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.(###)