US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 10, March 11, 1991
Title: The World After the Persian Gulf War
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: Address before a joint session of Congress, Washington,
DC
Date: Mar 6, 19913/6/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait
Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization
[TEXT]
Mr. President, and Mr. Speaker, thank you, sir, for those very
generous words spoken from the heart about the wonderful
performance of our military.
Members of Congress, 5 short weeks ago, I came to this House
to speak to you about the State of the Union. We met then in time of
war. Tonight, we meet in a world blessed by the promise of peace.
From the moment Operation Desert Storm commenced on
January 16 until the time the guns fell silent at midnight 1 week
ago, this nation has watched its sons and daughters with pride-
watched over them with prayer. As Commander in Chief, I can
report to you our armed forces fought with honor and valor. And as
President, I can report to the nation, aggression is defeated. The
war is over.
This is a victory for every country in the coalition; for the
United Nations; a victory for unprecedented international
cooperation and diplomacy-so well led by our Secretary of State
James Baker. It is a victory for the rule of law and for what is
right.
Desert Storm's success belongs to the team that so ably leads
our armed forces: our Secretary of Defense and our Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell.
And while you're standing, this military victory also belongs
to the one the British call the "Man of the Match"-the tower of calm
at the eye of Desert Storm, General Norman Schwarzkopf. And let
us-recognizing this was a coalition effort-let us not forget Saudi
General Khalid, Britain's General de la Billiere, or General
Roquejoffre of France, and all the others whose leadership played
such a vital role. And most importantly, most importantly of all,
all those who served in the field.
I thank the members of this Congress; support here for our
troops in battle was overwhelming. And above all, I thank those
whose unfailing love and support sustained our courageous men and
women: I thank the American people.
Tonight, I come to this House to speak about the world-the
world after war. The recent challenge could not have been clearer.
Saddam Hussein was the villain; Kuwait the victim. To the aid of
this small country came the nations from North America and Europe,
from Asia and South America, from Africa and the Arab world-all
united against aggression. Our uncommon coalition must now work
in common purpose: to forge a future that should never again be
held hostage to the darker side of human nature.
Tonight in Iraq, Saddam walks amidst ruin. His war machine
is crushed. His ability to threaten mass destruction is itself
destroyed. His people have been lied to, denied the truth. And when
his defeated legions come home, all Iraqis will see and feel the
havoc he has wrought. And this I promise you: For all that Saddam
has done to his own people, to the Kuwaitis, and to the entire world,
Saddam and those around him are accountable.
All of us grieve for the victims of war, for the people of
Kuwait, and the suffering that scars the soul of that proud nation.
We grieve for all our fallen soldiers and their families, for all the
innocents caught up in this conflict. And, yes, we grieve for the
people of Iraq, a people who have never been our enemy. My hope is
that one day we will once again welcome them as friends into the
community of nations.
Four Key Challenges
Our commitment to peace in the Middle East does not end with the
liberation of Kuwait. So tonight, let me outline four key challenges
to be met.
First, we must work together to create shared security
arrangements in the region. Our friends and allies in the Middle
East recognize that they will bear the bulk of the responsibility for
regional security. But we want them to know that just as we stood
with them to repel aggression, so now America stands ready to
work with them to secure the peace.
This does not mean stationing US ground forces in the Arabian
Peninsula, but it does mean American participation in joint
exercises involving both air and ground forces. It means
maintaining a capable US naval presence in the region, just as we
have for over 40 years. Let it be clear: Our vital national interests
depend on a stable and secure Gulf.
Second, we must act to control the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction and the missiles used to deliver them. It would
be tragic if the nations of the Middle East and Persian Gulf were
now, in the wake of war, to embark on a new arms race. Iraq
requires special vigilance. Until Iraq convinces the world of its
peaceful intentions-that its leaders will not use new revenues to
rearm and rebuild its menacing war machine-Iraq must not have
access to the instruments of war.
Third, we must work to create new opportunities for peace
and stability in the Middle East. On the night I announced Operation
Desert Storm, I expressed my hope that out of the horrors of war
might come new momentum for peace. We've learned in the modern
age geography cannot guarantee security and security does not come
from military power alone.
All of us know the depth of bitterness that has made the
dispute between Israel and its neighbors so painful and intractable.
Yet, in the conflict just concluded, Israel and many of the Arab
states have, for the first time, found themselves confronting the
same aggressor. By now, it should be plain to all parties that
peacemaking in the Middle East requires compromise. At the same
time, peace brings real benefits to everyone. We must do all that
we can to close the gap between Israel and the Arab states and
between Israelis and Palestinians. The tactics of terror lead
absolutely nowhere. There can be no substitute for diplomacy.
A comprehensive peace must be grounded in UN Security
Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and the principle of territory for
peace. This principle must be elaborated to provide for Israel's
security and recognition and at the same time for legitimate
Palestinian political rights. Anything else would fail the twin test
of fairness and security. The time has come to put an end to Arab-
Israeli conflict.
The war with Iraq is over. The quest for solutions to the
problems in Lebanon, in the Arab-Israeli dispute, and in the Gulf
must go forward with new vigor and determination. And I guarantee
you, no one will work harder for a stable peace in the region than
we will.
Fourth, we must foster economic development for the sake of
peace and progress. The Persian Gulf and Middle East form a region
rich in natural resources with a wealth of untapped human
potential. Resources once squandered on military might must be
redirected to more peaceful ends. We are already addressing the
immediate economic consequences of Iraq's aggression. Now, the
challenge is to reach higher, to foster economic freedom and
prosperity for all the people of the region.
Building a Framework for Peace
By meeting these four challenges we can build a framework for
peace. I've asked Secretary of State Baker to go to the Middle East
to begin the process. He will go to listen, to probe, to offer
suggestions, to advance the search for peace and stability. I've also
asked him to raise the plight of the hostages held in Lebanon. We
have not forgotten them, and we will not forget them. To all the
challenges that confront this region of the world there is no single
solution, no solely American answer. But we can make a difference.
America will work tirelessly as a catalyst for positive change.
But we cannot lead a new world abroad if, at home, it's
politics as usual on American defense and diplomacy. It's time to
turn away from the temptation to protect unneeded weapons
systems and obsolete bases. It's time to put an end to
micromanagement of foreign and security assistance programs,
micromanagement that humiliates our friends and allies and
hamstrings our diplomacy. It's time to rise above the parochial and
the pork barrel-to do what is necessary, what's right, and what will
enable this nation to play the leadership role required of us.
The consequences of the conflict in the Gulf reach far beyond
the confines of the Middle East. Twice before in this century, an
entire world was convulsed by war. Twice this century, out of the
horrors of war, hope emerged for enduring peace. Twice before,
those hopes proved to be a distant dream, beyond the grasp of man.
Until now, the world we've known has been a world divided-a
world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict, and Cold War.
Now, we can see a new world coming into view, a world in which
there is the very real prospect of a new world order: in the words
of Winston Churchill, a world order in which "the principles of
justice and fair play protect the weak against the strong . . . ."; a
world where the United Nations-freed from Cold War stalemate-is
poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders; a world in
which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all
nations.
The Gulf war put this new world to its first test. And, my
fellow Americans, we passed that test. For the sake of our
principles, for the sake of the Kuwaiti people, we stood our ground.
Because the world would not look the other way-Ambassador [to the
US Saud Nasir] al-Sabah-tonight, Kuwait is free. And we are very
happy about that.
Tonight, as our troops begin to come home, let us recognize
that the hard work of freedom still calls us forward. We've learned
the hard lessons of history. The victory over Iraq was not waged as
a "war to end all wars." Even the new world order cannot guarantee
an era of perpetual peace. But enduring peace must be our mission.
Challenges at Home
Our success in the Gulf will shape not only the world order we seek
but our mission here at home. In the war just ended, there were
clear-cut objectives, timetables, and, above all, an overriding
imperative to achieve results. We must bring that same sense of
self-discipline, that same sense of urgency, to the way we meet
challenges here at home. In my State of the Union address and in my
budget, I defined a comprehensive agenda to prepare for the next
American century.
Our first priority is to get this economy rolling again. The
fear and uncertainty caused by the Gulf crisis were understandable.
But now that the war is over, oil prices are down, interest rates are
down, and confidence is rightly coming back. Americans can move
forward-to lend, spend, and invest in this, the strongest economy on
earth.
We must also enact the legislation that is key to building a
better America. For example, in 1990, we enacted a historic Clean
Air Act. And, now, we've proposed a national energy strategy. We
passed a child care bill that put power in the hands of parents. And,
today, we're ready to do the same thing with our schools and expand
choice in education. We passed a crime bill that made a useful start
in fighting crime and drugs. This year, we're sending to Congress
our comprehensive crime package to finish the job. We passed the
landmark Americans with Disabilities Act. And, now, we've sent
forward our civil rights bill. We also passed the aviation bill. This
year we've sent up our new highway bill. And these are just a few
of our pending proposals for reform and renewal.
So, tonight, I call on Congress to move forward aggressively
on our domestic front. Let's begin with two initiatives we should
be able to agree on quickly: transportation and crime. And then,
let's build on success with those and enact the rest of our agenda.
If our forces could win the ground war in 100 hours, then surely the
Congress can pass this legislation in 100 days. Let that be a
promise we make tonight to the American people.
Honoring US Troops
When I spoke in this House about the state of our union, I asked all
of you: If we can selflessly confront evil for the sake of good in a
land so far away, then surely we can make this land all that it
should be. In the time since then, the brave men and women of
Desert Storm accomplished more than even they may realize. They
set out to confront an enemy abroad, and, in the process, they
transformed a nation at home. Think of the way they went about
their mission-with confidence and quiet pride. Think about their
sense of duty, about all they taught us, about our values, about
ourselves.
We hear so often about our young people in turmoil: how our
children fall short, how our schools fail us, how American products
and American workers are second-class. Well, don't you believe it.
The America we saw in Desert Storm was first-class talent. They
did it using America's state-of-the-art technology. We saw the
excellence embodied in the Patriot missile and the patriots who
made it work. And we saw soldiers who know about honor and
bravery and duty and country and the world-shaking power of these
simple words.
There is something noble and majestic about the pride, about
the patriotism that we feel tonight. So to everyone here and
everyone watching at home, think about the men and women of
Desert Storm. Let us honor them with our gratitude. Let us comfort
the families of the fallen and remember each precious life lost. Let
us learn from them as well. Let us honor those who have served us
by serving others. Let us honor them as individuals-men and women
of every race, all creeds and colors-by setting the face of this
nation against discrimination, bigotry, and hate. Eliminate them.
I'm sure that many of you saw on the television the
unforgettable scene of four terrified Iraqi soldiers surrendering.
They emerged from their bunker broken, tears streaming from their
eyes, fearing the worst. And then there was an American soldier.
Remember what he said? He said: "It's okay. You're all right now.
You're all right now." That scene says a lot about America, a lot
about who we are. Americans are a caring people. We are a good
people, a generous people. Let us always be caring and good and
generous in all we do.
Soon, very soon, our troops will begin the march we've all
been waiting for-their march home. And I have directed Secretary
Cheney to begin the immediate return of American combat units
from the Gulf. Less than 2 hours from now, the first planeload of
American soldiers will lift off from Saudi Arabia headed for the
USA. It will carry men and women of the 24th Mechanized Infantry
Division bound for Fort Stewart, Georgia. This is just the beginning
of a steady flow of American troops coming home. Let their return
remind us that all those who have gone before are linked with us in
the long line of freedom's march.
Americans have always tried to serve, to sacrifice nobly for
what we believe to be right. Tonight, I ask every community in this
country to make this coming 4th of July a day of special celebration
for our returning troops. They may have missed Thanksgiving and
Christmas, but I can tell you this: For them and for their families,
we can make this a holiday they'll never forget.
In a very real sense, this victory belongs to them-to the
privates and the pilots, to the sergeants and the supply officers, to
the men and women in the machines and the men and women who
made them work. It belongs to the regulars, to the reserves, to the
National Guard. This victory belongs to the finest fighting force
this nation has ever known in its history.
We went halfway around the world to do what is moral and
just and right. We fought hard, and, with others, we won the war.
We lifted the yoke of aggression and tyranny from a small country
that many Americans had never even heard of, and we shall ask
nothing in return.
We're coming home now-proud, confident, heads high. There is
much that we must do at home and abroad. And we will do it. We
are Americans. May God bless this great nation, the United States
of America . Thank you all very, very much. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 10, March 11, 1991
Title: Defeating Aggression in Kuwait
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: Radio address to US troops in the Gulf, the White
House, Washington, DC
Date: Mar 2, 19913/2/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait
Subject: Military Affairs
[TEXT]
Never have I been more proud of our troops, or more proud to be your
Commander in Chief. For today, amid prayers of thanks and hope,
the Kuwaiti flag once again flies high above Kuwait City. And it's
there because your coalition allies put it there.
Kuwait is liberated. And soon hometowns across America will
be welcoming back home the finest combat force ever assembled-
Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Marines, Air Force-the brave men and
women of the United States of America.
Saddam Hussein's dreams of dominating the Middle East by the
terror of a nuclear arsenal and an army of 1 million men threatened
the future of our children and the entire world. And the world was
faced with a simple choice: If international law and sanctions
could not remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, then we had to free
Kuwait from Saddam Hussein.
And that's exactly what you did. Throughout 7 long arduous
months, the troops of 28 nations stood with you, shoulder to
shoulder in a unprecedented partnership for peace. Today we thank
you-for the victory in Kuwait was born in your courage and resolve.
The stunning success of our troops was the result of superb
training, superb planning, superb execution-and incredible acts of
bravery.
The Iraqi army was defeated. Forty-two divisions were put
out of action. They lost 3,000 tanks; almost 2,000 armored
vehicles; more than 2,000 artillery pieces; and over half a million
Iraqi soldiers were captured, defeated, or disarmed. You were as
good as advertised-you were indeed, "Good to go."
This is a war we did not seek and did not want. But Saddam
Hussein turned a deaf ear to the voices of peace and reason. And
when he began burning Kuwait to the ground, and intensifying the
murder of its people, the coalition faced a moral imperative to put a
stop to the atrocities in Kuwait once and for all. Boldly, bravely,
you did just that, and when the rubber met the road, you did it in
just 6 weeks-and 100 decisive hours.
The evil Saddam has done can never be forgotten. But his
power to attack his neighbors and threaten the peace of the region
is today grievously reduced. He has been stripped of his capacity to
project offensive military power. His regime is totally discredited,
and as a threat to peace, the day of this dictator is over. And the
bottom line is this: Kuwait's night of terror has ended.
Thomas Jefferson said that the price of freedom is eternal
vigilance. We must remain vigilant to make absolutely sure the
Iraqi dictator is never, ever allowed to stroke the ashes of defeat
into the burning embers of aggression. The sacrifice you've already
made demands nothing less. The sacrifice of those who gave their
lives will never be forgotten.
Saddam made many mistakes. But one of the biggest was to
underestimate the determination of the American people and the
daring of our troops. We saw in the desert what Americans have
learned through 215 years of history about the difference between
democracy and dictatorship. Soldiers who fight for freedom are
more committed than soldiers who fight because they are enslaved.
Americans today are confident of our country, confident of our
future, and most of all, confident about you. We promised you'd be
given the means to fight. We promised not to look over your
shoulder. We promised this would not be another Vietnam. And we
kept that promise. The specter of Vietnam has been buried forever
in the desert sands of the Arabian Peninsula.
Today, the promise of spring is almost upon us, the promise of
regrowth and renewal: renewed life in Kuwait; renewed prospects
for real peace throughout the Middle East; and a renewed sense of
pride and confidence here at home. And we are committed to seeing
every American soldier and every allied POW home soon-home to the
thanks and the respect and the love of a grateful nation, and a very
grateful President.
Yes, there remain vital and difficult tests ahead, both here
and abroad. But nothing the American people can't handle. America
has always accepted the challenge, paid the price, and passed the
test. On this day, our spirits are high as our flag-and our future is
as bright as Liberty's torch. Tomorrow we dedicate ourselves anew,
as Americans always have and as Americans always will.
The first test of the new world order has been passed. The
hard work of freedom awaits.
Thank you. Congratulations. And God bless the United States
of America. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 10, March 11, 1991
Title: Chronology: The Gulf Crisis-UN Security Council
Actions
Date: Mar 2, 19913/2/91
Category: Chronologies
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait
Subject: Military Affairs, United Nations
[TEXT]
Chronology
August 2-Resolution 660.
Condemns invasion.
Demands unconditional and immediate withdrawal.
Vote: 14 for, 0 against, 1 abstention (Yemen).
August 6-Resolution 661.
Imposes economic
sanctions. Authorizes non-military measures to enforce trade
sanctions.
Vote: 13 for, 0 against, 2 abstentions (Yemen and Cuba).
August 9-Resolution 662.
Declares Iraq's
annexation of Kuwait null and void.
Vote: Unanimous (15-0).
August 18-Resolution 664.
Condemns Iraq for
holding foreign nationals hostage and demands their immediate
release.
Vote: Unanimous (15-0).
August 25-Resolution 665
. Outlaws all trade with
Iraq by land, sea, and air. Bars financial dealings with all UN
members.
Vote: 13 for, 0 against, 2 abstentions (Yemen and Cuba).
September 13-Resolution 666
. Establishes
guidelines for humanitarian food aid to Iraq and occupied Kuwait.
Vote: 13 for, 2 against (Yemen and Cuba).
September 16-Resolution 667
. Condemns Iraq for
violence against foreign embassies and diplomats in Kuwait.
Demands protection for diplomatic and consular personnel.
Vote: Unanimous (15-0).
September 24-Resolution 669.
Agrees to consider
exceptions to Resolution 661 for shipment of humanitarian supplies
and authorizes examination of requests for economic assistance
under Article 50 of the UN Charter.
Vote: Unanimous (15-0).
September 25-Resolution 670
. Tightens embargo
on air traffic and authorizes detention of Iraq's merchant fleet.
Vote: Unanimous (15-0).
October 29-Resolution 674
. Holds Iraq responsible
for all financial losses resulting from invasion and seeks evidence
of human rights abuses by Iraqi troops in Kuwait. Calls for the
release of third-country nationals and the provision of food to those
being held against their will.
Vote: 13 for, 0 against, 2 abstentions (Yemen and Cuba).
November 28-Resolution 677
. Condemns Iraqi
attempts to alter the demographic composition of the population of
Kuwait and to destroy the civil records maintained by the
legitimate government of Kuwait. Mandates the Secretary General
to take custody of a copy of the population register of Kuwait.
Vote: Unanimous (15-0).
November 29-Resolution 678
. Authorizes "member
states cooperating with the government of Kuwait . . . to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement Security Council
Resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and
to restore international peace and security in the area."
Vote: 12 for, 2 against (Yemen and Cuba), 1 abstention
(China).
March 2, 1991-Resolution 686
. Demands that Iraq
cease all hostile and provocative actions by its forces against
coalition members and implement all 12 Security Council
resolutions noted above. It specifically demands that Iraq rescind
its actions purporting to annex Kuwait, accept liability for any
damage to Kuwait, release Kuwaiti and third country detainees, as
well as allied prisoners, and begin to return property seized from
Kuwait.
Vote: 11 for, 1 against (Cuba), 3 abstentions (China, India,
Yemen). (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 10, March 11, 1991
Title: State Department Diplomatic Efforts To Resolve the Gulf
Crisis
Date: Jan 15, 19911/15/91
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait, USSR (former)
Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization,
State Department, United Nations
[TEXT]
From the time Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990, until the
expiration of the UN deadline for Iraqi withdrawal on January 15,
1991, Secretary of State James A. Baker, III, led a diplomatic effort
to end the conflict peacefully. This effort involved extensive
cooperation with the Soviet Union, the NATO allies, the European
Community, our friends in the Middle East, and, most importantly,
with the United Nations and the Desert Shield coalition that was
formed under the UN mandate.
Ten Trips
Secretary Baker discussed the Gulf crisis on every trip outside
Washington, DC, between August and January-a total of 10
diplomatic missions-and he held many other talks in his State
Department office and over the telephone.
Working With International Institutions
President Bush emphasized that Iraq's aggression against Kuwait
threatened the vision of a "new world order" that could otherwise
replace the "Cold War" tensions that have characterized world
politics since World War II. Secretary Baker concentrated heavily
upon involving the institutions that will likely characterize the
"new world order" - especially the Conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), a NATO that includes newly unified
Germany, and the European Community (EC). The CSCE, EC, and NATO
condemned Iraq's aggression-and all NATO states and many CSCE and
EC countries joined the Gulf coalition.
Working With the UN
For only the second time in its history, and for the first time with
the Soviet Union's support, the United Nations formally authorized
the use of force against an aggressor nation. Twelve UN Security
Council resolutions adopted over a period of more than 5 months
clearly laid out the path of peace for Iraq. These resolutions
demand that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally from
Kuwait, establish an economic embargo backed by force, and
authorize the use of all necessary means to expel Iraq from Kuwait
if the Iraqis did not withdraw by January 15, 1991.
Secretary Baker engaged in personal diplomacy at the UN to
secure passage of these resolutions - including two historic
sessions that involved foreign ministers of all five permanent
members of the UN Security Council: on September 25, when the
council authorized an air embargo of Iraq and the use of force to
impose sanctions; on November 29, when it mandated the use of "all
means necessary" to evict Iraq from Kuwait after January 15, 1991.
US-USSR Cooperation
The crisis began as the Secretary was on a diplomatic mission in
Mongolia. The next day he flew to Moscow for talks with Foreign
Minister Shevardnadze and the issuance of a joint US-USSR
statement that condemned the Iraqi action. This was the first of
nine US-Soviet meetings on the Gulf crisis that included talks in
Washington in January 1991 after the war began (see box).
Going the Extra Mile for Peace
On January 3, President Bush stated that he was "ready to make one
last attempt to go the extra mile for peace." Therefore, Secretary
Baker met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Aziz on January 9. Even
after Iraq's intransigence caused that meeting to end in failure, the
Secretary held out hope for 11th-hour efforts by UN Secretary
General Perez de Cuellar and by the EC, which ultimately were
unsuccessful. At 4:50 pm EST on January 16-some 17 hours after
the UN deadline expired - the coalition forces launched Operation
Desert Storm to force Iraq into complying with the 12 UN Security
Council resolution. On February 27, 1991, President Bush announced
that Kuwait had been liberated - and offered cease-fire terms to
Baghdad.
TRIPS
1990
Aug. 3: Moscow
Aug. 8-10: Ankara, Brussels (NATO)
Sept. 5-15: Jeddah, Taif, Abu Dhabi, Cairo, Alexandria, Helsinki,
Brussels, Moscow, Damascus, Rome, Bonn
Sept. 26-Oct. 5: New York (United Nations and CSCE ministerial)
Nov. 3-10: Manama, Dhahran, Taif, Jeddah, Cairo, Ankara, Moscow,
London, Paris
Nov. 15-26: Brussels, Geneva, Paris, Jeddah, Sanaa, Bogota
Nov. 28-29: New York (UN)
Dec. 9-12: Houston (US-USSR ministerial)
Dec. 16-28: Brussels (NATO)
1991
Jan. 6-14: London, Paris, Bonn, Milan, Geneva, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi,
Taif, Cairo, Damascus, Ankara, Ottawa
SUMMARY
-- More than 200 contacts with foreign dignitaries
(bilaterals/meetings/events).
-- Six congressional appearances.
-- 103,421 miles traveled.
-- 166 days between August 2, 1990, and January 15, 1991.
MEETINGS
Secretary Baker has held more than 200 meetings between August
2, 1990, and January 15, 1991, with:
-- Soviet officials (35 meetings);
-- Representatives of every NATO member (15 nations);
-- CSCE signatories (33 nations);
-- All Gulf nations, except Iran;
-- Cuba (which, with Yemen, voted against UN Resolution 678
authorizing the use of force).
US-SOVIET GULF CRISIS DISCUSSIONS, 1990--January 1991
Aug. 3, 1990 - Moscow - Secretary Baker and Foreign Minister
Shevardnadze
Sept. 9 - Helsinki - President Bush, President Gorbachev, Secretary
Baker, Foreign Minister Shevardnadze
Sept. 11-13 - Moscow - Secretary Baker and Foreign Minister
Shevardnadze
Sept. 26-Oct. 5 - New York - President Bush, President Gorbachev,
Secretary Baker, Foreign Minister Shevardnadze
Nov. 8 - Moscow - Secretary Baker and Foreign Minister
Shevardnadze
Nov. 18-21 - Paris - Secretary Baker and Foreign Minister
Shevardnadze
Nov. 28 - New York - Secretary Baker and Foreign Minister
Shevardnadze
Nov. 29 - New York - Secretary Baker and Foreign Minister
Shevardnadze at meeting of five UN Security Council
permanent representatives (China, France, UK, US, USSR)
Dec. 9-12 -Houston and Washington, DC - President Bush,
SecretaryBaker, Foreign Minister Shevardnadze
Jan. 26-29, 1991 - Washington, DC - President Bush, Secretary
Baker, Foreign Minister Bessmertnykh
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 10, March 11, 1991
Title: Secretary Baker's International Travel
Date: Mar 11, 19913/11/91
Category: Fact Sheets
Subject: State Department, Democratization
[TEXT]
By Trip
1991
Mar. 7-17: Scheduled travel-Saudi Arabia (Riyadh); Kuwait
(Kuwait); Egypt (Cairo); Israel (Jerusalem); Syria (Damascus); USSR
(Moscow); and Turkey (Ankara).
Jan. 6-14: London, England; Paris, France; Bonn, Germany; Milan,
Italy; Geneva, Switzerland; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Abu Dhabi, UAE;
Taif, Saudi Arabia; Cairo, Egypt; Damascus, Syria; Ankara, Turkey;
Alconbury, England; Ottawa, Canada
1990
Feb. 5-13: Prague, Czechoslovakia; Moscow, USSR (ministerial);
Sofia, Bulgaria; Bucharest, Romania; Ottawa, Canada (Open Skies
conference)
Feb. 15: Cartagena, Colombia* (drug summit)
Mar. 18-24: Windhoek, Namibia (independence celebrations); Cape
Town, Johannesburg, and Soweto, South Africa; Kinshasa, Zaire
Apr. 10: Toronto, Canada*
Apr. 13-14: Hamilton, Bermuda*
May 2-6: Brussels, Belgium (NATO/European Community
ministerials); Bonn, FRG (Two-plus-Four ministerial); Warsaw,
Poland
May 14-19: Moscow, USSR (ministerial)
June 4-9: Copenhagen, Denmark (Conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe); Turnberry, Scotland (North Atlantic Council
ministerial)
June 17-18: Guatemala City and Antigua, Guatemala
June 21-23: Berlin (Two-plus-Four ministerial)
July 3-6: Brussels, Belgium (Group of 24 ministerial); London,
England* (NATO summit)
July 16-18: Paris, France (Two-plus-Four plus One ministerial)
July 24-Aug. 6: Jakarta, Indonesia (Association of South East Asian
Nations); Singapore (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation); Irkutsk
and Moscow, USSR; Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
Aug. 8-10: Ankara, Turkey; Brussels, Belgium
Sept. 5-15: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; Abu Dhabi, UAE; Cairo and
Alexandria, Egypt; Helsinki, Finland*; Brussels, Belgium; Moscow,
USSR; Damascus, Syria; Rome, Italy; Bonn, FRG
Nov. 3-10: Manama, Bahrain; Dhahran, Taif, and Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia; Cairo, Egypt; Ankara, Turkey; Moscow, USSR: London,
England; Paris, France
Nov. 13: Hamilton, Bermuda
Nov. 15-26: Brussels, Belgium (EC ministerial); Geneva,
Switzerland; Paris, France* (CSCE); Jeddah, Saudi Arabia*; Sanaa,
Yemen; Bogota, Colombia
Dec. 16-18: Brussels, Belgium (NAC ministerial)
1989
Feb. 10: Ottawa, Canada*
Feb. 11-17: Ottawa, Canada; Reykjavik, Iceland; London, England;
Bonn, FRG; Copenhagen, Denmark; Oslo, Norway; Ankara, Turkey;
Athens, Greece; Rome, Italy; Madrid, Spain; Lisbon, Portugal;
Brussels, Belgium; Luxembourg, Luxembourg; The Hague,
Netherlands; Paris, France
Feb. 22-27: Tokyo, Japan* (Emperor Hirohito funeral); Beijing,
China*; Seoul, South Korea*
Mar. 4-7: Vienna, Austria (Conventional Armed Forces in Europe
ministerial)
May 8-12: Helsinki, Finland; Moscow, USSR; Brussels, Belgium
May 26-June 2: Rome, Italy*; The Vatican*; Brussels, Belgium*
(NATO summit); Bonn and Mainz, FRG*; London, England*
July 3-9: Tokyo, Japan; Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei (ASEAN),
Muscat and Jebel Akhdar, Oman
July 9-18: Warsaw and Gdansk, Poland*; Budapest, Hungary*; Paris,
France* (economic summit); The Hague , Netherlands*
July 28-31: Paris, France (conference on Cambodia)
Aug. 6-7: Mexico City, Mexico (annual Binational Commission
meeting)
Oct. 27-28: San Jose, Costa Rica* (hemispheric summit)
Oct. 31-Nov. 8: Sydney and Canberra, Australia (Australian
ministerial and APEC)
Dec. 1-4: Valletta, Malta*; Brussels, Belgium*
Dec. 10-16: London, England; Berlin, FRG; Potsdam, GDR; Brussels,
Belgium; St. Martin*
*Accompanied the President
SUMMARY: SECRETARY'S TRAVEL
Miles Countries
Jan. 1991 18,240 11
1990 208,069 30
1989 142,923 32
By Country
AUSTRALIA
Canberra, Nov. 4-8, 1989
Sydney, Nov. 2-4, 1989
AUSTRIA
Vienna, Mar. 5-7, 1989
BAHRAIN
Manama, Nov. 4-5, 1990
BELGIUM
Brussels, May 3-4, 1990, July 3-4*, 1990, Aug. 9-10, 1990, Sept.
10,1990, Nov. 15-17, 1990, Dec. 16-18, 1990, Feb. 15-17, 1989,
May 11-12, 1989, May 28-30, 1989*, Dec. 3-4, 1989*, Dec. 12-16,
1989
BERMUDA
Hamilton, Apr. 13-14,1990,* Nov. 13, 1990
BRUNEI
Bandar Seri Begawan, July 5-7, 1989
BULGARIA
Sofia, Feb. 10-11, 1990
CANADA
Ottawa, Jan. 13-14, 1991, Feb. 11-13, 1990, Feb. 10-11, 1989*
Toronto, Apr. 10, 1990*
CHINA
Beijing, Feb. 25-27, 1989*
COLOMBIA
Bogota, Nov. 24, 1990
Cartagena, Feb. 15, 1990*
COSTA RICA
San Jose, Oct. 27-28, 1989*
CZECHOSLOVAKIA
Prague, Feb. 6-7, 1990
DENMARK
Copenhagen, June 5-6, 1990, Feb.13, 1989
EGYPT
Alexandria, Sept. 8, 1990
Cairo, Jan. 11-12, 1991, Mar. 10-11, 1991, Sept. 7-8, 1990, Nov.
6,1990
FINLAND
Helsinki, Sept. 8-10, 1990*, May 9-10, 1989
FRANCE
Paris, Jan. 8, 1991, July 16-18,1990, Nov.9-10, 1990, Nov. 17-21,
1990*, Feb. 17, 1989, July 13-17, 1989*, July 28-31, 1989
GERMANY
Berlin, June 21-23, 1990, Dec. 11-12, 1989
Bonn, Jan. 8, 1991, May 4-5,1990, Sept.15, 1990, Feb. 12-14,1989,
May 30-31,1989*
Lugwigshafen, Sept. 15, 1990
Mainz, May 31, 1989*
Potsdam, Dec. 12, 1989
GREECE
Athens, Feb. 14, 1989
GUATEMALA
Antigua, June 18, 1990
Guatemala City, June 17-18,1990
HOLY SEE
Vatican City, May 27, 1989*
HUNGARY
Budapest, July 11-12, 1989*
ICELAND
Reykjavik, Feb. 11, 1989
INDONESIA
Jakarta, July 26-29, 1990
ISRAEL
Jerusalem, Mar. 11-12, 1991
ITALY
Milan, Jan. 8, 1991
Nettuno, May 28, 1989*
Rome, Sept. 14-15, 1990, Feb. 14-15, 1989, May 26-28, 1989*
JAPAN
Tokyo, Feb. 23-25, 1989*, July 4-5, 1989
KOREA (SOUTH)
Seoul, Feb. 27, 1989*
LUXEMBOURG
Luxembourg, Feb. 16, 1989
MALTA
Valletta, Dec. 1-3, 1989*
MEXICO
Mexico City, Aug. 6-7, 1989
MONGOLIA
Ulaanbaatar, Aug. 2-3, 1990
NAMIBIA
Windhoek, Mar. 19-22, 1990
NETHERLANDS
The Hague, Feb. 16, 1989, July 17-18, 1989*
NORWAY
Oslo, Feb. 13, 1989
OMAN
Jebel Akhdar, July 9, 1989
Muscat, July 8-9, 1989
POLAND
Gdansk, July 10, 1989*
Warsaw, May 6, 1990, July 9-10,1989*
PORTUGAL
Lisbon, Feb. 15, 1989
ROMANIA
Bucharest, Feb. 11, 1990
ST. MARTIN
St. Martin, Dec. 16, 1989*
SAUDI ARABIA
Dhahran, Nov. 4, 1990, Nov. 22, 1990
Jeddah, Sept. 6-7, 1990, Nov.5-6, 1990, Nov. 21-22, 1990*
Riyadh, Jan. 10-11, 1991, Mar. 8-10, 1991
Taif, Jan. 11, 1991, Sept. 7, 1990, Nov. 5, 1990
SINGAPORE
Singapore, July 29-31, 1990
SOUTH AFRICA
Cape Town, Mar. 22, 1990
Johannesburg, Mar. 22-23,1990
Soweto, Mar. 23, 1990
SPAIN
Madrid, Feb. 15, 1989
SWITZERLAND
Geneva, Jan. 8-10, 1991, Nov. 17,1990
SYRIA
Damascus, Jan. 12, 1991, Mar.13-14, 1991, Sept. 13-14, 1990
TURKEY
Ankara, Jan. 13, 1991, Mar. 16,1991, Aug. 9, 1990, Nov. 6-7, 1990,
Feb. 14, 1989
Incirlik AB, Jan. 12-13, 1991
USSR
Irkutsk, Aug. 1-2, 1990
Listvyanka/Lake Baikal, Aug. 1, 1990
Moscow, Mar. 14-16, 1991, Feb. 7-10, 1990, May 15-19, 1990, Aug.
3, 1990, Sept. 10-13, 1990, Nov. 7-9, 1990, May 10-11, 1989
Zagorsk, May 18, 1990
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Abu Dhabi, Jan. 11, 1991, Sept. 7, 1990
UNITED KINGDOM
Alconbury, Jan. 13, 1991
London, Jan. 6-8, 1991, July 4-6, 1990, Nov. 9, 1990, Feb. 11-12,
1989, May 31-June 2, 1989*, Dec. 11,1989
Mildenhall, July 4, 1990
Turnberry (Scotland), June 6-8, 1990
YEMEN
Sanaa, Nov. 22, 1990
ZAIRE
Kinshasa, Mar. 23-24, 1990
(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 10, March 11, 1991
Title: Reduced Threat From Iraqi-Sponsored Terrorism
Tutwiler
Source: Statement; Department Spokesman Margaret
Tutwiler
Date: Mar 4, 19913/4/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait
Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization
[TEXT]
In the months following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the Department
issued a number of public statements warning Americans of the
possibility of Iraqi-sponsored terrorism in various regions of the
world. Since January 16, we recorded approximately 160 terrorist
incidents, about half of which were directed at US targets. One
American died and three were wounded in these attacks.
The vast majority of the incidents were uncoordinated, low-
level bombings that caused no injuries and only slight property
damage. They were largely concentrated in southeastern Europe and
the Andean region of South America. Few incidents can be linked
directly to Iraq. Many areas, including the United States, experience
no terrorism.
With the cessation of hostilities, we believe the threat from
the Iraqi-sponsored terrorism has lessened. Nevertheless,
terrorism remains a serious concern in the post-war period.
Previous wars in the Middle East have frequently been followed by a
terrorist aftermath. In view of the long-term threat of terrorism,
we are working with other governments to ensure that security
measures that were implemented at airports and other facilities
around the world will remain in place. We will also use this
enhanced cooperation to further narrow the field for terrorists.
The Department of State continues to urge travelers to refer
to all travel advisories that the Department has issued for the
countries or regions to which they plan to travel. This information
is available by calling 202-647-5225. [Also see inside back cover
for additional ways of obtaining travel advisories.]
There is currently no specific and credible information on a
terrorist threat to the American public. While terrorist events may
occur for which we may have no forewarning, should specific and
credible information on a threat to the American public be received,
the Department of State will provide information for travelers and
other concerned parties. This statement supersedes the previous
ones concerning the potential for Iraqi-sponsored terrorist attacks.
(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 10, March 11, 1991
Title: Foreign Assistance Requests: Egypt, Israel, and the
Occupied Territories
Kurtzer
Source: Daniel C. Kurtzer, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Near
East and South Asian Affairs
Description: Statement before the Subcommittee on Europe and the
Middle East of the House Foreign Affairs Committee,
Washington, DC
Date: Mar 6, 19913/6/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Israel, Egypt
Subject: Security Assistance and Sales
[TEXT]
Statement before the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East
of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I am pleased to appear
before this committee today. In these opening remarks, I will
discuss some of the policy considerations which underlie our
foreign assistance requests for Egypt, Israel, and the occupied
territories.
Since August 1990, our diplomatic and military efforts have
been focused on creating and mobilizing an international coalition
to reverse Iraqi aggression against Kuwait. We now are witnessing
the fruits of these efforts. American and allied troops have forged
a new reality in the Middle East and in the world at large. We have
demonstrated that the international community will not tolerate
blatant and unprovoked acts of aggression. The international
community is able to organize itself to reverse aggression-by force
if necessary. Potential aggressors in the future will have to
contemplate this new reality.
The Gulf conflict has had the effect of changing some
elements of the pre-existing pattern of Middle East politics. We are
presented with new opportunities. We will try to make the most of
these opportunities to help move the Gulf and the broader Middle
East toward increased stability and security, reconciliation and
peace.
Aid to Israel and Egypt
Israel and Egypt-our two major partners in the peace process-
remain the largest recipients of assistance in the Administration's
1992 foreign aid request. We have maintained our 1992 ESF
[Economic Support Fund] and FMF [Foreign Military Fund] requests for
Israel and Egypt at 1991 levels. For Israel, the Administration is
requesting $1.2 billion in economic assistance and $1.8 billion in
security assistance. For Egypt, the Administration is requesting
$815 million in economic assistance and $1.3 billion in security
assistance.
The Gulf conflict clearly illustrated the value of our
assistance to these key friends of the United States. Both remained
constant and steady throughout the crisis.
Israel, assured in its defense capabilities and confident in
the reliability of American commitments, acted with restraint in
the face of Iraq's provocations. Threats from Iraq and unprovoked
Scud attacks against civilian targets in Israel prompted the United
States to meet Israel's needs for emergency military assistance. In
the aftermath of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, we responded to the
increased threat to Israel by providing Patriot fire units and
advanced anti-missile missiles. In response to Iraq's unprovoked
attacks on Israel, we increased the deployment of Patriot missiles
and temporarily stationed US crews to man the Patriot systems
together with Israelis. We enhanced our dialogue on security and
intelligence issues. At the same time, the United States and our
coalition partners devoted extraordinary efforts to destroy Iraq's
fixed and mobile Scud launchers in western Iraq that threatened
Israel.
The Administration also initiated other emergency assistance
measures. We are providing 10 CH-53 helicopters and 15 F-15 A/B
aircraft as well as other equipment. Delivery is being accelerated
for $100 million in munitions for the war reserve stockpile.
In February, the United States released $400 million in
housing loan guarantees to assist Israel in providing housing for
new Soviet immigrants.
Israel recently requested additional emergency security
assistance, to help defray expenses related to increased defensive
activity by Israeli forces and enhanced civil defense measures. The
Administration is actively looking into this request, in light of
Israel's needs and in light of what the United States has already
provided to Israel.
The Administration has also contacted our allies to help meet
Israel's economic needs. As a result of our consultations with
allies, the European Community decided recently on $213 million in
emergency assistance to Israel. Germany also increased its
emergency assistance by $996 million. The Netherlands provided
some emergency assistance, and Norway pledged $2.6 million in
humanitarian assistance. We will continue to seek additional help
for Israel.
Egypt played a vital role in shaping Arab reaction to Iraqi
aggression and forming and maintaining the coalition. Egypt
deployed two divisions and a ranger battalion to Saudi Arabia, and
granted the coalition facilities in country. With equipment obtained
through US security assistance, Egypt participated actively and
valiantly in the liberation of Kuwait. Egypt will continue to be a
key partner both in securing stability in the Gulf and in pursuing
peace in the broader Middle East region.
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait had an adverse economic impact on
Egypt, as it forced about 500,000 Egyptian workers to return home,
thereby drastically cutting remittances to the Egyptian economy.
Suez Canal receipts were reduced and a virtual cut-off of tourism
further devastated Egypt's sources of foreign exchange. US
forgiveness of Egypt's FMS [Foreign Military Sales] debt and aid
from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, other Gulf states, and Europe softened-
but did not offset-this economic damage. For 1992, we are
requesting $1.3 billion in FMF and $815 million in ESF for Egypt.
Together with the Congress, we are examining ESF program changes
that would quicken the disbursement of aid in exchange for Egyptian
economic reforms.
Middle East Regional Account
The Middle East regional account covers regional cooperative
projects such as Israeli-Egyptian scientific, agricultural, and
marine biological exchanges. We are requesting $5.5 million in ESF
for such projects in FY 1992 and $500,000 for US Agency for
International Development (USAID) program development and
support. The account also covers US humanitarian assistance to the
West Bank and Gaza.
Palestinians in the occupied territories embraced Saddam
Hussein's cause during the Gulf conflict and mistakenly hoped that
he would help their cause. He hurt their cause. The Palestinians
alienated many of the Arab states that traditionally provided them
financial support. They now must face the realization that they
pinned their hopes on the wrong side. The economy of the occupied
territories was heavily affected by the Gulf conflict, losing
markets for agricultural products, remittances from Palestinians
employed in the Gulf, and donations from the Gulf states.
Palestinian hospitals, schools, and charitable societies face bleak
times.
US assistance to the occupied territories for 16 years has
been extended as a direct and visible expression of humanitarian
concern for the people of the West Bank and Gaza. We remain true
to this traditional American concern; we are requesting $12 million
in ESF in FY 1992 to meet humanitarian and developmental needs in
the West Bank and Gaza.
Arab-Israeli Peace Process
US assistance to Israel and Egypt has traditionally been directed at
supporting efforts to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the
Arab-Israel conflict. Although emotions have been inflamed and
some attitudes hardened as a result of the Gulf crisis, there is an
urgent need to continue on the road to Arab-Israel peace. As
President Bush noted in his October address to the UN General
Assembly:
"In the aftermath of Iraq's unconditional departure from Kuwait, I
truly believe there may be opportunities . . . for all the states and
the peoples of the region to settle the conflicts that divide the
Arabs from Israel."
We intend to try to move forward with the peace process. We
hope to build on the increasing recognition by states and peoples in
the region that another war could be devastating for the entire
Middle East. We recognize that difficult steps and risk-taking may
be necessary to achieve regional stability and peace. However,
demagogues like Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to continue to
exploit the emotions of people in the region for selfish ends. We
must try to redirect emotional energies toward reconciliation and
peace.
The United States has been active for years in trying to create
conditions for the parties to come to negotiations. The problems
are well known, and the issues are familiar. The key now is for all
parties to demonstrate the political will to work toward resolution
of their differences. We intend to test that will, beginning with
Secretary Baker's trip to the region. We will work with the parties
in the region to try to build a post-war dynamic based on
constructive and effective approaches toward achieving a
settlement.
In so doing, it is important to emphasize that the principles
which guide US policy remain constant. We remain committed to a
comprehensive peace achieved through negotiations based on UN
Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, involving the exchange of
land for peace, security for all states in the region including Israel,
and the legitimate political rights of the Palestinians. In the weeks
ahead, we will explore with Israel and our Arab friends the issue of
how we can best structure a renewed peace process to achieve
these aims.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 10, March 11, 1991
Title: FY 1992 Budget Requests For International Organizations
Bolton
Source: John R. Bolton, Assistant Secretary for
International Organization Affairs
Description: Statement before the Subcommittees on International
Operations and on Human Rights and lnternational
Organizations of the House Foreign Affairs Committee,
Washington, DC
Date: Mar 5, 19913/5/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Subject: United Nations, International Organizations,
State Department
[TEXT]
Today, I would like to address our FY 1992 budget request for
contributions to international organizations (CIO)-through which
the United States pays its assessed contributions to the UN-and all
international organizations through which we are assessed by
virtue of treaty, convention, or act of Congress. In addition, I will
address our request for assessed US contributions to the UN
peacekeeping activities. Thirdly, I will be happy to answer your
questions concerning our request for $5.5 million for international
conferences and contingencies that we are requesting for FY 1992.
Because of the significance of recent events, I will also provide our
assessment of the role the United Nations has played in the Persian
Gulf crisis.
The CIO account includes assessed contributions to 51
international organizations. Membership in these organizations is
important to US interests because they provide for and promote
international cooperation in a wide variety of fields ranging from
the environment, shipping, drug abuse, human rights, and inter-
American issues to commodity trading and legal decision making.
Our contributions to UN peacekeeping help allow the United
Nations to maintain peace and stability in the Middle East and
Central America, two regions where the United States has vital
strategic interests. The United Nations' activities coincide and
complement our own efforts to bring stability to the people of
these areas.
Persian Gulf Crisis
Briefly stated, Saddam Hussein's blatant aggression against a
peaceful, neighboring country has been forcefully met by the United
Nations in an unprecedented manner that has thrust the world body
into a role that it has not been able to play since its founding (with
the exception of the different case of Korea). The UN has met
Saddam's challenge by utilizing parts of the charter that have not
been resorted to in 45 years. I am speaking of authorization of all
means necessary (including force) to enforce economic sanctions
imposed under Chapter 7 of the charter and authorization of the use
of all means necessary to bring Iraq into compliance with the
requirements of all 12 Security Council resolutions on its
aggression.
Members of the Security Council and other concerned parties
have had to bring a high level of resolve to the formulation of the
international community's response to this provocation.
Discussions on the council's role, that of the Secretary General, the
Military Staff Committee, and other parts of the UN system, have
been in-depth and exhaustive. They have led to the forging of a
consensus that Iraq's invasion and purported annexation of Kuwait
was an act which, if left unanswered, would seriously undermine, if
not completely negate, the values contained in the UN Charter. Iraq
struck a blow at the most fundamental principles of the UN Charter:
first, the right of all UN member states to existence, and, second,
the illegitimacy of the use of force in the settlement of
international disputes. The solidarity of the international
community in seeing that this aggression shall not stand is a
ringing endorsement of the charter and is testimony to the enduring
quality of the values for which the charter stands.
The solidarity of the international community to this point is
all the more remarkable in the face of the considerable efforts to
which Saddam has resorted to deflect attention away from his
actions, to link the Gulf crisis to other extraneous international
issues, and to split off various parts of the coalition through
bribes, threats, or other blandishments. The cohesiveness and
steadfastness of the international community reaffirms the vision
of the authors of the charter who saw international solidarity and
cooperation against malefactors as the charter's first line of
defense.
US Goals at the United Nations
Our role on the Security Council and throughout the UN system
during this crisis has provided the acid test for the
Administration's policy in the United Nations. When I appeared
before this subcommittee last year, I outlined four basic goals of
our strategy at the UN. Briefly they are:
-- To establish a new sense of responsibility in the United
Nations and do away with the rhetorical excesses and politicization
that had little to do with developments in the real world;
-- To strengthen the UN's efforts to promote international
peace and security by strengthening its peacekeeping functions and
encouraging more active use of the Secretary General's good offices
and responsibilities;
-- To promote a new way of conducting our diplomatic
efforts within the UN system-an approach we call the "Unitary UN."
-- To reestablish America's image as a credible, reliable
participant in international organizations. We must fully meet our
financial obligations when they are due.
During the present crisis, the United Nations has
demonstrated that it can, indeed, renounce ideologicallydictated,
sterile, and worn out prescriptions for confronting serious
challenges to international peace and security. The principles of
nonaggression and the right to collective self-defense have been
dramatically reaffirmed by 12 unanimous, or nearly unanimous,
resolutions. The UN system has responded as a cohesive unit in
adapting to the new challenges presented
in meeting the humanitarian needs which have arisen in the Middle
East, and Iraq's siren calls for linkage between its aggression
against Kuwait and the Palestinian problem have been resisted by
most member states.
Unitary UN
Although much of the action during this crisis has been centered in
the Security Council, I am pleased to report that the "unitary UN"
has responded as well. That is, the entire UN system has been
involved to a greater or lesser extent, each part doing what is in its
mandate and what it is best suited to do. The appointment of
Sadruddin Aga Khan as the Secretary General's representative for
coordinating UN assistance to persons and states adversely affected
by the situation in Iraq and Kuwait has helped ensure a speedy and
effective response while avoiding turf fights and duplication of
effort. The United Nations' and other international agencies'
response in the early stage of this crisis to the needs of hundreds
of thousands of displaced persons was remarkably effective despite
the magnitude of the problem and some early difficulties in
securing international financial support. I should point out,
however, that Iraq's intransigence during the war prevented
Sadruddin from providing full assistance to third-country nationals
also trapped in Kuwait.
The issue of human rights abuses in Kuwait committed by
Iraq's occupying forces has been addressed by the UN General
Assembly. A resolution holding Iraq responsible for the brutal
actions of its forces inside Kuwait passed the General Assembly at
its present session. That measure was opposed solely by Iraq. The
Human Rights Commission meeting now in Geneva will consider two
resolutions concerning Iraq-one detailing Iraqi abuses in Kuwait;
the other, the Iraqi government's crimes against its own citizens in
Iraq. This scrutiny should help make the point that human rights are
an integral part of a stable and peaceful international structure.
The regimes most notorious for abusing human rights are those
which have the clearest tendency to be aggressive.
The World Health Organization (WHO) refused to permit its
Iraq country representative to return to Baghdad after the Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait. In response to repeated requests by Iraq for
medical supplies, WHO said the requested materials were available
on the open market and offered to procure them only if Iraq first
supplied the funds; it did not do so. The WHO executive board in
January 1991 defeated a politically motivated effort by Iraq to
create a new agenda item to address health problems in Iraq and
thereby politicize the WHO.
The International Maritime Organization, immediately after
the Iraqi release of oil into the Persian Gulf, undertook to
coordinate international efforts to control the oil spill and to
minimize the damage to the environment and to international
shipping.
The full Assembly of the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) in October 1990 adopted a resolution
condemning the Iraqi violation of the sovereignty of the airspace of
Kuwait, the seizure of 15 aircraft of Kuwaiti Airways, and the
plunder of Kuwait International Airport. In an effort to minimize or
eliminate terrorist acts, the ICAO Council agreed that its president
should request all member states to ensure the safety of
international civil aviation and to adhere to UN Security Council
Resolutions 661 and 670.
The UN Industrial Development Organization suspended
programs in both Iraq and Kuwait due to "adverse circumstances."
The International Labor Organization has accepted a tripartite
(workers/employers/government) complaint from Kuwait on
conditions imposed by Iraq's occupying force in Kuwait and has
agreed to investigate those conditions when circumstances permit.
Of course, Iraq refused access to Kuwait to any organization
attempting to verify the actual situation there.
As we look ahead, it is obvious that the United Nations will be
a central locus of the international community's efforts to restore
peace and stability to the Persian Gulf region, just as it has been a
focal point of the efforts to reverse Iraq's aggression against
Kuwait. The specifies of the UN's role will be determined through
the course of consultations with our coalition partners as well as
other interested parties now underway.
It is vital that the achievement of a crowning and
unprecedented military victory over Iraq be followed by a just and
enduring peace that secures the legitimate interests of all the
states in the region. The charter furnished excellent guidance for
our efforts to see that Saddam Hussein's aggression did not stand,
and I believe that it, along with other relevant international legal
instruments such as the Geneva Conventions, provides us with
guidance for future efforts to build peace in the Persian Gulf.
Not wishing to leave the impression that our or the United
Nations' attention has been totally absorbed by the Persian Gulf
crisis, I can briefly tell you that significant progress has been made
during the past General Assembly in many other areas such as the
environment, the elimination of apartheid, and, in general, an
adherence to a constructive agenda with greatly diminished levels
of ideologically based, shopworn rhetoric from the radicals among
the UN membership. One example of this improved atmosphere is
the joint US-Soviet communique issued by Secretary Baker and
former Foreign Minister Shevardnadze during the General Assembly.
This communique represents agreement between our two countries
that the four goals our policy seeks at the UN (outlined earlier) can
produce a more useful and effective United Nations.
Contributions to International Organizations
I would like now to turn to some of the details of our request for FY
1992. It totals $1.1 billion, of which $749,665,000 is to meet our
annual requirement and $370,876,000 is budget authority to cover
payment of arrearages during fiscal years 1992-95.
We are pleased that significant reforms have been
implemented throughout most of the UN system. In recognition of
this, the Congress appropriated the Administration's request for
full funding of our assessments and funds for initial arrearage
payments last year. Continued full funding of current assessments
and appropriation of our request for full budget authority for
remaining arrears remains a high priority of the President. The
multi-year plan which began in FY 1991 calls for payments of some
20% per year to be completed by FY 1995. At the end of this period,
the Administration plans to present an update (plus or minus) to the
Congress which will adjust the final arrearage amounts for
exchange rate and other changes. The President is committed to
restoring the financial stability of international organizations. The
response of the UN system, which I outlined earlier, to the Gulf
crisis underscores and heightens this commitment.
Our request for full budget authority to meet our debts is
fully consistent with our interest in seeing UN reform maintained
and reinforced. Unless we receive this appropriation, our allies
will perceive our inaction as an abandonment of interest in these
crucial reforms, and those who have been skeptical of our motives
throughout the reform process will trumpet non-payment of our
arrearages as clear evidence of US unreliability. We cannot afford
to let this happen.
UN Peacekeeping
I would like now to turn briefly to international peacekeeping. Our
request for these critical activities for FY 1992 totals $201,292,000,
of which $132,423,000 would be for payment of arrearages.
UN Disengagement Observer Force
-UNDOF- (request
$12,914,000). Pursuant to the Syrian-Israeli Disengagement Agreement
of May 1974, the Security Council established UNDOF on the Golan
Heights which acts as an important buffer between Syrian and Israeli
troops in a significantly strategic area.
UN Interim Force in Lebanon
-UNIFIL-(request
$45,629,000). UNIFIL plays a major security role in the daily lives
of Israelis in northern Israel and Lebanese in southern Lebanon.
UNIFIL's sustained efforts are important in assisting Lebanon to
regain its sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence. As
the government of Israel has acknowledged, UNIFIL is an important
peacekeeping and security investment in the Middle East.
UN Observer Group in Central America-ONUCA-(request
$10,326,000). ONUCA, an unarmed UN military observer group, was
established to verify the cessation of military aid to irregular
forces and insurrectionist movements operating in the region and to
verify the non-use of the territory of one state for attacking others.
(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 10, March 11, 1991
Title: America's Commitment to Fast Track Extension
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: Remarks during a briefing for fast track authority
extension, the White House, Washington, DC
Date: Mar 5, 19913/5/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: North America
Country: Mexico
Subject: Trade/Economics
[TEXT]
(Introductory remarks deleted.)
Obviously, the attention has focused by the whole country-indeed,
the whole world-on the Persian Gulf. But I wanted to come over and
talk about economic growth because I am optimistic about the
economic future of this country. One of the things that's going to
lead us out of the recovery is this vital export segment of our
economy. I'm confident that we can expand exports, and I'm
confident that we can expand economic growth, generally. But
we've got to do it through opening world markets and not through
throwing up barriers, not through protection that we might think,
short run, will help somebody here at home but, long run, inevitably,
results in a diminishing of the worth of this country.
As these four [Ambassador Carla A. Hills, US Trade
Representative; Robert A. Mosbacher, US Secretary of Commerce;
Michael J. Boskin, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers; and
Frederick D. McClure, Assistant to the President for Legislative
Affairs] have told you, our economic growth depends on free
markets, and our trade agreements have got to open up these
markets and provide rules for fair and free trade. I'll readily
concede-and so will Carla and Bob-that we have further to go in
terms of the fairness aspect. And we are going to continue to work
on that. For many years, the fast track has allowed us to
successfully negotiate the very important trade agreements in our
history, reducing the barriers to trade and contributing to growth
here and abroad.
We are committed-this Administration is committed to
America's leadership role in the global economy and to the
extension of fast track. We want to continue our active partnership
with the Congress and with the private sector in expanding trade.
Congress has a very special role in international trade. As business
and association leaders-all of you-you've been tremendously helpful
so far, and I want to keep this partnership strong. Fast track will
do this.
It'll also give us the same bargaining power that our
counterparts already enjoy: the ability to ensure that the
agreement reached at the table is the same one voted on at home.
Supporting fast track will allow our important initiatives for
economic growth to go forward. And if a disapproval resolution is
passed by either house, the fast track, for all purposes, is history-
it's gone. And, I would say, with that is our ability to negotiate in
the Uruguay Round, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and
the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative. All vital-vital interests
of the United States of America.
So, a vote against fast track really is a vote against vibrant
international trade. We're doing very, very well with Mexico. Our
relations with Mexico have never been better. I give great credit to
the President of Mexico, Carlos Salinas, and to his trade people,
just as I do to our Secretary of Commerce and to our very able Trade
Representative. They've worked hard and closely with Mexico. It
would be a shame to see special interests in this country gun down
the fast track and, thus, stop us from getting the kind of free trade
agreement with Mexico that is clearly in the interest of US-Mexico
relations and, I think, will benefit all Americans as well.
Clearly, the Hispanic American population revels in the
newfound improved relations with Mexico. I think they would have a
lot at stake in seeing that we have a good, strong agreement with
the fast track leading the way.
We are the world's largest trader. These exports in which
many of you have been so active have become a vital source of
strength to our economy. Even when the economy is weak and slow,
the exports have been profitable and certainly leading the way.
I know we're facing a tough fight
on this in the Congress. I have pledged to you that the White House
will do absolutely everything we can to get the message across to
the Congress as to how important this is.
But the bottom line is simply this: We have before us the
opportunity to expand growth and prosperity for all Americans. We
can look at it selfishly. We can look at it-what's in the best
interest of the American people. I am absolutely convinced that this
fast track, it will lead to the Uruguay Round's successful
conclusion, will lead to the [Enterprise for the] Americas Initiative,
and also will lead to the bilateral agreement with Mexico are in our
fundamental interests.
So I wanted to come over, thank you all for your very, very
important work and urge you to redouble your efforts as we get
down to what will be critical votes in both houses of the US
Congress. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 10, March 11, 1991
Title: Spotlighting Refugee And Displaced Women
Moten
Source: Sarah E. Moten, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
International Assistance and Relief
Description: Address before the 1991 Leadership America Conference,
Department of State, Washington, DC
Date: Mar 5, 19913/5/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Subsaharan Africa, Southeast Asia, East Asia,
Central America
Subject: Refugees, United Nations
[TEXT]
I appreciate your invitation to be with you this evening to discuss,
in general, the world refugee situation, and, in particular, refugee
and displaced women.
Despite several important successes in recent years, such as
the return to their homes after long years in exile of some 43,000
Namibians in 1989 and 100,000 Afghans and 120,000 Nicaraguans in
1990, the global refugee situation continues to be serious, with
some 15 million refugees in the world today-twice the number of a
decade ago-requiring significant levels of humanitarian assistance.
US policy is to seek solutions to conflicts and an end to
persecution so that these persons may return home in safety and
dignity. In the interim, the United States contributes toward their
needs through programs of overseas assistance and of admission of
certain refugees for resettlement in the United States. Central to
these goals is a recognition that refugee problems are matters of
international concern, requiring multilateral solutions.
Accordingly, US policy concerns focus on:
-- Protection and life-sustaining relief for persons who have
fled across international boundaries to seek refuge from
persecution and conflict;
-- Obtaining an effective and timely response from the
international community toward refugees; and
-- Resolutions to the origin of refugee problems.
Regional Overviews
Now let me provide you with a brief overview of the global refugee
situation.
Africa.
There are now over 4 million African
refugees, over 2 million of whom have been in refugee status for
more than 5 years. The situation is complex and dynamic. Many
Sub-Saharan countries, for example, both generate and receive
refugees. In addition, there are more than 4 million internally
displaced persons throughout the continent.
The major African refugee emergency in 1990 was generated
by civil conflict in Liberia, which began in December 1989. By the
end of 1990, more than 750,000 Liberian refugees had sought
asylum in neighboring countries, and another 1.2 million (out of an
original population of 2.5 million) were internally displaced. Some
of the other African refugee populations of concern include:
900,000 Mozambicans in Malawi; more than 450,000 Sudanese in
Ethiopia, the Central African Republic, Zaire, and Uganda; more than
400,000 Somalis in Ethiopia and Djibouti; 370,000 Ethiopians in
Somali; and more than 300,000 Rwandans in five neighboring
countries. The status of first asylum and humanitarian assistance
is growing more uncertain as the constantly increasing number of
persons needing assistance has taxed host countries' ability and
willingness to accept more refugees. In some areas of Malawi, for
example, refugees outnumber nationals.
Near East/South Asia
. The Persian Gulf
crisis generated new assistance requirements for refugees and
displaced persons. More than 1 million third-country nationals fled
Kuwait and Iraq at the onset of the crisis. The United States and
the international community responded to this emergency quickly
and efficiently to provide care and maintenance and repatriation
assistance for this needy population. Anticipating that an outbreak
of hostilities may generate a similar outflow of people,
international relief agencies and donor nations have prepared and
implemented a plan of action which will provide assistance for
hundreds of thousands of displaced persons should the need arise.
Since the initial outflow in 1978, more than 5 million Afghans
have been forced abroad as refugees, while several million more are
internally displaced. Despite Soviet troop withdrawals in 1989,
continued intra-Afghan fighting and war-related damage to the
country's economic and agricultural infrastructure have prevented
most refugees from returning home.
More than 2 million Palestinian refugees are in Gaza, the West
Bank, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan, some of whom have been in
refugee status since the 1947-48 Israeli War of Independence.
East Asia.
There are about 210,000
Vietnamese and Laotian refugees in first asylum camps in
Southeast Asia and approximately 300,000 Cambodian displaced
persons in camps on the Thai-Cambodian border.
In 1989, the United States and more than 50 other nations
adopted a plan for dealing with the situation of asylum seekers
from Vietnam and Laos. The plan emphasizes protection, status
determinations, resettlement in third countries, and voluntary
repatriation. Also in 1989, the international community convened a
conference in Paris to develop a comprehensive political settlement
to the Cambodia problem including coordinated efforts to plan for
the eventual repatriation and reintegration of Cambodian refugees
and displaced persons.
Central America
. Some 100,000 registered
refugees, primarily Guatemalans, Nicaraguans, and Salvadorans, are
spread through Central America and Mexico. The year 1990 saw
significant progress in some complicated refugee problems as a
result of the return to democracy in several refugee-generating
countries.
Refugee and Displaced Women
Let me now turn to a discussion of one of the most vulnerable
populations, a group of individuals that is very important to me:
refugee and displaced women.
Governments and international organizations are beginning to
recognize refugee and displaced women as a group to be integrated
in all phases of protection and assistance efforts. The recent
efforts of one international humanitarian organization are
particularly noteworthy for their efforts related to refugee women-
the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
The International Decade for Women ended in 1985 with a set
of recommendations entitled Nairobi Forward Looking Strategies.
Several international organizations took their cue from the Nairobi
conference and tasked working groups to examine the needs of
women in their mandated areas. UNHCR was no exception. In 1985,
the Subcommittee of the Whole on International Protection
concluded that "refugee women and girls constitute the majority of
the world's refugee population and that many of them are exposed to
special problems in the field of international protection." UNHCR
immediately appealed to governments and other international
organizations to take measures to ensure the physical safety of
refugee women and girls. In 1987, UNHCR established a set of
internal guidelines to improve the protection of refugee women,
and, in 1989, the executive committee requested a progress report
on the implementation of policies and programs to mainstream
refugee women into assistance and protection activities. A revised
and expanded set of internal guidelines was also requested. UNHCR
has contracted a private consultant to compile guidelines for
refugee women which will address implementation measures to be
taken based on the work of the UNHCR and the UN Commission on the
Status of Women.
Last year, the Economic and Social Council passed a
resolution urging governments, UN agencies, and non-governmental
organizations to respond to the special needs of refugee women,
particularly long-stayers and displaced women, through protection
and assistance measures in the areas of health, physical safety,
social services, and income-generating activities. The resolution
emphasized the participation of refugee women in all facets of
planning, design, and project implementation. The year 1991 also
looks like a promising one in terms of advancing the status of
refugee women, particularly with refugee and displaced women as
an agenda item for the UN Commission on the Status of Women.
The human rights of refugee women are mandated under the
1951 convention and 1967 protocol on the status of refugees, as
well as the Geneva conventions and human rights covenants. The UN
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women is also an important tool to advance the cause of
refugee women through adherence to human rights and "fundamental
freedoms on a basis of equality with men."
Refugee women's full and effective participation in the
program activities affecting them is vital to their proper
protection. Governments and international organizations should
take measures to ensure that this happens. For our purposes,
protection activities should include not only legal and diplomatic
measures but actions to provide physical security as well. The
design, planning, and implementation of assistance projects can
negatively impact refugee women and create major protection
concerns if their special needs are not considered. For example, in
camp planning, something as seemingly minute as the location of
communal facilities in a central location under well-lighted
conditions can make the difference between safety and physical
and/or sexual abuse of refugee women and girls.
Although violations of human rights are not unique to refugee
and displaced women, they are especially vulnerable owing to a
variety of conditions: fleeing persecution, social disruption, family
and community detachment, and the fact that they are "strangers in
a strange land." Refugee women have a particularly difficult time
proving their refugee status to authorities (usually male
interviewers), especially if their experience in flight has included
sexual abuse. Female interviewers and trauma counseling also help
address refugee women's needs. An example of a successful
program is the multilateral anti-piracy effort of counseling victims
of violence in Southeast Asia.
Physical safety is also a major concern for refugee women.
Although the extent of sexual abuse is difficult to estimate,
evidence exists that rape, abduction, harassment, prostitution, and
physical violence are all too common in the refugee community.
Opportunities are endless for the powerful to prey on the
vulnerable. Particular occasions that threaten the physical safety
of refugee women include border crossing, status determination,
processing for resettlement, and service distribution, for example,
increased food rations for sexual favors. Female heads of household
or unaccompanied women are particularly vulnerable. Forming
women's groups and refugee committees as well as passing
information to local authorities about the rights of women would do
much to decrease the opportunities for physical abuse.
Refugee women should also have access to their own
identification papers. With proper documentation, refugee women
do not need to prove that they are legally in the country of asylum
and, therefore, will not be as susceptible to physical violence and
sexual abuse.
Assistance activities affect refugee and displaced women in a
number of ways. If the food distribution system and the food basket
are not constructed with the needs of refugee women in mind,
malnutrition can be a serious problem, especially for pregnant or
lactating women. Poor sanitation and contaminated water supplies
can lead to a number of water-borne diseases which affect refugee
women more than the rest of the refugee community owing to the
time spent gathering water, washing clothes, and bathing children.
Certain cultural practices, specifically those in which women eat
last, men eat first, can be a problem. Unless food rations are
distributed directly to refugee women, male food networks have
been known to divert food to resistance forces or the black market.
Milk powder should not be a part of the food basket owing to
problems of clean water availability and the primary health care
preference for breast-feeding. Water and fuel sources must be
conveniently located to minimize the risks taken by refugee women
while undertaking daily chores. Again, as I've emphasized, the full
and effective participation of refugee women in food, water, and
relief supply distribution is absolutely necessary.
Camp planners must consider the accessibility of health
services: the number of female health workers (including refugee
women), clinic hours, and distance to health services. Along with
traditional health concerns of women, mental health services in
refugee camps and settlements should be established to handle the
number of cases of emotional trauma associated with fleeing
persecution, social disruption, physical violence, and lack of
traditional support systems.
Unfortunately, when resources are limited-as they have been
in the recent past-among the first services to be cut are education
and skills-training programs. Refugee women and girls are not
prone to seek training and educational opportunities because of the
lack of available day care facilities, time, and energy.
Organizations should work to train women and girls in traditional
and non-traditional sectors, for example, agriculture, literacy,
numeracy, and opportunities to develop leadership skills.
Traditionally, women have been regarded as reproducers rather than
producers. They are an important economic resource, and, as the
number of female- headed households increases, traditional roles
will change. With the full participation of refugee women,
employment opportunities and income-generating projects should be
considered with the interests of refugee women in mind. Along
with training, direct access to needed resources will enable refugee
women to help themselves.
Conclusion
The importance of female participation in planning and project
implementation of protection and assistance activities cannot be
overemphasized. Cultural constraints of women's participation in
decision making can be overcome through constant communication
with the project beneficiaries: women, children, and men.
Increasing the number of female staff members could do much to
alleviate some of the communication problems caused by an
ignorance of the condition of refugee women and traditional
women's roles. Refugee and displaced women are valuable
resources and should be treated as such.
I would like to close on an upbeat note concerning the
international refugee assistance scene. In November, the United
States and other donor nations were distressed by the unanticipated
resignation of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Thorvald
Stoltenberg, who was asked by Norway's new prime minister to
serve as her deputy and as foreign minister. In December, however,
we were heartened by UN Secretary General Perez de Cuellar's
choice of Professor Sadako Ogata to succeed him. Mrs. Ogata, the
former chairman of the faculty of foreign studies at Sophia
University in Tokyo, recently assumed her duties as high
commissioner.
Her deep commitment to human rights has been demonstrated
recently by her service for the UN Commission on Human Rights, to
which she has reported on the situation in Burma. Japan's past
generous contributions to UNHCR are recognized in Mrs. Ogata's
appointment. We anticipate that she will be influential in
enhancing Japan's generosity. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 10, March 11, 1991
Title: Curbing the Spread Of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Date: Mar 11, 19913/11/91
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq
Subject: Arms Control, International Organizations
[TEXT]
Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons against his people and of
Scud missiles to terrorize civilian populations, as well as the
chilling specter of germ warfare and nuclear weapons, have brought
home the dangers of proliferation to US interests and global peace
and stability.
The United States has taken a major step in its efforts to halt
the spread of these weapons of mass destruction by issuing three
regulations extending export control over chemicals, equipment, and
other material and assistance that can contribute to the spread of
missiles and chemical and biological weapons.
The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction may
profoundly challenge US national security in the 1990s. The new
regulations, as well as multilateral initiatives, will enhance
America's ability to meet that challenge and contribute to the
construction of a new world order.
The regulations are sensitive to the importance of exports to
US economic vitality and will present no unfair limits to legitimate
commerce. And they have been designed to minimize interference
with legitimate international trade.
The expanded US export controls apply to equipment,
chemicals, and whole plants that can be used to manufacture
chemical or biological weapons, as well as to activities of US
exporters or citizens when they know or are informed that their
efforts will assist in a foreign missile or chemical or biological
weapon program.
These regulations implement parts of the executive order on
chemical and biological weapons (CBW) issued by the President last
November and the Enhanced Proliferation Controls Initiative
launched last December.
What the New Rules Do
The first regulation establishes a list of dual-use equipment with
legitimate commercial use but also potential application to
chemical and biological weapons production. Licenses will be
required before any such dual-use equipment can be exported to
countries in the Middle East and Southwest Asia-geographically
from Libya to India-as well as to Bulgaria, Burma, China, Cuba,
North Korea, Romania, South Africa, the Soviet Union, Taiwan, and
Vietnam, whose activities may have CBW implications. The
equipment list, which reflects a 3-month effort involving extensive
consultation with industry, is unprecedented: never have US export
licenses been required for dual-use, CBW-related equipment.
The second regulation expands from 11 to 50 the list of
"precursor chemicals" that require an export license. Similar to
dual-use equipment, these chemicals are commonly used in
commercial products but that have been identified as the
ingredients in the manufacture of chemical weapons. The United
States will join a growing number of Australia Group* members
that require a license to export any of the 50 precursor chemicals
to any country outside the group.
The third regulation provides additional controls, mainly on
exports or other support by US firms or individuals for CBW or
missile programs abroad. Under its terms, if the US government
learns of possible American assistance to such programs, it can
intervene to prevent it. This regulation will impose licensing
requirements in the following circumstances:
-- An American knows that a proposed export or other
assistance is destined for CBW or missile activities in listed
regions, countries, or protect;
-- The US government informs an American that a proposed
export or other assistance is destined for chemical warfare or
missile activities anywhere in the world; or
-- An export of an entire chemical plant that manufactures
any of the 50 chemical precursors, or assistance in designing such a
plant, is destined to any country outside the Australia Group.
The restrictions on participation by Americans in chemical
warfare or missile-related projects is similar to export
restrictions that already apply to biological warfare- and nuclear-
related exports. Civil and criminal penalties can apply to those who
breach the controls.
The regulations providing controls on dual-use equipment and
precursor chemicals already have been the subject of extensive
consultation with industry.
Multilateral Efforts
The United States cannot do the job alone. American experience in
the Gulf has reinforced the lesson that the most effective export
controls are those imposed multilaterally. The United States has,
therefore, initiated vigorous efforts to obtain allied support for
chemical and biological weapon export controls through the
Australia Group, missile export controls in the Missile Technology
Control Regime, and nuclear export controls through consultation
with major nuclear suppliers. These efforts will take advantage of
a growing international consensus to stem the spread of weapons of
mass destruction.
*The Australia Group is a multilateral forum of 20 supplier
countries, including the United States, committed to restricting the
spread of chemical weapons. The group members: Australia,
Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, the European Community,
France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland,
United Kingdom, United States. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 10, March 11, 1991
Title: Current Treaty Actions - February 1991
Date: Feb 29, 19912/29/91
Category: Treaties/Agreements
Region: Pacific, South America, Europe,
MidEast/North Africa, East Asia, Eurasia
Country: USSR (former), Australia, Colombia, Germany,
Israel, South Korea, Mongolia
Subject: Human Rights, International Law,
Resource Management, Nuclear Nonproliferation, Environment,
Media/Telecommunications, Trade/Economics,
Arms Control
[TEXT]
Multilateral
Arbitration
Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral
awards. Done at New York June 10, 1958. Entered into force June 7,
1959; for the US Dec. 29, 1970. TIAS 6997.
Accessions deposited: Guinea, Jan. 23, 1991; Cote d'Ivoire, Feb. 1,
1991.
Human Rights
International covenant on civil and political rights. Done at New
York, Dec. 16, 1966. Entered into force Mar. 23, 1976.1
Accession deposited: Haiti, Feb. 6, 1991.
Judicial Procedure
Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction.
Done at The Hague Oct. 25, 1980. Entered into force Dec. 1, 1983;
for the US July 1, 1988. (Senate) Treaty Doc. 99-11.
Signature: Argentina, Jan. 28, 1991.
Maritime Matters
Convention on the International Maritime Organization, as amended.
Signed at Geneva Mar. 6, 1948. Entered into force Mar. 17, 1958.
TIAS 4044, 6285, 6490, 8606, 10374.
Acceptance deposited: Luxembourg, Feb. 14, 1991.
Nuclear Accidents
Convention on early notification of a nuclear accident. Done at
Vienna Sept. 26, 1986. Entered into force Oct. 27, 1986; for the US
Oct. 20, 1988. (Senate) Treaty Doc. 100-4.
Accession deposited: Food and Agriculture Organization, Oct. 19,
1990.
Convention on assistance in the case of a nuclear accident or
radiological emergency. Done at Vienna Sept. 26, 1986. Entered
into force Feb. 26, 1987; for the US Oct. 20, 1988. (Senate) Treaty
Doc. 100-4.
Accession deposited: Food and Agriculture Organization, Oct. 19,
1990.
Ratification deposited: Italy, Oct. 25, 1990. 2,3
Approval deposited: Finland, Nov. 27, 1990.3
Pollution
Protocol to the 1979 convention on long-range transboundary air
pollution (TIAS 10541) concerning the control of emissions of
nitrogen oxides or their transboundary flukes, with annex. Done at
Sofia Oct. 31, 1988. Entered into force Feb. 14, 1991.
Ratification deposited: Canada, Jan. 25, 1991.
Satellite Communications Systems
Agreement relating to the International Telecommunications
Satellite Organization (INTELSAT), with annexes. Done at
Washington Aug. 20, 1971. Entered into force Feb. 12, 1973. TIAS
7532.
Accession deposited: Cape Verde, Feb. 19, 1991.
Operating agreement relating to the International
Telecommunications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT), with annex.
Done at Washington Aug. 20, 1971. Entered into force Feb. 12, 1973.
TIAS 7532.
Signature: CTT-Empressa Publica dos Correios e Telecomunicacoes
(Cape Verde), Feb. 19, 1991.
Seabed Disarmament
Treaty on the prohibition of the emplacement of nuclear weapons
and other weapons of mass destruction on the seabed and the ocean
floor and in the subsoil thereof. Done at Washington, London, and
Moscow Feb. 11, 1971. Entered into force May 18, 1972. TIAS 7337.
Accession deposited: China, Feb. 28, 1991.4
Sugar
International sugar agreement, 1987, with annexes. Done at London
Sept. 11, 1987. Entered into force provisionally Mar. 24, 1988.
Ratification deposited: Argentina, Jan. 10, 1991.
Taxation-Assistance
Convention on mutual administrative assistance in tax matters.
Done at Strasbourg Jan. 25, 1988.5
Signature: Netherlands, Sept. 25, 1990
Ratification deposited: US, Feb. 13, 1991.
Trade
United Nations convention on contracts for the international sale of
goods. Done at Vienna Apr. 11, 1980. Entered into force Jan. 1,
1988. (52 Fed. Reg. 6262.)
Accession deposited: Guinea, Jan. 23, 1991.
Treaties
Vienna convention on the law of treaties, with annex. Done at
Vienna May 23, 1969. Entered into force Jan. 27, 1980.1
Accession deposited: Suriname, Jan. 31, 1991.
Women
Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against
women. Done at New York Dec. 18, 1979. Entered into force Sept. 3,
1981.1
Signature: Nepal, Feb. 5, 1991.
BILATERAL
Australia
Agreement concerning the Navstar Global Positioning System.
Signed at Washington Feb. 7, 1991. Entered into force Feb. 7, 1991.
Colombia
Agreement on measures to prevent the diversion of essential
chemicals. Signed at Washington Feb. 25, 1991. Enters into force
on the date on which the parties inform each other that they have
completed their constitutional and legal requirements.
European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM)
Agreement extending the agreement of Jan. 28, 1982, as extended
(TIAS 10338), in the field of nuclear material safeguards research
and development. Signed at Brussels and Washington Dec. 18, 1990,
and Feb. 13, 1991. Entered into force Feb. 13, 1991; effective Dec.
31, 1990.
Germany
Agreement extending the agreement of June 8, 1976, as amended
and extended (TIAS 8657), in the field of liquid metal-cooled fast
breeder reactors. Effected by exchange of letters at Washington and
Bonn Jan. 14 and Feb. 7, 1991. Entered into force Feb. 7, 1991;
effective Dec. 31, 1990.
Israel
Agreement on the status of Israeli personnel. Signed at Jerusalem
Jan. 22, 1991. Enters into force upon an exchange of notes
confirming that their respective constitutional requirements have
been met.
Agreement on the status of United States personnel, with annexes
and related letter. Signed at Jerusalem Jan. 22, 1991. Enters into
force upon an exchange of notes confirming that their respective
constitutional requirements have been met.
Korea
Agreement amending the agreement of Sept. 14, 1990, relating to
trade in textiles and textile products. Effected by exchange of
letters at Washington Jan. 24 and Feb. 1, 1991. Entered into force
Feb. 1, 1991.
Agreement amending the mutual logistics support agreement of
June 8, 1988. Signed at Seoul Feb. 5, 1991. Entered into force Feb.
5, 1991.
Mongolia
Agreement on trade relations, with exchange of letters. Signed at
Washington Jan. 23, 1991. Enters into force on the date of exchange
of notices of acceptance by the two governments.
USSR
Treaty on the limitation of underground nuclear weapons tests.
Signed at Moscow July 3, 1974.
Protocol to the treaty of July 3, 1974, on the limitation of
underground nuclear weapon tests. Signed at Washington June 1, 1990.
Treaty on underground nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes,
with agreed minute. Signed at Washington and Moscow May 28, 1976.
Protocol to the treaty of May 28, 1976, on underground nuclear
explosions for peaceful purposes. Signed at Washington June 1,
1990.
Senate advice and consent to ratification: Sept. 25, 1990.
Instrument of ratification signed by the President: Dec. 8, 1990.
Instruments of ratification exchanged: Dec. 11, 1990.
Entered into force: Dec. 11, 1990.
1 Not in force for the US.
2 With declaration(s).
3 With reservation(s).
4 With statements.
5 Not in force.