US Department of State 

Dispatch, Vol 2, No 8, February 25, 1991

Title:

Ensuring Iraqi Compliance With the UN Mandate

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Statement made at the White House; Washington, DC Date: Feb 22, 19912/22/91 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: MidEast/North Africa Country: Iraq, Kuwait [TEXT] The United States and its coalition allies are committed to enforcing the UN resolutions that call for Saddam Hussein to immediately and unconditionally leave Kuwait. In view of the Soviet initiative, which, very frankly, we appreciate, we want to set forth this morning the specific criteria that will ensure Saddam Hussein complies with the UN mandate. Within the last 24 hours alone we have heard a defiant, uncompromising address by Saddam Hussein, followed less than 10 hours later by a statement in Moscow, that on the face of it, appears more reasonable. I say on the face of it because the statement promised unconditional Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait only to set forth a number of conditions. And needless to say, any conditions would be unacceptable to the international coalition and would not be in compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 660's demand for immediate and unconditional withdrawal. More importantly and more urgently, we learned this morning that Saddam has now launched a scorched-earth policy against Kuwait, anticipating perhaps that he will now be forced to leave. He is wantonly setting fires to and destroying the oil wells, the oil tanks, the export terminals, and other installations of that small country. Indeed, they're destroying the entire oil production system of Kuwait. At the same time that [the] Moscow press conference was going on and Iraq's Foreign Minister [Tariq Aziz] was talking peace, Saddam Hussein was launching Scud missiles. After examining the Moscow statement and discussing it with my senior advisers here late last evening and this morning, and after extensive consultation with our coalition partners, I have decided that the time has come to make public with specificity just exactly what is required of Iraq if a ground war is to be avoided. Most important, the coalition will give Saddam Hussein until noon Saturday to do what he must do--begin his immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait. We must hear publicly and authoritatively his acceptance of these terms. The statement to be released, as you will see, does just this and informs Saddam Hussein that he risks subjecting the Iraqi people to further hardship unless the Iraqi government complies fully with the terms of the statement. We will put that statement out soon. It will be in considerable detail. And that's all I'll have to say about it right now.
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 8, February 25, 1991 Title:

Ensuring Iraqi Compliance With the UN Mandate

Fitzwater Source: White House Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater Description: Washington, DC Date: Feb 22, 19912/22/91 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: MidEast/North Africa Country: Iraq, Kuwait [TEXT] Statement made during a press briefing by The Soviet announcement yesterday represents a serious and useful effort which is appreciated. But major obstacles remain. The coalition for many months has sought a peaceful resolution to this crisis in keeping with the UN resolutions. As President Bush pointed out to President Gorbachev, the steps the Iraqis are considering would constitute a conditional withdrawal and would also prevent the full implementation of relevant UN Security Council resolutions. Also, there is no indication that Iraq is prepared to withdraw immediately. Full compliance with the Security Council resolutions has been a consistent and necessary demand of the international community. The world must make sure that Iraq has, in fact, renounced its claim to Kuwait and accepted all relevant UN Security Council resolutions. Indeed, only the Security Council can agree to lift sanctions against Iraq, and the world needs to be assured, in concrete terms, of Iraq's peaceful intentions before such action can be taken. In a situation where sanctions have been lifted, Saddam Hussein could simply revert to using his oil resources once again--not to provide for the well-being of his people, but instead to rearm. So, in a final effort to obtain Iraqi compliances with the will of the international community, the United States, after consulting with the government of Kuwait and other coalition partners, declares that a ground campaign will not be initiated against Iraqi forces if, prior to noon, Saturday, February 23, New York time, Iraq publicly accepts the following terms and authoritatively communicates that acceptance to the United Nations. -- First, Iraq must begin large-scale withdrawal from Kuwait by noon New York time, Saturday, February 23. Iraq must complete military withdrawal from Kuwait in 1 week. Given the fact that Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait in a matter of hours, anything longer than this from the initiation of the withdrawal would not meet Resolution 660's requirement of immediacy. -- Within the first 48 hours, Iraq must remove all its forces from Kuwait City and allow for the prompt return of the legitimate government of Kuwait. It must withdraw from all prepared defenses along the Saudi-Kuwait and Saudi-Iraq borders; from Bubiyan and Warbah Islands; and from Kuwait's Rumaylah oil field within the 1 week specified above. Iraq must return all its forces to their positions of August 1st, in accordance with Resolution 660. -- In cooperation with the International Red Cross, Iraq must release all prisoners of war and third-country civilians being held against their will and return the remains of killed and deceased servicemen. This action must commence immediately with the initiation of the withdrawal and must be completed within 48 hours. -- Iraq must remove all explosives or booby traps, including those on Kuwaiti oil installations, and designate Iraqi military liaison officers to work with Kuwaiti and other coalition forces on the operational details related to Iraq's withdrawal, to include the provision of all data on the location and nature of any land or sea mines. -- Iraq must cease combat aircraft flights over Iraq and Kuwait except for transport aircraft carrying troops out of Kuwait and allow coalition aircraft exclusive control over and use of all Kuwaiti airspace. -- It must cease all destructive actions against Kuwaiti citizens and property and release all Kuwaiti detainees. The United States and its coalition partners reiterate that their forces will not attack retreating Iraqi forces and, further, will exercise restraint so long as withdrawal proceeds in accordance with the above guidelines and there are no attacks on other countries. Any breach of these terms will bring an instant and sharp response from coalition forces in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 678. A copy of this document was provided to Iraqi diplomats here in Washington about noon today. President Bush and Secretary Baker spoke with President Gorbachev for over 1 hour and 15 minutes this morning to discuss this situation. Secretary Baker spoke with Soviet foreign ministry officials both yesterday and today. And we have consulted with all of our allies and coalition partners last night or this morning. The coalition remains strong and united.
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 8, February 25, 1991 Title:

Ensuring Iraqi Compliance With the UN Mandate

Fitzwater Source: White House Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater Description: Washington, DC Date: Feb 27, 19912/27/91 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: MidEast/North Africa Country: Iraq, Kuwait [TEXT] CENTCOM [US Central Command] reports that they have detected no military activity which would indicate any withdrawal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Similarly, there has been no communication between Iraq and the United Nations that would suggest a willingness to withdraw under the conditions of the coalition plan. Iraq continues its scorched-earth policy in Kuwait; setting fire to oil facilities. It's a continuing outrage that Saddam Hussein is still intent upon destroying Kuwait and its people, still intent upon destroying the environment of the Gulf, and still intent upon inflicting the most brutal kind of rule on his own population; yet appears to have no intention of complying with the UN resolutions. Indeed, his only response at noon was to launch another Scud missile attack on Israel. The coalition forces have no alternative but to continue to prosecute the war. As we indicated last night, the withdrawal proposal the Soviets discussed with [Iraqi Foreign Minister] Tariq Aziz in Moscow was unacceptable because it did not constitute an unequivocal commitment to an immediate and unconditional withdrawal. Thus, the Iraqi approval of the Soviet proposal is without effect. President Bush today spoke with Prime Minister Kaifu of Japan, President Ozal of Turkey, and President Gorbachev of the Soviet Union. The phone call from President Gorbachev occurred at 11:15 a.m. and lasted for approximately 28 minutes. President Gorbachev informed the President that he asked for a UN review of his proposal and said that he had talked to [British] Prime Minister Major and [French] President Mitterrand about his plan. Both of the allied leaders indicated full support for the coalition withdrawal plan. President Bush thanked President Gorbachev for his extensive efforts and reflected our general disappointment that Saddam Hussein has chosen not to respond positively.
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 8, February 25, 1991 Title:

Ensuring Iraqi Compliance With the UN Mandate

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Televised address to the nation; Washington, DC Date: Feb 23, 19912/23/91 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: MidEast/North Africa Country: Iraq, Kuwait [TEXT] Yesterday, after conferring with my senior national security advisers, and following extensive consultations with our coalition partners, Saddam Hussein was given one last chance, set forth in very explicit terms, to do what he should have done more than 6 months ago--withdraw from Kuwait without condition or further delay and comply fully with the resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. Regrettably, the noon deadline passed without the agreement of the government of Iraq to meet demands of UN Security Council Resolution 660, as set forth in the specific terms spelled out by the coalition to withdraw unconditionally from Kuwait. To the contrary, what we have seen is a redoubling of Saddam Hussein's efforts to destroy completely Kuwait and its people. I have, therefore, directed [Commander in Chief, US Central Command] General Norman Schwartzkopf, in conjunction with coalition forces, to use all forces available, including ground forces, to eject the Iraqi army from Kuwait. Once again, this was a decision made only after extensive consultations within our coalition partnership. The liberation of Kuwait has now entered a final phase. I have complete confidence in the ability of the coalition forces swiftly and decisively to accomplish their mission. Tonight, as this coalition of countries seeks to do that which is right and just, I ask only that all of you stop what you are doing and say a prayer for all the coalition forces, and especially for our men and women in uniform, who this very moment, are risking their lives for their country and for all of us. May God bless and protect each and every one of them. And may God bless the United States of America.
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 8, February 25, 1991 Title:

State Department Gulf Crisis Information

Date: Feb 25, 19912/25/91 Category: Fact Sheets Region: MidEast/North Africa Country: Iraq, Kuwait Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization [TEXT] 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 8, February 25, 1991 Title:

Visit of Queen Margrethe II and Prince Henrik of Denmark

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Remarks at the arrival ceremony; Washington, DC Date: Feb 20, 19912/20/91 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Europe Country: Denmark Subject: NATO, United Nations, Democratization [TEXT] Let me welcome you back to the United States of America. Your own motto aptly describes your role, "God's help, the people's love, Denmark's strength." It's a privilege to greet you as an ally and a friend. You and Prince Henrik were here last in 1976, when President Ford noted how America has maintained uninterrupted relations with Denmark since 1801. These 190 years represent one of the oldest relationships that the United States has had with any country. We have much in common; we stood by each other in peace and in war. Our meeting today will enhance a relationship which already links our history and our hearts. You were educated in Denmark, England, and France, and speak five languages. And still, we know that there must be a universal language--a commitment to the liberty and dignity of the individual, freedom and democracy, the rule of law, and the right of all people and states to live in peace. Both our countries realize that freedom is never finally won; rather each generation must secure that blessing for itself and for those who follow. During World War II, your countrymen organized a strong and noble resistance. Denmark protected most of its Jewish population from the horrors of the Holocaust. And after the war, this legacy helped Denmark join America as a founding member of NATO, strengthening our historic ties with the multilateral bonds of a historic alliance. For decades, Denmark and America have known that to protect our own freedom, we must maintain the freedom of others. Your Majesty was born 1 week after Denmark was occupied in 1940. And you know that self-determination often carries a price. So it is no surprise that when the freedom of Kuwait came under attack, Denmark joined the multinational coalition. You knew that naked aggression must not stand. And today, a Danish warship, the Corvette Olfert Fischer, is deployed in the Gulf. You seek to strengthen the international community sanctions against the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. And today, also, Denmark is assisting the victims of war--sending a medical team to the coalition forces in Saudi Arabia, readying a hospital in Europe for evacuated casualties, helping refugees from Kuwait and Iraq. Denmark stands up for freedom. Danish forces have distinguished themselves in UN peacekeeping missions all over the globe. Denmark has taken a firm and principled stand in support of the Baltic peoples and their democratically elected governments. Both Denmark and the United States have spoken out against the use of force in the Baltics and in support of a return to peaceful and constructive negotiations. Historically, Denmark and America have shared a commitment to strengthen democratic processes that has never been stronger. Nor has our joint belief that real peace means the triumph of freedom, not merely the absence of war. A Danish proverb notes that peace and a well-built house cannot be bought too dearly. Together we are building a house of peace in Europe, espousing the cause of hope and human dignity; a cause that is right and good. And for that I thank you. I welcome Denmark's Queen Margrethe II, and her consort, Prince Henrik, to Washington as very special guests of the United States. The Danes say proudly that if the monarchy were abolished- -I hope this won't embarrass you--the Queen would win the presidency by a landslide. And surely, the year-long jubilee of the Queen's birthday showed Denmark's love of this artist, translator, stage designer, archeologist, and ruler. As it has also of Prince Henrik, whose work in the business and charity, diplomacy, and the environment has won him the esteem of the Danish people and the respect of the United States and many other countries as well. . . . So, Your Majesty, let me welcome you back to the White House and wish you a very happy and productive visit. And may God bless Denmark and the United States of America.
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 8, February 25, 1991 Title:

Visit of Queen Margrethe II and Prince Henrik of Denmark

Baker Source: Secretary Baker Description: Remarks and toast at a luncheon for the Queen and Prince; Washington, DC Date: Feb 20, 19912/20/91 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Europe Country: Denmark Subject: NATO, United Nations, Democratization [TEXT] Your Majesty, please accept our welcome on this, your first visit to the Department of State. Your Royal Highness, may I offer a special greeting to you as well. As a very distinguished member of the diplomatic profession, this place and its ways are no doubt very familiar to you. With your permission, Your Majesty, I'd like to make just a few quick observations about the relationship between Denmark and the United States, a relationship that goes back to nearly the beginning of our Republic, as the President mentioned this morning at the arrival ceremony. When Denmark recognized the United States in 1801, it was really a tremendous vote of confidence and faith on your part because we were in the struggling early years, and Denmark was already a long established and very prosperous country. That's a vote of confidence, Your Majesty, Americans will always remember. And it's good to know that despite the passage of time and a rapidly changing world, some things, such as fine Danish-American relations, remain quite the same. Another part of our relationship remains constant, too. Danes and Americans share a love of liberty, and they share, as well, a strong aversion to aggression and to tyranny. We've worked together in NATO for over 40 years to protect Europe against aggression and at long last, we have seen the results: major progress toward our joint objective of a Europe whole and free. Now Denmark has joined us and many other nations in carrying out the UN mandate to eject Iraq from Kuwait. The UN mandate is crystal clear. There can be no negotiation over its meaning, and there should be no confusion over what must be done: Iraq must leave Kuwait--immediately, totally, and unconditionally--and Iraq must comply fully with the other applicable Security Council resolutions. Anything short of that is unacceptable. Anything short of that contradicts--indeed, rejects- -the expressed will of the international community. For over 5 months, the world waited peacefully and waited patiently for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait--and for Saddam Hussein to end the war that he began on August 2. Instead of peace, he chose war. It is a war we did not seek, but it also is a war that we shall not lose. So now, one way or another, the Iraqi army of occupation will leave Kuwait soon. Kuwait will be liberated--soon. Your Majesty, the American people deeply appreciate Denmark's contributions to the military, economic, and humanitarian struggle to free Kuwait which is now underway. Yet somehow this does not surprise me, and I'll tell you why. This last June, when I took the rostrum at the Copenhagen meeting of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I thought --how fitting a place to speak of the new Europe of humane values, a place where the Danish people set the standard for the entire world in resisting Hitler's crimes. So it comes as no surprise to me to find Denmark standing shoulder to shoulder in the great international coalition now fighting to reverse Saddam Hussein's aggression. Please join me now in a toast to Queen Margrethe II and Prince Henrik of Denmark, secure in the knowledge that two centuries of friendship and partnership will continue into the future.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 8, February 25, 1991 Title:

Release of New Foreign Relations Volume, 1958-60

Date: Feb 25, 19912/25/91 Category: Features Region: North America, Polar Regions Country: United States, Antarctica Subject: United Nations, Science/Technology, Resource Management, Environment, History [TEXT] Foreign Relations of the United State, 1958-60, Volume II The Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs, has released Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960, Vol. II, United Nations and General International Matters. This volume presents 936 pages on US participation in the United Nations, negotiations leading to a treaty on Antarctica, two conferences on the Law of the Sea, and exploration of outer space. The documentation regarding US policies in the United Nations focuses on the question of expanding UN membership and other institutional issues which the General Assembly considered. The paramount issue for the United States at this time was to prevent the seating of the People's Republic of China at the expense of the Republic of China. The volume also documents the debate and subsequent major decision taken by the US not to push for the rejection of the credentials of the Hungarian delegation. The documentation presented here outlines the US position which favored the enlargement of the world body as former territories became independent and details the stormy visit of Khrushchev to the United Nations in October 1960. This volume documents the successful efforts of the United States to obtain a treaty on Antarctica in which on December 1, 1959, the 12 signatories abandoned their territorial claims and agreed that the continent would be reserved for peaceful and scientific uses alone. Both the 1958 and 1960 Law of the Sea Conferences failed to adopt the US proposals and ended without agreement on the two important questions: the breadth of the territorial sea and fishery rights in a contiguous zone. Policy on outer space was intensely debated in the US Government and at the United Nations. The successful Soviet moon shot forced reconsideration of the military and civilian issues as well as the international cooperation and control of outer space. Documents for the volume were gathered from the Department of State, the Dwight D. Eisenhower Library, and the US Mission at the United Nations. The volume also contains an expanded preface that provides information on the methodology followed in preparing it as well as guides to the files and other materials consulted in its preparation. The preface explains the method of indicating material withheld in the declassification review process and other editorial methodology. Copies of volume II (GPO Stock No. 044-000-02280-0) may be purchased for $35.00 (domestic postpaid) or $43.75 (foreign postpaid) from the Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Checks or money orders should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. The Office of the Historian has prepared a summary of the volume. For further information, contact: Charles S. Sampson (202- 663-1134), or Sherrill B.Wells (202-663-1149). (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 8, February 25, 1991 Title:

Climate Change Negotiations Begin

Bohlen Source: E.U. Curtis Bohlen, Assistant Secretary for Oceans, International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Description: Remarks before the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee of the Framework Convention on Climate Change; Washington, DC Date: Feb 5, 19912/5/91 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Subject: Environment, Resource Management [TEXT] It is with great hope and enthusiasm that the United States joins in the start of negotiations on a framework convention on climate change. We are embarking on an ambitious international undertaking, a truly global effort to address what is perhaps the most complex and critical environmental issue we are likely to face for many decades to come. These negotiations are but the first step in what must be a sustained and long-term effort. Climate change presents us with a dilemma of daunting proportions. Since the Industrial Revolution, mankind has been engaged in an enormous unplanned experiment that is slowly changing the composition of the earth's atmosphere. We cannot be certain what the result of this experiment will be, but we are fully aware that its consequences could be far reaching. At the same time, the human activities that are affecting the atmosphere are fundamentally linked to all countries' economic well-being. We do not know what the economic costs would be of efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions, but we recognize they could be high and could have a significant impact on the global economy. So we must determine what constitutes a responsible and sound international response to a global environmental concern in the face of a range of uncertainties. While this is not the first time we have been asked to make major policy decisions in the context of uncertainties, it may very well be the first time an issue of such complexity and with such broad-ranging implications has been addressed by the full international community. We are clearly faced with unprecedented challenges to our wisdom, foresight, and scientific capacity.
The US View of the Negotiations
The United States is entering these negotiations with the utmost seriousness of purpose. We have considered all aspects of this issue and brought to bear all of our experience and knowledge in environmental protection, scientific research, and economic decision-making. Based on our deliberations, we will undertake these negotiations with several key principles in mind--principles which we feel are the key to an effective convention and an effective global response to climate change: First, we believe we must take a comprehensive approach to climate change, one which considers all aspects of this complex issue and which addresses all greenhouse gases and their sources and sinks [e.g., trees, oceans, or other areas where greenhouse gases are trapped or absorbed]; Second, we must continue to pursue aggressively our scientific and economic research efforts and our technology development programs in order to resolve uncertainties and build a solid foundation for innovative responses; Third, we must not wait for all uncertainties to be resolved, but must pursue cost-effective actions--already justified on other grounds--which will limit net greenhouse gas emissions; Fourth, we must adopt a long-term perspective which takes account of the costs and benefits of our actions for present and future generations; and Fifth, we must recognize the special needs of the developing countries and design mechanisms for assisting them in securing the scientific and technical tools necessary for their fullest participation in a truly global effort. We have the opportunity now to translate these principles into innovative and effective solutions by crafting a framework convention that will engage all nations in a concerted international response.
A Comprehensive Approach to Climate Change
The United States strongly believes an issue such as climate change can only be addressed effectively using a comprehensive approach, one which considers all sources and sinks of all greenhouse gases. A comprehensive approach to climate change will ensure that we take advantage of cost-effective opportunities to limit net emissions, that we do not create incentives to shift the problem from one type of pollutant to another, and that our research and technology development address all facets of the problem. A comprehensive approach also provides the flexibility needed for each nation--whether developed or developing--to address climate change in the context of its unique circumstances. We have provided you a report on the comprehensive approach to addressing climate change (see excerpt on p. 132). The United States has adopted a strategy for addressing climate change that is comprehensive in scope and that provides for a sustained effort. A cornerstone of this strategy is a series of actions to which we are committed; actions that will result in US greenhouse gas emissions in the year 2000 being equal to or below the 1987 level. Another is a $2 billion program of global change research and energy technology development that will provide us the tools for devising innovative long-term responses. We have already given you a pamphlet, America's Climate Change Strategy: An Action Agenda, which describes in detail what these actions are and what effect we expect them to have. I hope you will find the time to study it carefully. Based on our extensive review of the climate change issue, we are convinced that a comprehensive approach offers the most effective framework for policy development. Accordingly, we believe the framework convention, and any subsequent legal instruments, must be comprehensive and deal with the full array of greenhouse gases and their sources and sinks. In order to implement this approach, development of a baseline inventory must be given high priority. We commend the OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] for its efforts in this regard.
Actions that are Justified In Their Own Right
A major purpose of the framework convention should be to commit all nations to take measures that are justified in their own right but also have climate change benefits. As I have already noted, specific measures of this nature form the cornerstone of the US climate change strategy. These include: -- Eliminating ozone-depleting compounds which are also strong greenhouse gases; -- Increasing forest greenhouse gas sinks; -- Directly controlling various greenhouse gases and their precursors which are also air pollutants; -- Reducing utility and other industrial emissions in a way that strongly encourages energy efficiency; -- Encouraging energy efficiency in such areas as buildings, appliances, and lighting; and -- Increasing the use of alternative fuels and renewable and non-fossil sources of energy. The United States is currently developing and will soon release a national energy strategy which will further contribute to greenhouse gas reductions through a long-term energy program that is economically sound, environmentally beneficial, and energy efficient. We believe this approach should also be a centerpiece of the global response to climate change. It provides a realistic and cost- effective framework under which all countries can begin to implement measures with climate change benefits. At the same time it recognizes that the appropriate measures available to different countries will vary depending on their social, environmental, and economic circumstances.
Research and Monitoring
If one takes the long-term perspective on climate change, it becomes evident that research into all aspects of the issue is absolutely crucial. Research and monitoring are essential to improving our understanding of climate change and helping us to tailor responses that are appropriate, effective, and sustainable over the long term. Our research efforts will also provide the needed energy-efficient technologies that will be both economically and environmentally beneficial. A strong program of research and monitoring must thus be another cornerstone of the framework convention. The United States will propose specific areas for research and monitoring, analysis, and information exchange. We believe the framework convention should focus research on reducing uncertainties associated with changing concentrations of greenhouse gases, sources and sinks of greenhouse gases, clouds and radiative balance, oceans, land surface hydrology and vegetative processes, ice sheets and sea level change, ecological dynamics, trace gas indices, and impact assessments. Such a research agenda would address the significant scientific uncertainties regarding the potential timing, rate, magnitude, and regional impacts of climate change. To improve our understanding of the consequences of climate change, and to give us confidence in designing effective responses, the framework convention should also establish a strong international economic research effort. This research should be structured around the following themes: -- The economic forces related to global environmental change; -- The costs and benefits and social/economic impacts of climate change; -- The value of information and decision-making under uncertainty; -- Mitigation and adaptation strategies; and -- Economic forces shaping technology and practices relevant to global environmental change. Our research efforts must, to the extent possible, involve all countries, both developed and developing. We can ensure that this occurs by increasing our efforts in existing programs, including those of UNEP [UN Environment Program], WMO [World Meteorological Organization], IOC [Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission], ICSU [International Council of Scientific Unions], OECD/IEA [International Energy Agency], and the World Bank. We encourage expansion and restructuring of the World Climate Program to coordinate research and monitoring in support of the framework convention. We also note that the WMO's Climate Studies Fund provides for developing country participation in the global observing system, which is needed to advance our understanding of climate. In addition, the framework convention should require the full and open exchange of scientific, technical, and economic data and information related to climate change. Without a universal pool of information, there will be unnecessary duplication of efforts, as well as the creation of critical gaps in the research program. By fostering adequate data exchange, the convention can also help reduce differences in the diverse methods for measuring net emissions and emission uptake rates.
Implementation Issues
There are many other specific issues that must be addressed prominently in the framework convention. With regard to the developing countries, we all recognize their desires and aspirations for economic growth. We believe the framework convention should include a general commitment to promote financial assistance to developing countries to study and address climate change. We also believe that existing bilateral and multilateral financial assistance mechanisms and, in particular, the newly established global environmental facility in the World Bank, are the appropriate mechanisms for providing such assistance. Technology transfer is essential to any effective global response, and there are many existing low cost technologies that can be transferred now. We are prepared to explore such ideas as energy efficiency centers and demonstration projects, as well as industry joint ventures with other countries to promote available technologies. Implementation of these concepts will need to be considered, of course, in the context of specific commitments to action, and special efforts will need to be made to match appropriate technologies to needs. Over the long term, new technologies will play an increasingly important role in the response to climate change. Many of these technologies are still only ideas or must undergo further development to become feasible. Therefore, the convention must provide the right incentives for the continual research, development, and dissemination of appropriate technologies. Since the private sector provides the greatest amount of technology transfer, the convention should seek to remove barriers to effective commercial development and transfer of technology and should ensure that intellectual property rights are fully protected. We should also discuss ways to transfer the knowledge necessary to understand, plan for, and address climate change. The United States has traditionally provided a great deal of technical assistance in dealing with specific environmental problems, developing environmental institutions, and conducting country studies. As we proposed at Sundsvall, we are prepared to undertake, in cooperation with other nations, specific country studies to define appropriate technologies to reduce greenhouse gases. The non-governmental organization community, including the business community, also has an important role to play in this regard. A final issue we must consider is the need for a global effort to promote public awareness and knowledge of climate change. Because both climate change and the responses to it may affect-- either directly or indirectly--almost every sector of society, broad public awareness and participation is needed. The dissemination of information also represents a powerful instrument for promoting the development and use of new technologies and ensuring that markets accurately take into account the potential consequences of climate change. In conclusion, let me reiterate that we have set for ourselves a goal of no small significance. We are seeking to negotiate a framework convention on an issue of unprecedented dimensions in a relatively brief time. Let us begin, then, by focusing on those areas where we can reach agreement over the next year, starting at this meeting by rapidly completing our organizational work, and preparing an initial draft text. We can, in the short time before the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, craft an effective framework convention that will move the international community closer together in our common goal of protecting the global environment. Finally, let me express on behalf of the US delegation our gratitude for the hard work of all our colleagues in preparing for these negotiations. In particular we would like to thank Professor Obasi, Secretary General of the WMO, and Dr. Tolba, Executive Director of the UNEP, for the support they have provided on behalf of their organizations and in the context of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. We now look forward to working closely with all the delegations here in what we are confident will be a productive first round of talks.
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 8, February 25, 1991 Title:

Letter on Climate Change

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Letter to the Delegates of the Intergovenmental Negotiating Committee of the Framework Convention on Climate Change; Washington, DC Date: Feb 1, 19912/1/91 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Subject: Resource Management, Environment [TEXT] Dear Delegates: It is with great pleasure that I welcome you to the United States as we gather to begin negotiations on a landmark international convention on climate change. This agreement will serve as a framework for future cooperative efforts to address the problem of climate change. We look forward to working with you in the task of addressing this vitally important set of problems. I assure you that we are prepared to work openly, diligently, and respectfully toward achieving the goal of completing a climate change convention in time for its signature at the UN Conference on Environment and Development to be convened in June 1992. The UN's intergovernmental panel on climate Change (IPCC) has defined our common agenda: accelerating scientific and economic research to help reduce remaining uncertainties, taking action now that responds to our present state of knowledge, and negotiating a multilateral framework for comprehensive response strategies. Through our US global change research program, we are working aggressively with other nations to improve our understanding of the global ecosystem and the relationship of our economic activities to the natural environment. We look forward to continuing this partnership. In addition, a number of nations are implementing policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I am pleased to provide a copy of the US action plan for climate change--America's Climate Change Strategy. This comprehensive strategy for action is built upon a series of actions which will have broad-ranging benefits--from curbing air pollution to conserving energy to restoring forest lands- -and which will help curb net greenhouse gas emissions. In total, the actions which are currently included in America's Climate Change Strategy are projected to result in US greenhouse gas emissions in the year 2000 being equal to or below the 1987 level. I hope that the results of our efforts here will be structured in such a way as to encourage such national strategies--and to avoid any incentives to delay taking those actions which clearly have merit. The United States takes the challenge of global stewardship very seriously and believes that these negotiations offer the opportunity to structure an important vehicle for cooperation toward that end. The outcome of our talks will be profoundly important--and working together, I am sure that we will succeed. Sincerely, George Bush
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 8, February 25, 1991 Title:

Leadership and Action: America's Climate Change Strategy

Description: Excerpt from America's Climate Change Strategy: An Action Agenda released by the White House; Washington, DC Date: Feb 4, 19912/4/91 Category: Fact Sheets Subject: Environment, Resource Management [TEXT] President Bush has established the comprehensive strategy for action and leadership outlined [in America's Climate Change Strategy: An Action Agenda]. This strategy flows from his commitment to responsible stewardship of our planet, which includes the promotion of economic growth and sound environmental policies. It is built upon a series of actions which will have broad- ranging benefits--from curbing air pollution to conserving energy to restoring forest lands--and which will help curb net greenhouse gas emissions. The US believes that any successful global climate change strategy must be: Comprehensive, incorporating all relevant greenhouse gases, their sources and sinks; Long term, taking into account the full range of social, economic, and environmental consequences of proposed actions for this and future generations; Flexible, built on many diverse actions (including market incentives) and readily adjustable as knowledge is improved through a robust research and development program; and Integrated, designed to involve all nations and dynamically reflect and incorporate each nation's unique circumstances into the development of a truly global response strategy. The actions which are currently included in the US Climate Change Strategy will result in US greenhouse gas emissions in the year 2000 being equal to or below the 1987 level. In addition, the US has essentially stabilized its emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) over the last 15 years despite a growth in economic output of about 50%. During this same period, global carbon dioxide emissions have increased substantially. This US Strategy for Climate Change includes many specific actions: -- eliminating stratospheric ozone-depleting compounds which are also strong greenhouse gases; -- directly controlling various greenhouse gases and their precursors which are also air pollutants; -- reducing utility and other industrial emissions in a way that strongly encourages energy efficiency; -- increasing forest greenhouse gas sinks; -- encouraging energy efficiency in such areas as buildings, appliances, and lighting; and -- increasing the use of renewable and non-fossil sources of energy. Integral to the US Climate Change Strategy is the world's largest program of research and development: -- to increase our scientific and economic understanding of climate change and to provide a sound knowledge base for making major policy decisions; and, -- to develop and to accelerate the adoption of economically sound, environmentally beneficial, and energy efficient technologies. In total, the US proposed to invest over $2 billion in these R∧D efforts next year alone. In August 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared in its Overview: "A comprehensive strategy addressing all aspects of the problem and reflecting environmental, economic, and social costs and benefits is necessary." The President of the United States has established such a comprehensive strategy. The United States, today, is working to curb emissions, promote economic growth, and exercise leadership in meeting our shared responsibilities as stewards of the planet. The United States is taking action. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 8, February 25, 1991 Title:

Peace and the Consolidation of Democracy in El Salvador

Einaudi Source: Luigi R. Einaudi, US Ambassador to the Organization of American States (OAS) Description: Prepared statement at a meeting of the OAS Permanent Council Washington, DC Date: Feb 14, 19912/14/91 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Central America Country: El Salvador Subject: Democratization, Terrorism, Security Assistance and Sales, OAS [TEXT] I take this opportunity to inform the [OAS] Council of the views of my government with respect to the relationship between peace and the consolidation of democracy in El Salvador--issues with which the OAS, to its great credit, is actively involved. At Puntarenas in December, the presidents of Guatemala, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Honduras emphasized the importance to peace, stability and development in Central America of a democratic resolution to the conflict in El Salvador. Mincing no words, they called on the FMLN [Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front] to accept an immediate and effective cease-fire, to accept agreements leading to a true and lasting peace in the region, to not create obstacles to elections, and to abandon the armed struggle so as to incorporate itself into the democratic process. The direction is clear. A negotiated political solution and a cease-fire leading to free elections should be at the top of our regional agenda. There has been enough suffering in El Salvador on all sides; the Salvadoran people want peace; they want democracy. All sides need to put maximum efforts to achieve peace in democracy and justice now. The United States commits itself to support these efforts. This opportunity to reconcile the Salvadoran family cannot be allowed to pass. In recent weeks we have sensed greater possibilities for movement in the negotiations to bring peace to El Salvador. The United States has, therefore, sought to do everything possible to encourage constructive positions and to intensify the pace of negotiations. The March 10 elections present a genuine opportunity for national reconciliation due to the participation in these elections of a very broad spectrum of political parties, including the Democratic Convergence and the National Democratic Union. These elections are an integral part of a peace process that includes national dialogue and reconciliation. The work of the Interpartidaria, a grouping that for the first time brings together political parties whose ideological positions are not only different but opposed, demonstrates how much progress El Salvador has made. The consensus recommendations of the Interpartidaria served as the basis of major changes in electoral law to broaden electoral participation and representation. Among other changes, representation of diverse viewpoints has been facilitated by increasing the size of the Legislative Assembly from 60 to 88. It is not utopian to suggest that democracy can be the basis of peacemaking. The decision of our Secretary General [Jorge Baena Soares] to observe the March 10 elections "strengthens the basic process that makes it possible for Salvadorans to take their political differences to the ballot box." The words are those of Secretary Baker in a letter to Ambassador Baena Soares dated February 2. The comprehensive observation of these elections, begun by the OAS on December 3 in response to a request conveyed to this very council by Salvadoran Foreign Minister [Manuel] Pacas on September 14, is critical to ensuring that they are conducted in an atmosphere free from violence and conducive to national reconciliation. We are encouraged by the fact that arrangements for a comprehensive observation are well along, that the OAS has fielded some 60 observers in El Salvador to date, that it plans to provide some 160 by election day, and that the government of El Salvador has demonstrated its commitment to free and fair elections by total cooperation with the OAS and an open invitation to electoral monitoring by other organizations. The Salvadoran government has also issued strict guidelines to military units to safeguard the process and not in any way interfere with the vote count. We are disturbed, however, by continuing violence. The attack last weekend on the newspaper Diario Latino is particularly disturbing because of its impact on the freedom of expression required for democratic elections. We call upon all parties involved to enable the upcoming elections to make their contribution to the process of national reconciliation. This is a time for all concerned to act with the greatest possible calm and serenity. To the FMLN we point out that, at a time when an opportunity exists to expand political participation by a very broad spectrum of political parties in the Salvadoran democratic process, an attack on the elections would seriously call into question the FMLN's stated commitment to a negotiated settlement. Those who took up arms when the system was closed must themselves realize in what they see about them how greatly El Salvador has changed, how greatly the channels for dissent and constructive participation have increased. For its part, the United States remains committed to support a political solution and the safe and secure reintegration of the FMLN and all elements into the democratic process. On January 15, President Bush reported to the Congress that he had determined that the 50% of fiscal year 1991 US military assistance to El Salvador withheld under the foreign assistance legislation could now be released in response to FMLN actions. Absent a compelling security need for the immediate delivery of this additional military assistance to El Salvador, however, the President of the United States also delayed delivery of those funds to encourage the FMLN to agree to an intensification of the negotiations for a political accord and cease-fire. The completion of that 60-day period coincides with the elections for the Salvadoran National Assembly scheduled for March. These funds could still be utilized for peaceful purposes. The United States would much prefer to devote this military assistance to the other purposes permitted under the act: "to assist with the costs of monitoring a permanent settlement of the conflict, including a cease-fire and the demobilization of the combatants, and their transfer to peaceful pursuits." This, too, need not be utopian aspiration. The member states of the OAS are well aware of the highly regarded work of CIAV-OAS [International Verification and Support Commission], operating in Nicaragua in support of the demobilization, repatriation, and reintegration of former combatants once free elections had brought a democratic outcome in that country. Early progress is particularly important with respect to possible constitutional changes. Any changes agreed to by the two sides must be approved by two successive Salvadoran legislative assemblies. The current legislature has until its dissolution in April to ratify any proposed constitutional reforms. I wish to take this opportunity to express once again my government's strongest possible condemnation of violations of human rights. -- I begin with the murders of two US citizen military officers by FMLN guerrillas. -- The simple, material facts of the case are known. The helicopter in which the officers were traveling was shot down. The wreck did not cause the death of either Lt. Col. Pickett or his colleague Dawson. Both were shot dead at point-blank range. -- If the FMLN is serious about justice, it should turn the accused over to the Salvadoran justice system. -- I continue with the brutal murder of my friend, Ignacio Ellacuria, and his colleagues at the University of Central America. -- More than a year has passed. The early rapid progress in the investigation and prosecution of these brutal murders was followed by long delays and seeming inertia. -- The December 7 decision to move this case to the trial stage was welcome news. Let us hope that it signals renewed determination to do justice not only in this case but also in the as yet unresolved cases of the murders by guerrilla forces of former Supreme Court Justice Guerrero and Minister of the Presidency Rodriguez Porth. My comments have ranged from general policy to particular cases. However one views the situation in El Salvador, it is clear that killing must stop; the fighting must cease. The time for war in El Salvador is over; the time for a lasting peace settlement founded on respect for human rights and commitment to the democratic process is now. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 8, February 25, 1991 Title:

Lithuanian Independence Day

Description: Washington, DC Date: Feb 14, 19912/14/91 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: E/C Europe Country: Lithuania Subject: Democratization [TEXT]
Presidential Proclamation 6250
From the day of Mindaugas to modern times, Lithuanians have cherished the freedom that is the common inheritance of all mankind. Thus, on February 16, 1918, when they realized their long-denied dream of independence, the people of Lithuania celebrated the renewal of a centuries-old national tradition and the promise of a future free from foreign domination. Tragically, however, Lithuania's independence was short- lived. Under secret protocols to the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, signed by the foreign ministers of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in 1939, the independent Baltic States of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia were consigned to foreign occupation and conquest. In June 1940, less than 1 year later, Red Army troops invaded Lithuania and its neighbors, effectively annexing those nations to the Soviet Union. The United States has never recognized the forcible incorporation of Lithuania and the other Baltic States into the USSR, and we have consistently supported the Baltic people's right to determine and control their own future. On this 73rd anniversary of Lithuanian independence, we reaffirm our support for the just aspirations of the Lithuanian people. Their current struggle to assert their legitimate rights through the peaceful efforts of democratically elected representatives compels our sympathy and support. The Lithuanian people have used the democratic process in what they hoped would be a peaceful, disciplined effort to gain recognition of their right to independence. Soviet authorities responded in January with the use of force, killing at least 20 people and injuring hundreds of others. The United States has condemned as inexcusable that action against a peaceful and democratically elected government, and we have called on the Soviets to eschew further use of intimidation and violence in the Baltic States. We urge the Soviets to pursue constructive negotiations with the elected representatives of the Lithuanian people who have expressed their will overwhelmingly through the nationwide referendum of February 9. The courageous peoples of the Baltic States have acted with dignity and restraint in the face of grave challenges, and the thoughts and prayers of the American people remain with them. To demonstrate our common cause with freedom, the Congress, by House Joint Resolution 606, has designated February 16, 1991, as "Lithuanian Independence Day" and has authorized and requested the President to issue a proclamation in observance of this day. Now, Therefore, I, George Bush, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim February 16, 1991, as Lithuanian Independence Day. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities, reaffirming our support of the just aspirations of all peoples for liberty and self-determination. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this fourteenth day of February, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-one, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and fifteenth. George Bush (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 8, February 25, 1991 Title:

Property Claims: Czech and Slovak Federal Republic

Tutwiler Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler Description: Notice to the Press; Washington, DC Date: Feb 20, 19912/20/91 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: E/C Europe Country: Czechoslovakia (former) Subject: Human Rights, International Law [TEXT] On October 2, 1990, the Federal Assembly of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic enacted the "Law on Mitigation of the Consequences of Certain Property Losses," which provides for the restitution of property or payment of compensation for property expropriated or taken by the Czechoslovakian government during a certain time period. The law went into effect on November 1, 1990, and provides for a 6-month period within which claims must be filed. Claimants may wish to consider sending their claims by registered mail so that they will have proof that the applications were submitted. There is no single address to which claims are to be submitted. Rather, claimants must file by April 30, 1991, with the appropriate organization or ministry in Czechoslovakia. The US government cannot advise claimants as to whether their claims will be considered valid. In considering whether to pursue their claims, claimants should examine the provisions of the October 2 law to determine whether the law may apply to them. It is important to note that claimants should not attempt to register their claims by sending them to the US State Department, the US Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, or any other agency of the US government. The US government may not register claims under the October 2 law on its nationals' behalf. The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (FCSC), an independent agency within the Department of Justice, was authorized to adjudicate US citizens' claims against Czechoslovakia for uncompensated expropriations and other takings of property under two statutes enacted in 1958 and 1981. The awards entered by the FCSC in those claims, totaling some $113 million, were paid pro rata by the Department of Treasury out of a $81.5 million compensation fund received from the government of Czechoslovakia under the terms of the US-Czechoslovak claims settlement agreement which took effect on February 2, 1982. The FCSC completed the adjudication of all claims against Czechoslovakia on February 24, 1985, and, since then, it has had no further authority to act on such claims or to receive additional filings. However, as a service to claimants, the FCSC will furnish, upon request, a letter confirming that an individual or organization has not filed a claim against Czechoslovakia, or received payment of an award out of the compensation fund received from Czechoslovakia under the US-Czechoslovak claims settlement agreement, if such was the case, or had applied with the FCSC but was subsequently denied. Interested persons should direct their request to the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Attn: David Bradley, Chief Counsel, Washington, DC 20579 (tel. 202-208-7730). Claimants should be aware that the FCSC letter is not to be considered as the only necessary certificate. As expressed in the law, the proper certificate must be issued in Czechoslovakia. Claimants seeking further information regarding the new Czechoslovakian property laws should contact the Embassy of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, 3900 Linnean Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20008, Attn: Vladimir Galuska, Consul (tel: 202- 363-6315). In view of the short deadline, claimants should not wait for responses to any inquiries before filing their claims. The Czech embassy has notified the US government that the only proper way to register a claim is submit it to the proper organization in Czechoslovakia and not to the embassy in the United States. The embassy recommends hiring a Czechoslovakian attorney to assist the claimant. For the claimant's benefit, a list of attorneys who practice in Czechoslovakia, which was put together in July 1990, is available through the US State Department. Copies may be obtained by contacting Tom Glover, Consular Affairs (tel: 202-647-3445). Please note that the US government assumes no responsibility for the professional ability or integrity of the attorneys on the list. Claimants may also contact the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (address and telephone number noted above) or the Office of International Claims and Investment Disputes, Department of State, 2100 K St., NW, Washington, DC 20037-7180, Attn: Julie Haughn, Attorney Adviser (tel: 202-653-5920). Claimants should be advised, however, that neither the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission nor the Department of State's Legal Adviser's Office has any information concerning the law which is the subject of this notice other than what is noted here. Claimants are reminded that the US government cannot advise them as to whether they should file a claim under this law or speculate as to whether their claims will result in any form of compensation. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 8, February 25, 1991 Title:

The United States and Africa -- Two New Worlds

Date: Feb 25, 19912/25/91 Category: Features Region: Subsaharan Africa Country: Liberia Subject: Democratization, State Department, History [TEXT] The ties between the African continent and the land that was to become the United States reach back more than 500 years to a time when both were "New Worlds." In 1482--10 years before he laid eyes on the Americas--Christopher Columbus sailed down the coast of West Africa on a Portuguese mission of exploration. The voyage- -and landing in present day Guinea--made a deep impression on Columbus who believed that Africa was the key to the riches of India. But, 10 years later, Ferdinand and Isabella forbade him to sail south, and Columbus discovered the Americas instead. The two newcomers to the world economic system were bound together by trade. The Dutch East India Company ordered the first North American expedition of Henry Hudson in 1609 as well as the founding of a settlement at the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa. Even the Pilgrims' Mayflower has ties to both continents, appearing in records as damaged at the Cape of Good Hope in 1657.
West Africa
Although the most visible tie between the two worlds was human-- more than 9 million Africans were brought to the Americas as slaves from 1700-1900--trade played a major role in early American economic development. British North America was among the first to develop extensive trade ties to the African continent, spurred on by the colonies' "energy dependence" on whale oil. During the 18th century, New England whalers followed ocean currents to western Africa, reaching the Guinea coast in 1763 and Walvis Bay (Namibia) in 1770. American ship captains--mostly from New Bedford and Nantucket in Massachusetts--hired Africans as sailors and purchased local goods to reprovision their ships. Legitimate trade between the United States and the African continent in ivory, wax, and gold dust began soon after the Revolutionary War, and official American representation quickly followed. Consulates opened at The Gambia (1834) and Angola (1850s), and a commercial agency was established in Bissau during the 1850s. American traders prospered in West Africa during the Napoleonic Wars (1793-1812) when Africa's white settler population was cut off from Europe and dependent on US traders for rum, beef, flour, tobacco, and lumber. In turn, the Americans purchased West African hides for New England's shoe factories, as well as whale oil and peanuts. Although the Europeans later joined forces to close the African trade to the Americans, throughout the 1850s it appeared that the United States would be the dominant economic force in the region. By 1862, there were 25 US consulates and agencies in Africa.
Southern and Eastern Africa
While there was no legitimate trade between southern and eastern Africa and British North America prior to the Revolutionary War, pirates from New York and Rhode Island frequented the African coastline during the 17th century. In 1695, the British sent an American, Capt. William Kidd, to clear Madagascar of pirates. But the notorious "Captain Kidd" chose to join the pirates and was eventually arrested in New York and tried and hung in London in 1701. The New England whaling fleet gradually moved down the African coast, with vessels reported off southern Africa in 1795. By 1805, 48 ships from Salem, Massachusetts, had "gone round the Cape," and by 1824, more than 120 US ships were known to have called at Capetown. At least one ship's captain thought that the United States should have a permanent stake in the area. After the wreck of the Hercules 500 miles northeast of Capetown, its captain, Benjamin Stout, sent a message to the Congress in 1796 urging the United States to settle in the region. Although the Americans declined--both then and in the future--to found a colony, they did open a consulate at Capetown in 1799. The post, first filled by John Emslie, remained the principle US consulate until 1936. Beginning in 1825, American merchants found their greatest success in the highly profitable trade with the island of Zanzibar, off the East African coast, and Muscat on the Arabian Peninsula. President Andrew Jackson was himself interested in the Zanzibar trade and, in 1827, commissioned trader Edmund Roberts to negotiate commercial treaties with Sultan Seyyid Said. The two nations exchanged "most favored nation" status, and Richard P. Waters became the first US consul at Zanzibar in 1835. US traders built a huge regional trading complex with agents in Madagascar, Mozambique, Muscat, and Aden, although once again declining the Sultan's offer of a permanent American settlement on the mainland. US dominance of the African trade lasted until the Civil War era, when a lack of exportable goods, followed by American preoccupation with domestic expansion, resulted in the loss of the US trading position to British, German, and Indian traders.
The United States and Liberia
During the Revolutionary period until the conclusion of the Civil War, American interest in Africa was dominated by plans to repatriate freed slaves. Slaves freed by the British during the War of Independence were among the first to return to Freetown in Sierra Leone in 1792, but repatriation began in earnest in 1816. That year, in Washington, DC, a group of prominent Americans-- including Henry Clay, George Washington's nephew, Bushrod, Francis Scott Key, and John Randolph--founded the American Colonization Society, which had the support and sympathies of President James Monroe. By 1830, Liberia in West Africa had become the society's main colony. Other groups were also active, including the Maryland State Colonization Society which sent 1,200 settlers to Cape Palmas in 1834, and the Mississippi Colonization Society which landed settlers at Sinoe River in 1836. Between 1822-92, more than 16,000 freed US slaves settled in Liberia, forming a ruling elite known as Americo-Liberian, which controlled the country when it became an independent republic in 1847. Congress approved recognition of Liberia in 1862 and appointed West Indian-born missionary John Seys as the first black US consul. Most of the colonists arrived prior to 1860, although new arrivals continued to arrive until the 1890s.
Explorers and Adventurers
Throughout and 19th century, Africa fired the imagination of America's explorers, adventurers, and missionaries who advanced the boundaries of knowledge both inside and outside the continent. Texan Thomas Jefferson Bowen went to Yorubaland in 1849 as a missionary and devised a system for the transliteration of Yoruba-- one of the three major indigenous languages in what is now Nigeria. Another American, Adam Renders, was reportedly the first white man since Portuguese times to "discover" the ruins of Zimbabwe, and noted American explorer Paul Belloni du Chaillu of Philadelphia brought back proof of the existence of gorillas, last known to the Phoenicians thousands of years before. But the most famous American explorer of all was journalist Henry Morton Stanley, who set out in 1869 on a 1,000-mile cross- Africa march at the request of New York Herald owner James Gordon Bennett to find Dr. David Livingstone. Stanley later returned to Africa, explored the Congo river from source to sea, and helped set up the Congo Free State. Stanley's vivid newspaper reports and books (such as Through the Dark Continent), spurred American interest in the continent. These men, and others like them, paved the way for America's return to Africa in the 20th century.
Black American Diplomats in the 19th Century
The first black American appointed to the diplomatic or consular services was William A. Leidesdorff. Thomas O. Larkin of Massachusetts, Consul to Monterey, chose Leidesdorff, who spoke several languages, to fill the post of Vice Consul. He served from October 1845 to July 1846. Following the Civil War, black Americans were first appointed as ministers and consuls, but they were only accredited to black- ruled nations. John Seys, the first formally accredited representative to Liberia was a highly successful Methodist missionary, born in 1799, with almost 30 years experience in the country. In 1858, he was appointed US agent in Liberia for freedmen and became the first black American consul in 1862. Seys became Minister Resident and Consul General in the fall of 1866 and served until his retirement in 1870. Ebenezer D. Bassett of Pennsylvania was appointed by President Grant in 1869 as Minister Resident and Consul General to Haiti. President Grant's second appointee was James Milton Turner of Missouri, who became Minister Resident and Consul General to Liberia in 1871. One of Turner's first dispatches from Monrovia reported on the bloodless revolution of 1871, and a later one (1878) reported on the impeachment of the Liberian president and several of his cabinet officers. By the end of the century, eight black men had been appointed as ministers or consular officers, but only to Haiti and Liberia as Ministers. Among the most distinguished was the great orator and intellectual Frederick Douglass, who was became Minister Resident and Consul General in Haiti in 1889. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 8, February 25, 1991 Title:

Country Profile: Israel

Date: Feb 25, 19912/25/91 Category: Country Data Region: MidEast/North Africa Country: Israel Subject: History, Trade/Economics, International Organizations [TEXT] Official Name: State of Israel
Profile:
Geography
Area: 20,325 sq. km.1 (7,850 sq. mi.); about the size of New Jersey. Cities: Capital2--Jerusalem. Other cities--Tel Aviv, Haifa. Terrain: Plains, mountains, desert, and coast. Climate: Temperate, except in desert areas.
People
Population (1990): 4.7 million. Annual growth rate: 1.8%. Ethnic groups: Jewish 82%, non-Jewish (18%, mostly Arab). Religions: Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Druze. Languages: Hebrew, Arabic, English. Education: Years compulsory-- 12. Literacy--Jewish 88%; Arab 70%. Health: Infant mortality rate (1988)-- 10/1,000. Life expectancy--76 yrs. Work force: Public and community services--29.5%. Industry-- 21.6%. Commerce, restaurants, hotels--14.5%. Finance and business--10%. Personal and other services--7.4%. Transport, storage, communications--6.4%. Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries--4.9%. Construction--4.7%. Electricity and water--1%. Organized labor--90% of labor force.
Government
Type: Parliamentary democracy. Independence: May 14, 1948. Constitution: No written document. Branches: Executive--president (chief of state); prime minister (head of government). Legislative--unicameral, Knesset. Judicial-- Supreme Court. Administrative subdivisions: Six administrative districts. Political parties: Likud bloc (Herut-Liberal alliance), Labor Alignment, National Religious Party, Tehiya, and numerous smaller parties, including a communist party. Suffrage: Universal over 18. Flag: White field on which is centered a blue six-pointed Star of David bordered above and below by blue horizontal stripes (design based on Jewish prayer shawl).
Economy
GNP: (1989) $42.7 billion. Annual growth rate: (1989) 1.1%. Per capita income: (1989) $9,460. Annual inflation rate (1989): 21%. Natural resources: Copper, phosphate, bromide, potash, clay, sand, sulphur, bitumen, manganese. Agriculture: Products--citrus and other fruits, vegetables, beef, dairy, poultry products. Industry: Types--food processing, diamond cutting and polishing, textiles and clothing, chemicals, metal products, transport equipment, electrical equipment, miscellaneous machinery, potash mining, high technology, electronics. Trade: Exports--(1989) $10.3 billion: polished diamonds, citrus and other fruits, textiles and clothing, processed foods, fertilizer and chemical products, electronics. Tourism is also an important foreign exchange earner. Imports--$13.2 billion: military equipment, rough diamonds, oil, chemicals, machinery, iron and steel, cereals, textiles, vehicles, ships, and aircraft. Major partners--US, FRG, UK, France, Belgium, Luxembourg.
Membership in International Organizations
UN and some of its specialized and related agencies, including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT); International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); INTELSAT and others.(###)