided GNA was
unable to elect a new president or to pass other legislation to cope
with the crisis.
On September 12, 1980, the NSC, led by General Kenan Evren,
moved successfully to restore public order. Thousands of terrorists
were captured, along with large caches of weapons and ammunition.
While political activity was banned and the former political parties
dissolved, the NSC initiated steps to restore democratic civilian
rule by 1983. These measures included a national referendum on
November 7, 1982, which resulted in overwhelming public approval
(91%) of a new constitution drawn up by the 160-member
Consultative Assembly and modified by the NSC. The referendum
simultaneously approved General Evren as president for a 7-year
term. A temporary article banning former political party leaders
from politics for 10 years also went into effect.
New political parties were allowed to form in 1983 as long as
founding members were not leaders or members of parliament
attached to any pre-1980 political parties. Prior to the deadline
for participation in the 1983 national elections, three political
parties-the Nationalist Democracy Party, the Motherland Party, and
the Populist Party-were authorized.
In the 1983 elections, the Motherland Party (founded by Turgut
Ozal, deputy prime minister between 1980 and 1982 and architect
of Turkey's successful economic austerity program under the
military government) won an absolute majority in the 400-member
Grand National Assembly (GNA). The Populist Party came in second,
and the Nationalist Democracy Party third. The new government took
office in December 1983.
The Ozal administration, the first civilian government since
the early 1970s to rule without coalition partners, made economic
reform its priority. In September 1987, a referendum lifting the
10-year ban on former politicians passed by a small margin. Ozal
called immediately for national elections, the first since 1980 in
which all legal parties were allowed to participate. The elections
were held in November, and Ozal won a second 5-year term and a
comfortable majority in parliament (292 of 450 seats based on a
weighted proportional system). The Social Democrat Populist Party
won 99 seats and became the main opposition party. Former Prime
Minister Suleyman Demirel's Correct Way Party won 59 seats. No
other party reached the 10% level necessary to enter parliament.
The Democratic Left Party of former Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit
won only 8% of the vote. The next parliamentary election is due in
1992.
In 1989, Ozal was elected president. Ozal's Motherland Party
suffered a setback in March 1989 municipal elections, receiving
only 22% of the votes cast; down from 36% in 1987. The opposition
has since called repeatedly for early parliamentary elections.
Government and Political Conditions
The 1982 constitution preserves a democratic, secular,
parliamentary form of government with a strengthened presidency.
It provides for an independent judiciary and safeguards
internationally recognized human rights. These rights, including
freedom of thought, expression, assembly, and travel, can be limited
in times of emergency and cannot be used to violate the integrity of
the state or to impose a system of government based on religion,
ethnicity, or the domination of one social class. The constitution
prohibits torture or ill treatment. Labor rights, including the right
to strike, are recognized in the constitution but can be restricted.
The president and prime minister share executive powers. The
president, who has broad powers of appointment and supervision, is
chosen by the GNA for a term of 7 years and cannot be reelected.
The prime minister administers the government. The prime
minister and the Council of Ministers are responsible to the GNA.
The 450-member GNA carries out legislative functions.
Election is by proportional representation. To participate in the
distribution of seats, a party must obtain at least 10% of the votes
cast at the national level as well as a percentage of votes in the
contested district according to a complex formula. This "double
threshold" or "barrage" mechanism is intended to reduce the
likelihood of coalition governments by reducing the number of
smaller parties in parliament.
The president is to enact laws passed by the GNA within 15
days. With the exception of budgetary laws, the president may
return a law to the GNA for reconsideration. If the GNA reenacts
the law, it is binding. Constitutional amendments require a two-
thirds majority for approval. They also may be submitted to popular
referendum.
The 1982 constitution preserves the judicial system
previously in effect and provides for a system of state security
courts to deal with offenses against the integrity of the state. The
high court system remains in place with its functional division,
common in European states, including a constitutional court
responsible for judicial review of legislation, a court of cassation
(or supreme court of appeals), a council of state serving as the high
administrative and appeals court, a court of accounts, and a
military court of appeals. The High Council of Judges and
Prosecutors, appointed by the president, supervises the judiciary.
Only the Motherland Party remains of the three parties that
competed in the 1983 elections. The Nationalist Democracy Party
dissolved itself, and the Populist Party merged with the Social
Democrat Populist Party, a new center-left party.
Principal Government Officials
President of the Republic-Turgut Ozal
Prime Minister-Yildirim Akbulut
Minister of Foreign Affairs-Ahmet Kurtcebe Alpetemocin
Defense
Turkey's armed forces, with more than 700,000 members, are the
largest in NATO after those of the United States. Turkey entered
NATO in 1952 and serves as the organization's vital eastern anchor,
sharing a long sea and land border with the Soviet Union and
controlling the straits leading from the Black Sea to the
Mediterranean. Two NATO headquarters are located in Izmir. More
than 10,000 US military personnel and their dependents are
stationed at installations in Turkey, including a major air base at
Incirlik, near Adana, several communications and electronics
facilities, and a number of smaller installations. Major American
military organizations in Turkey include the Joint US Military
Mission for Aid to Turkey and the US Logistical Group, each headed
by a US major general. With assistance from the United States and
other NATO allies, the Turkish military is undergoing major
modernization.
Foreign Relations
Besides its relationships with NATO and the European Community
(EC), Turkey is a member of the OECD and the Council of Europe. Its
primary political, economic, and security ties are with the West.
During the last several years, Turkey has continued to expand its
relations with Western Europe, rejoining the Council of Europe after
an absence of several years and applying for full membership in the
EC. Turkey also has continued to expand its trade relations with the
Middle East and the Soviet Union.
US-Turkish Relations
Turkish-American friendship dates to the late 18th century and was
officially sealed by a treaty in 1830. The present close
relationship began with the agreement of July 12, 1947, which
implemented the Truman Doctrine. As part of the cooperative effort
to further Turkish economic and military self-reliance, the United
States has loaned and granted Turkey more than
$4 billion in economic aid and more than $14 billion in military
assistance.
US-Turkish relations were severely tested in July 1974, when
Turkey invoked a 1960 treaty of guarantee for Cyprus and sent
troops there to protect the Turkish Cypriot community following
the overthrow of the Cypriot government by mainland Greek officers
in the Cypriot national guard. The ensuing fighting on Cyprus led to
Turkish occupation of the northern part of the island, which remains
in place today. Turkey's use of American-supplied arms during the
intervention caused the US Congress to mandate an embargo in 1975
on military shipments to Turkey. Resentment of this action led to a
Turkish decision in July 1975 to suspend important US defense
activities at joint installations and cancel the 1969 defense
cooperation agreement. The US embargo was relaxed in October
1975, and in March 1976, a new defense agreement was signed, but
not approved, by the Congress. In September 1978, the embargo
ended and US-Turkish relations improved markedly. Turkey lifted
restrictions on US activities in late 1978.
The United States and Turkey signed a defense and economic
cooperation agreement in March 1980 that established a new
framework for US military activities in Turkey and committed the
United States to "best efforts" in providing defense support to the
Turkish armed forces. The two countries signed an exchange of
letters in March 1987 to extend the agreement through December of
1990. It will continue automatically on a year-to-year basis from
1991 on, unless one of the two parties objects by September
18, 1991, or by the same date in any following year.
Turkey temporarily imposed some restrictions on American
military activities in early 1990 in response to the US Senate's
consideration of a resolution to declare a day of remembrance for
what Armenians and others have described as genocide of
Armenians by pre-republican Turkey. Turkey lifted the restrictions
after the resolution failed to pass.
Economy
The Turkish economy underwent dramatic changes in the 1980s. An
export-led growth strategy and free-market principles catapulted
Turkey into the ranks of the fastest growing economies in the OECD.
Turkey's free market orientation is dynamic, and it is unlikely to
return to former inward-looking policies. The industrial sector has
assumed greater importance in the Turkish economy, although the
public sector, which includes state-owned or controlled
enterprises, still accounts for about one-third of industrial
production. Ozal's Motherland Party has reinforced and expanded
economic reforms since coming to power in 1983.
Agriculture continues as a mainstay, employing almost half
the total labor force in the production of cotton, tobacco, grains,
fruits, and vegetables. Because of the productivity of Turkey's soil
and the efforts of Turkish farmers, the country was one of the few
in the world that was self-sufficient in food during the 1980s.
Ambitious government projects, including a $21 billion irrigation
program to create a new "fertile crescent" in the semiarid
southeast, stress agriculture's important role in foreign trade.
Turkey's regional climatic diversity and usually adequate rainfall
permit a broad range of crops.
Growth in GNP averaged almost 7% between 1983 and 1989.
The pace of Turkey's growth, however, slowed in the late 1980s.
Unrestrained government spending, rapid economic development, and
drought conditions have had a price: unemployment stands at 15%,
and inflation remains steady at almost 70%. One of the main
reasons for inflation is the public sector deficit, which reached
7.5% of GNP in 1989 and is expected to exceed that ratio in 1990.
Severe drought conditions were a major factor in a recession that
continued into 1989. Agricultural production dropped by almost
11%, pushing real GNP growth to the lowest level since 1980-1.8%.
Turkish authorities have enacted austerity measures to
reduce inflation, including an ambitious program to privatize
inefficient state economic enterprises that contribute
substantially to the deficit. Better than normal agricultural
conditions led to economic recovery in 1990, with real GNP growth
expected to reach 9%. Yet, lower import duties-reduced to
stimulate domestic production and demand by creating greater
competition-and the Turkish lira's real appreciation against
currencies of its primary trading partners, the United States and
Germany, led to a major acceleration in imports and stagnation in
export growth in 1990. The trade deficit further worsened as all
commercial relations with Iraq were suspended. A current account
deficit in excess of $1 billion is expected for 1990.
Domestic economic problems were offset in the 1980s by
substantial improvements in Turkey's external account as exports
expanded from $5.7 billion in 1983 to $11.6 billion in 1989. Turkey
posted a current account surplus of $1.5 billion in 1988, the first
time since 1973. This remarkable improvement came as a result of
the lowest trade deficit in a decade ($1.8 billion) and a jump of
about 60% in tourism revenues (from $1.5 billion to $2.4 billion). In
1989, a surplus of $966 million was achieved.
Turkey has an exemplary record for repayment of its foreign
debt, which stabilized at $41 billion at the end of 1989. Turkey
refinanced military debts during 1988 and 1989 by exchanging them
for long-term commercial credits.
Turkey has attracted foreign investment by implementing one
of the more liberal foreign investment laws in the world. Between
1981 and 1989, net foreign direct investment increased from $95
million to $633 million. As of mid-1990, the government had
authorized foreign direct investment projects totaling $5.6 billion.
Turkey's economic orientation is increasingly toward the
West, although it is looking for new markets in Asia and the Middle
East. In April 1987, Turkey applied for full membership in the EC.
In 1989, the EC announced it would consider no new members before
1993, the target for completion of the EC's single market plan. In
1990, the EC called for closer economic cooperation with Turkey
under the existing association agreement and will review Turkey's
membership application.
With potential membership in the EC as the catalyst, Turkey
continues to liberalize its economy and harmonize related
legislation to bring it closer to Western standards. In the 1990s,
measured economic growth with financial stability will remain a
major domestic goal. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 7, February 18, 1991
Title: Travel Advisories
Date: Feb 18, 19912/18/91
Category: Briefings
Subject: Travel
[TEXT]
The State Department issues travel advisories to inform traveling
Americans of conditions abroad which may affect them adversely.
They are not instruments of foreign policy. Travel advisories are
issued on the basis of objective evidence about emerging or existing
circumstances; they are modified or canceled when those
circumstances change. To obtain travel advisories:
Contact:
Passport agencies located in: Boston, Chicago, Honolulu, Houston,
Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, San
Francisco, Seattle, Stamford, and Washington, DC (see local
telephone book listing: "United States Government, Department of
State, Passport Agency"). Travel advisories also are available from
field offices of the US Department of Commerce and US embassies
and consulates abroad.
Write to:
Citizens Emergency Center
Bureau of Consular Affairs
Rm. 4811, NS
US Department of State
Washington, DC 20520-4818
Phone:
Citizens Emergency Center: 202-647-5225 or-0900 from a
touchtone phone (recorded information).
Computer Networks:
-- Travel advisories are part of the State Department's new
Computer Information Delivery Service (to learn more about this
service, call the CIDS Message Center at 703-802-5700 and see
Dispatch Vol. 1, No. 18, p. 373).
-- The State Department also directly maintains a database
of travel advisories on Compuserve (type GO STATE at any "!" prompt
for access).
-- Call the Official Airline Guides Electronic Edition at 800-
323-4000 to obtain information on accessing travel advisories
through the OAG on any of the following computer services:
Compuserve, Dialcom, Dialog, Dow Jones News/Retrieval, General
Videotext-Delphi, GEnie, iNet-America, iNet-Bell of Canada,
NewsNet, IP Sharp, Telenet, Western Union-Easylink.
-- Infosys America Inc. provides full texts through Travel
Online BBS on the SmartNet International Computer Network in the
US, Canada, and overseas (modem telephone number: 314-625-4054).
-- Interactive Office Services, Inc. (for information on
access, call Travel+Plus 617-876-5551 or 800-544-4005) offers
on-line travel information through: Deplhi, MCI (RCA Hotline),
Unison, NYNEX Info Look, Bell South TUG, Graphnet, FTCC Answer
Bank. (###)