US Department of State 

Dispatch, Vol 2, No 10, March 11, 1991


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.
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)
Jan. 6-14: London, Paris, Bonn, Milan, Geneva, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, Taif, Cairo, Damascus, Ankara, Ottawa
-- 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.
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).
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
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
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)
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
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.
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.
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]
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Agreement concerning the Navstar Global Positioning System. Signed at Washington Feb. 7, 1991. Entered into force Feb. 7, 1991.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.