US Department of State 

Dispatch, Vol 2, No 7, February 18, 1991


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
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.
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%.
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.
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.
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
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.
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. (###)