US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 19, May 13, 1991
Title: US-German Views on the New European and Trans-
Atlantic Architecture
Baker, Genscher
Source: Secretary Baker, German Foreign Minister
Genscher
Description: Opening remarks following their meeting at the
Department of State, Washington, DC.
Date: May 10, 19915/10/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Europe, E/C Europe, MidEast/North Africa
Country: Germany, United States
Subject: Democratization, NATO, CSCE
[TEXT]
Secretary Baker:
I'm pleased to have had the
opportunity today to welcome my friend Hans-Dietrich Genscher
back to the State Department. We've had a wide-ranging discussion
of a host of different issues focusing primarily on the agenda for
the NATO and CSCE Ministerials that will be held in Copenhagen and
Berlin, respectively, in June.
We talked at some length about relationships between NATO
and the CSCE process and the Soviet Union and the countries of
Central Europe. We had an opportunity to discuss, as well, the
forthcoming visit of Chancellor Kohl to the United States later this
month to visit President Bush.
We have issued, as you know, already issued a joint statement
regarding our discussions this afternoon. We talked about the
situation in Yugoslavia. I reviewed for the Minister the process we
are trying to put together in the Middle East to promote peace, to
promote a conference that would move us in the direction of peace.
We talked about the Minister's recent visit to Iran, and we
talked as well about some bilateral issues. And it's a real pleasure
to have had this opportunity to visit with my friend and colleague,
and we'd be delighted to respond to your questions after he's had an
opportunity to make some remarks.
Foreign Minister Genscher
(through interpreter):
First of all, I should like to express our desire to my friend and
colleague, Jim Baker, the desire that his renewed visit to the Near
and the Middle East will be as successful as possible. Germany has
always, right from the beginning, supported the efforts that the
United States has undertaken in this respect and we once again
extend our support to you for your next visit to that region, because
we believe that the momentum must be maintained, and this, once
again, is very important.
The paper that has been published today--as a result of close
consultations between the American and German side, in order to
prepare the NATO conference and the equally important Berlin CSCE
meeting--is pointing to the fact that both our countries agree as
far as important questions, such as the future of the alliance, the
West-East relationship, the development in Europe and the
relationship with Middle, the Central and East European countries
and the Soviet Union is concerned. And I think that this is a
constructive effort on our part to try to increase the stability in
Europe on the basis of the Paris Charter. And when I speak of
stability in Europe, I'm not only thinking of military stability, but
also of political and economic stability.
I also reported to the Foreign Minister, the Secretary of State,
that is, on the situation and the development in the five new
Laender of the Federal Republic of Germany, the eastern interest in
the development going on in these Laender of the Federal Republic,
and he has made a great contribution toward the establishment of
Germany unity.
We have a great interest in seeing as many American
investors as possible come to that area of Germany, because we
believe that in a couple of years from now they will belong to the
most modern, industrialized areas in Europe. I also invited the
Secretary of State Jim Baker to visit these five new Laender as
soon as possible.
As usual, we have had, and this I can say, on the whole and
totally speaking, friendly, agreeable talks, as always. This visit
today was made possible by the fact that I've been in New York
yesterday and today and that I will be going to South Carolina
tonight to deliver a speech, as I've done in New York today, and I've
used this opportunity to continue our standing exchange of views on
matters of general importance.
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 19, May 13, 1991
Title: Joint Statement: US-German Views on the New European
and Trans-Atlantic Architecture
Baker, Genscher
Source: Secretary Baker, German Foreign Minister
Genscher
Description: Joint Statement, Department of State, Washington, DC.
Date: May 10, 19915/10/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Europe, E/C Europe, MidEast/North Africa
Country: Germany, United States
Subject: Democratization, NATO, CSCE
[TEXT]
Foreign Minister Genscher and Secretary Baker, who met today in
Washington, have had a comprehensive dialogue over the past
months on mutual efforts to address the evolution of the European
and Trans-Atlantic architecture. In particular, they have focused on
the security concerns of Central and East European countries and on
ways to continue to reach out to the USSR so as to demonstrate a
spirit of cooperation.
The success of the ongoing reforms in all fields in Central and
East European countries and the Soviet Union is in the interest of
all 34 CSCE [Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe]
member states. It is an indispensable element of the stability of
Europe as a whole. Foreign Minister Genscher and Secretary Baker
therefore stressed their commitment to encourage this ongoing
reform process.
They also emphasized that stability embraces political,
economic, social and ecological security, as well as the traditional
military dimension. NATO, the European Community, the WEU
[Western European Union], the CSCE, and the Council of Europe are
important cornerstones of European stability. The European
Community is opening up to the new democracies of Central and
Eastern Europe.
Secretary Baker welcomed the 10 principles regarding the
future of Europe as agreed in Prague on April 11, 1991, between
Minister Genscher and Czechoslovak Foreign Minister Dienstbier.
The Minister and the Secretary emphasized in particular the Trans-
Atlantic dimension of European security, the need for the CSCE
process to be given new institutional impetus on the basis of the
Charter of Paris for a New Europe and the necessity to include the
Soviet Union in the European and Trans-Atlantic architecture.
Minister Genscher and Secretary Baker believe the June 6-7
meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Copenhagen and the June 19-20
meeting of CSCE foreign ministers in Berlin offer important opportunities
for constructive initiatives in these areas.
In their 1990 London Declaration, NATO leaders stated that
"the Atlantic community must reach out to the countries of the East
which were our adversaries in the Cold War, and extend to them the
hand of friendship." The upcoming NATO Ministerial meeting should
respond to the interest expressed by the Soviet Union and the new
democracies of Central and Eastern Europe for greater contact with
NATO, in furtherance of this goal. It also should advance NATO's
strategy review and the related development of a European security
and defense identity. In keeping with the London Declaration and
Article 2 of the North Atlantic Treaty, the meeting should also be
used to enhance the political component of the North Atlantic
Alliance. One of the most effective ways to do this will be to
advance concrete ideas for how the Berlin Ministerial can be used to
strengthen CSCE institutions to respond to the political and
security needs of an evolving Europe.
With these goals in mind, Secretary Baker and Foreign
Minister Genscher offer the following ideas as contributions to
these two important ministerial meetings:
I. NATO Strategy Review and the Development of a European
Security Identity
At its London Summit, NATO mandated a thoroughgoing review of its
strategy. The discussions underway, both in NATO and in European
fora, on the development of a European security identity, are an
essential element of this process.
The Alliance's ultimate goal remains the establishment of a
just and lasting order of peace in the whole of Europe. While
striving to develop as far as possible cooperative structures of
security for a Europe whole and free, the Alliance must continue to
perform fundamental security tasks.
As NATO agreed at Brussels in December, "a European security
identity and defense role, reflected in the construction of a
European pillar within the Alliance, will not only serve the
interests of the European states but also help to strengthen
Atlantic solidarity."
In their meeting today, Secretary Baker affirmed that the
United States is ready to support arrangements the European Allies
decide are needed for the expression of a common European foreign,
security, and defense policy.
Minister Genscher affirmed that the Atlantic Alliance as a
whole should be enhanced by strengthening the role of giving added
responsibility to the Europeans in the context of security and
defense policy, and that in that respect a European security and
defense identity should be reflected in the development of a
European pillar within the Alliance.
They both agreed that to ensure this development will
strengthen the integrity and effectiveness of the Atlantic Alliance,
NATO should be the principal venue for consultation and the forum
for agreement on all policies bearing on the security and defense
commitment of its members under the North Atlantic Treaty.
They further agreed that NATO should maintain an effective
integrated military structure to provide for collective defense; and
that appropriate arrangements should be instituted so that all
European members of NATO could participate in some appropriate
manner in the development of a European pillar within the Alliance.
II. NATO Liaison Function
NATO, in its London Summit Declaration, extended the hand of
friendship to the Soviet Union and the countries of Central and
Eastern Europe. In keeping with NATO's historic role as both
guarantor of stability and agent of change, NATO agreed at London to
enhance the political component of the Alliance as provided for by
Article 2 of the North Atlantic Treaty. NATO has undertaken to
expand the East/West dialogue as a means of helping ensure an
enduring peace in a Europe whole and free.
To this end, NATO proposed high-ranking visits, establishment
of a regular diplomatic liaison, and an intensification of military
contacts.
Secretary Baker and Foreign Minister Genscher strongly favor
building upon and developing this liaison function to include more
intensive contacts between NATO and Central/East European states,
as well as the Soviet Union. They believe this can be accomplished
through:
-- High-ranking political visits in both directions;
-- Contacts below the political level in Brussels and in
capitals in the political and military fields, including visits by
delegations of young leaders;
-- Organization of seminars, symposia, and policy planning
sessions, about topics in the security policy field with political and
military participants;
-- Invitation of military officers from the Soviet Union and
Central and Eastern European countries to NATO Academy programs;
-- Establishing training programs at NATO's Defense College
for military officers on issues connected to civilian oversight of
defense;
-- Providing the Soviet Union and Central and East Europeans
with expertise on conversion of defense industries to peaceful
purposes;
-- Participation of Soviet and Central and East European
experts in certain NATO activities, including those related to
NATO's "third dimension," airspace management, or civil emergency
questions;
-- Greater contacts between Soviet and Central and East
European parliaments and the North Atlantic Assembly, as agreed
among the parliamentarians concerned;
-- When further progress has been made, discussing questions
relating to NATO's strategy review;
-- Seeking increased outlets in the USSR and Central and
Eastern Europe for NATO publications; and
-- Proposals for the establishment of "Atlantic Councils" in
those countries.
III. CSCE in the New Europe
Secretary Baker and Foreign Minister Genscher attach great
importance to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in
Europe--the Helsinki Process. The decisions taken at last year's
CSCE Summit in Paris, many of which stem from initiatives
launched at the NATO Summit in London, will help strengthen the
CSCE to meet the challenges of a new era. The meeting of CSCE
ministers this June in Berlin will mark a major opportunity to
reflect and build on those successes.
To enlarge the instruments enabling CSCE to cope with
potential crises, the CSCE Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs
should adopt in Berlin a procedure for calling emergency meetings
of CSCE officials at subministerial level. It should provide for the
possibility of holding an emergency meeting at the request of a
participating state particularly concerned about a serious
emergency situation arising from a violation of a Principle of the
Helsinki Final Act or from a major disruption of another nature.
To ensure that such a mechanism plays a constructive and
effective role in enhancing stability, the request for such an
emergency meeting should be seconded by a number of member
states to be determined. Substantive decisions would, of course,
continue to require the consensus that is at the heart of CSCE's
processes. The ministers should endorse such a mechanism at their
June meeting in Berlin.
The Berlin meeting can also be used to strengthen the Conflict
Prevention Center in order to assist the Council in reducing the risk
of conflict. For this purpose, Ministers should consider in Berlin
the following steps:
-- Meetings of the Center's Consultative Committee should be
held on a more frequent basis, e.g., once or twice during each round
of the CSBM negotiations.
-- The CPC should organize a further seminar on military
doctrines with participation of high-level military representatives.
Other specific topics for future seminars at lower levels might be
discussed.
-- The CPC should be tasked to function as the "nominating
institution" for the CSCE Dispute Settlement Mechanism, which was
worked out by the Valletta Meeting of Experts on Peaceful
Settlement of Disputes and which could be endorsed by the CSCE
Council in Berlin. In this capacity, the CPC could maintain the
register of mediators envisaged under the Valletta proposal and
could help organize the appropriate dispute resolution processes.
-- CPC communication facilities should be endorsed for use
as a "hotline" for emergency communications between CSCE
capitals. Of course, such use of these facilities should be
structured so that it does not interfere with the system's ability to
handle its primary tasks related to the implementation of the
CSBMs agreement and of the CFE Treaty.
In addition to these immediate decisions, Secretary Baker and
Foreign Minister Genscher will ask their counterparts in the CSCE
Council to consider whether, to strengthen CSCE's ability to
facilitate the peaceful resolution of disputes, procedures might be
developed under which ministers could direct the establishment of
fact-finding missions as appropriate.
Secretary Baker and Foreign Minister Genscher also believe
that the Berlin meeting should address the issue of modalities, in
particular the preparatory consultations for the CSCE-wide security
negotiations which will follow the Helsinki Review Conference, on
the basis of proposals developed in the appropriate fora and
endorsed at the NATO Ministerial in
Copenhagen.
Dispatch Supplement
A special Dispatch Supplement containing the text of the Charter of
Paris and the Joint Declaration of 22 States can be purchased for
$1.25 (stock no. 044-000-02308-3) through the Superintendent of
Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 20402-
9325 (tel. 202-783-3238).(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 19, May 13, 1991
Title: Algeria: Iraq's Protecting Power
Tutwiler
Source: Statement by Department Spokesman Margaret
Tutwiler
Description: Washington, DC
Date: May 7, 19915/7/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Algeria
Subject: State Department
Algeria has become the protecting power for Iraq in the United
States.
As President Bush has made clear, we cannot have normal
relations with Iraq so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power.
Establishment of a protecting power will permit us to maintain a
minimal channel of communication with the Iraqi government.
Property. Upon completion of accreditation of the interests
section staff, the Algerians will take over the former Iraqi
chancery which housed the offices of the embassy. The Algerians
will not take over custody of the former residence of the Iraqi
ambassador. Custody of this property will remain with the Office
of Foreign Missions as it has been since March 8.
Interests Section. The Algerians are permitted to use the
former Iraqi chancery for an Iraqi interests section. The interests
section will be staffed by three individuals (two diplomats, one
administrative and technical) who were notified to the United
States on May 7 as members of the Algerian diplomatic mission.
These three are Iraqi nationals who were formerly accredited with
the United States as members of the Iraqi diplomatic mission.
There may also be local employee support staff, individuals who
must be US citizens or resident aliens whose immigration status
permits them to work in the United States.
The interests section will facilitate maintenance of minimal
communications between the United States and Iraq and provide
basic consular services.
Travel Restrictions. Iraqi nationals staffing the interests
section in Washington will continue to be restricted to a 25-mile
zone of free movement. They must seek permission from the
Department of State to travel for any reasons beyond that zone.
(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 19, May 13, 1991
Title: US-Finnish Relations
Bush, Koivisto
Source: Presidents Bush and Koivisto
Description: Remarks upon departure, White House, Washington, DC
Date: May 7, 19915/7/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Europe
Country: Finland
Subject: Trade/Economics, NATO, CSCE, United Nations
[TEXT]
President Bush
President Koivisto, welcome again to the United States. It's a
pleasure to try to return the hospitality you showed President
Gorbachev and me in Helsinki last September. And we're very
grateful for that hospitality, and I'd like to think that meeting was
very constructive.
Our meeting today was only the latest of many exchanges that
we have shared. It's been nearly a decade since you and I first met.
Today, as always, I greatly value your views on world events and
your efforts over many years to build the excellent relationship
between the United States and Finland.
This visit, albeit very brief, gave me an opportunity to thank
you personally for Finland's constructive policy in the Middle East.
Your country's strong leadership in the UN Security Council and the
Iraqi Sanctions Committee last fall and your generous aid to the
people suffering from Iraqi oppression represent Finland's fine
tradition of active partnership in the community of nations.
This sense of responsibility led Finland, within a year of its
admission to the United Nations, to serve as part of the UN
Emergency Force in 1956 following the Suez crisis. Finns have
served bravely in virtually every peace-keeping force since then,
contributing more troops than any other country. Your nation
continues this proud tradition in the current UN observer force in
Kuwait and Iraq.
Finland and the United States enjoy a long and healthy trade
relationship. Today, we touched on some new economic issues,
including the advantages that could come from a Finnish purchase of
our advanced aircraft.
Let it be said in fairness that you made a pitch to us on
several items that might benefit Finland's trade, so this was a
mutual exchange. We also discussed the new Europe, from economic
integration to arms control, from new challenges to the Conference
on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) to the continuing role
of NATO in European security.
The United States and Finland share a deep interest in events
in the Soviet Union. I've always valued the opportunity to exchange
views with President Koivisto, who is a knowledgeable, an expert, a
most perceptive observer of the USSR.
We discussed the very complex situation in the Baltic states.
And I reaffirmed the policy of the United States to support a
process of change through constructive and fair negotiations. We
agreed on the inadmissibility of the use of force and the importance
of pragmatism by all parties in the search for a solution to this
problem of the Baltics.
The United States and Finland will continue to support the
process of reform in the USSR which was initiated by President
Gorbachev. We want to see that process continue. We want to see
it strengthened. And we will be ready to assist the Soviet and
republic governments in attaining the twin goals of democratization
and market economic reform.
Finally, we discussed another issue of major importance to
both of our countries: the transition to free markets and liberal
political systems by the new democracies of Eastern Europe. We
are determined to make every effort to assist them in their historic
quest to remake themselves and find a place in the new Europe.
This must be a priority for all Western countries.
As democratic peoples, Finns and Americans share many
special bonds of friendship. Finns have long added to the American
experience. Mr. President, your countrymen were among the first to
settle in this country 350 years ago, establishing new lives in the
Delaware River valley. Over a century later, John Morton, a Finnish-
American delegate to our Continental Congress, cast the deciding
vote for our Declaration of Independence.
The ideals that led him--liberty and self-government--remain
dear to both our nations. Just look to Philadelphia, 1776, and
Helsinki, 1917. And since that time we've enjoyed over 70 years of
warm diplomatic relations. And I look forward to continuing this
friendship.
May God bless the people of Finland and the United States.
Thank you, sir.
President Koivisto
Mr. President. Let me first thank you, Mr. President, for the
excellent hospitality extended to me and my party here in
Washington. We enjoyed our stay very much. It was also a great
pleasure to meet you again and exchange views on the changing
world situation.
When we last met in Helsinki in September at the American-
Soviet top-level meeting on the Persian Gulf, the world was facing
a direct challenge to the rule of law. The Iraqi aggression was
repelled by the coalition. Kuwait is now free. Finland faced its
responsibility in the UN Security Council in its decision to thwart
the aggression. And now work must continue to build a new,
equitable world.
Finland and the United States are different in many ways, yet
we share the same values of freedom, democracy, justice, and
human rights. We both want to see the world based on these
fundamental principles. But principles are not enough. The
economic, social, and the ecological problems can only be overcome
through determined international cooperation.
For Finland, developments in Europe and particularly in our
vicinity are of vital importance. While we must encourage progress
everywhere toward our shared values, we must at the same time
maintain stability. Reform efforts in Eastern Europe, including the
Soviet Union, now need our support. With the Cold War behind us, no
new devices must be drawn, but avenues of cooperation be opened
for all.
We have also discussed the role of institutions which would
promote stability and change in Europe. One of them is the CSCE, or
the Helsinki, process. I have invited President Bush and the other
32 leaders of Europe and North America to Helsinki for the next
CSCE follow-up meeting due to begin in March 1992.
Mr. President, the review of our bilateral agenda showed that
our relations are, indeed, in excellent shape. There is mutual
appreciation and recognition of our respected roles in world affairs.
There are long-standing bonds of friendship between our people.
And there are good prospects for expanding the Finnish-American
partnership.
I shall leave Washington with warm sentiments about our old
and steady friendship. I hope to see you, Mr. President, and Mrs.
Bush again in Finland in the not-too-distant future. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 19, May 13, 1991
Title: Country Profile: Finland
Date: May 7, 19915/7/91
Category: Country Data
Region: Europe
Country: Finland
Subject: History, Trade/Economics,
International Organizations
[TEXT]
Official Name: Republic of Finland
Geography
Area: 337,113 sq. km. (130,160 sq. mi.); about the size of New
England, New Jersey, and New York combined.
Cities: Capital--Helsinki (pop. 484,399). Other cities--Tampere
(167,335), Turku (163,655).
Terrain: Low but hilly, more than 70% forested, with more than
60,000 lakes. Climate: Cool; mean annual temperature in Helsinki
(1977--86) +50C (410F); July +170C (630F); January -60C (210F).
People
Nationality: Noun--Finn(s). Adjective--Finnish.
Population (1989): 5 million.
Annual growth rate (1989): 0.4%.
Ethnic groups: Finns, Swedes, Lapps, Gypsies, Tartars.
Religions (1987): Lutheran 89%, Orthodox 1%.
Languages: Finnish 94%, Swedish 6%. Education: Years compulsory--
9. Attendance--almost 100%. Literacy--almost 100%.
Health (1989): Infant mortality rate--
6/1,000. Life expectancy--males 71 yrs., females 79 yrs.
Work force (1989) 2.5 million: Agriculture--9%. Industry,
commerce, and finance--53%. Services (public and personal)--25%.
Government--5%. Transport (storage and communication)--7%.
Government
Type: Constitutional republic.
Constitution: July 17, 1919.
Independence: December 6, 1917.
Branches: Executive--president (chief of state), prime minister
(head of government), Council of State (cabinet). Legislative--
unicameral parliament. Judicial--Supreme Court, regional appellate
courts, local courts.
Subdivisions: 12 provinces, provincial self-rule for the Aland
Islands.
Political parties: Four largest, in order: Social Democratic Party
(SDP), National Coalition (Conservative) Party, Center Party, Leftist
Alliance.
Central government budget (1989): $29 billion.
Defense (1989): 1.4% of GDP.
Flag: Light blue cross on a white field.
Economy
GDP (1989): $115 billion.
Annual growth rate: 5% (GDP).
Per capita income (1989 est.): $23,153. Inflation rate (1990): 5.4%.
Natural resources: Forests, minerals (copper, zinc, iron), farmland.
Agriculture (3% of GDP): Products--meat (pork and beef), grain
(wheat, rye, barley, oats), dairy products, potatoes, rapeseed.
Industry (27% of GDP): Types--metal and steel, forest, foodstuffs,
textile and clothing.
Trade (1989): Exports--$23 billion: paper and paperboard, machinery
and equipment, ships, lumber, woodpulp, chemicals. Major markets-
-USSR 15%, Sweden 14%, UK 12%, FRG 10%, US 6%. Imports--$25
billion: fuels and lubricants, machinery and equipment, including
motor vehicles, basic manufactures, chemicals; foodstuffs. Major
suppliers--FRG 17%, Sweden 14%, USSR 11%, US 6%.
Fiscal year: Calendar year.
International Affiliations
UN and some of its specialized and related agencies, including the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD),
International Monetary Fund (IMF), International Finance Corporation
(IFC), International Development Association (IDA); General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT); Bank for International
Settlements (BIS); Asian Development Bank; Inter-American
Development Bank (IDB); Council of Europe; Nordic Council; European
Free Trade Association (EFTA); European Community (EC);
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD);
INTELSAT. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 19, May 13, 1991
Title: Country Profile: Laos
Date: May 13, 19915/13/91
Category: Country Data
Region: Southeast Asia
Country: Laos
Subject: History, International Organizations,
Trade/Economics
[TEXT]
Official Name: People's Democratic Republic of Laos
Geography
Area: 235,804 sq. km. (91,430 sq. mi.); smaller than Oregon.
Capital--Vientiane (pop. est. 155,000). Other cities--Savannakhet,
Luang Prabang, Pakse, Thakhek.
Terrain: Rugged mountains, dense jungle, plateaus.
Climate: Tropical monsoon.
People
Nationality: Noun and adjective--Lao (sing. and pl.).
Population (1989): 3.9 million.
Annual growth rate: 2.6%.
Density: 16/sq. km. (41.6/sq. mi.).
Ethnic groups: Lao 48%, tribal Thai 14%, Sino-Tibetan tribes,
including the Hmong (Meo) and Yao 13%, Mon-Khmer tribes 25%,
Vietnamese and Chinese less than 1%.
Languages: Lao (official).
Education: Literacy--45% (government claims 60% among persons aged 15-45).
Health: Infant mortality rate--
110/1,000. Life expectancy--48 yrs.
Work force (1.5 million): Agriculture--85%. Industry--6%.
Government
Type: Communist.
Branches: Executive--president (head of state); Chairman, Council
of Ministers (prime minister and head of government); 84-member
cabinet (including vice ministers). Legislative--Supreme People's
Assembly. Judicial--mixture of regular and "people's courts," the
latter for security cases.
Political party: Lao People's Revolutionary Party (only legal party).
Administrative subdivisions: In 1983, the number of provinces was
increased from 13 to 17.
Central government budget (1989): $36 million. Expenditures--$106
million.
Flag: A red band at the top and bottom with a larger blue band
between them, on which is centered a large white circle.
National Day: December 2.
Economy
GNP (1990 est.): $650 million.
Per capita income: $160.
Natural resources: Tin, timber, gypsum, hydroelectric power.
Industry (8% of GNP): Types--tin and gypsum mining, lumber,
textiles, construction.
Trade: Exports--$63 million (1989 est.): chiefly hydroelectric
power and timber; also coffee and tin. Major markets--Thailand,
Eastern Europe, USSR. Imports--$198 million (1989 est.):
foodstuffs, petroleum, machinery, manufactured goods. Major
suppliers--Thailand, Singapore, Eastern Europe, USSR.
Foreign debt (1984): $1 billion (70% owed to socialist countries).
Fiscal year: July 1-June 30.
(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 19, May 13, 1991
Title: Joint US-Laos Statement
Boucher
Source: State Department Deputy Spokesman Richard
Boucher
Description: Washington, DC
Date: May 8, 19915/8/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Southeast Asia
Country: Laos
Subject: Human Rights, POW/MIA Issues.
[TEXT]
Delegations from the Lao People's Democratic Republic and the
United States of America met in Vientiane on May 4, 1991, to
discuss common humanitarian issues. This meeting was a follow-
on to the high-level bilateral discussions held on April 17, 1991,
between Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Soubanh Srithirath and
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Carl Ford.
Mrs. Kanika Phommachanh, Director of Department Two of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, led the Lao side, which included
representatives from the Ministries of Defense and Foreign Affairs.
Charge d'Affaires Charles B. Salmon, Jr., led the US delegation,
which included representatives from the Defense Department's
Office of POW/MIA Affairs, technical experts on the POW/MIA issue
from the Joint Casualty Resolution Center and the US Army Central
Identification Laboratory, both located in Hawaii. Both delegations
lauded the improvement in bilateral relations in the past few years
and expressed hope that this improvement would continue.
A comprehensive US proposal for POW/MIA activities was
discussed, and the Lao delegation agreed to conduct jointly the
proposed investigations of discrepancy cases, grave site
surveys/recoveries, and to expand the surveys and excavations of
aircraft crash sites. The United States expressed its deep
appreciation for Laos' cooperation in this humanitarian area and the
hope that the expanded program of POW/MIA activities would be
successfully accomplished.
The Lao delegation expressed its sincere appreciation for
prior US humanitarian assistance and for additional such assistance
during the remainder of 1991, including Title 10 school
construction projects, medical equipment and supplies, and medical
civic action programs. The United States reaffirmed its
commitment to assist in addressing Lao humanitarian concerns.
The talks were constructive and productive and held in a
spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation and in an atmosphere
of improving bilateral relations. On May 3, 1991, the US delegation
paid a courtesy call on Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Soubanh
Srithirath. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 19, May 13, 1991
Title: Current Treaty Actions, May 1991
Date: May 13, 19915/13/91
Category: Treaties/Agreements
Region: Caribbean, East Asia, Southeast Asia,
Central America, Europe
Country: Japan, Thailand, France, United Kingdom,
Panama
Subject: Security Assistance and Sales,
Resource Management, Democratization, State Department,
International Law
[TEXT]
MULTILATERAL
Agriculture--Diseases
International agreement for the creation at Paris of the
International Office for Epizootics, with annex. Done at Paris Jan.
25, 1924. Entered into force Jan. 17, 1925; for the US July 29,
1975. TIAS 8141; 26 UST 1840.
Accessions deposited: Albania, Feb. 11, 1991; Namibia, Dec. 10,
1990.
Defense
Amendment No. 2 to the memorandum of understanding of Oct. 24,
1978, as amended, for the cooperative support of the 76/62 OTO
Melara Compact Gun (OMCG). Signed at Cosham (UK), Madrid, and
Rome May 30, June 22, Aug. 24, and Nov. 8, 1990. Entered into force
Nov. 8, 1990.
Signatures: US, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, and Turkey,
June 22, 1990; UK, May 30, 1990; Spain, Aug. 24, 1990; Italy, Nov. 8,
1990.
Memorandum of understanding for exchanges of information
regarding third-generation anti-tank guided missiles. Signed at
Washington, London, Paris, and Bonn Jan. 30, Feb. 13, and Mar. 7,
1991. Entered into force Mar. 7, 1991.
Signatures: US, Jan. 30, 1991; France, Feb. 13, 1991; Germany, Mar.
7, 1991; UK, Jan. 30, 1991.
Diplomatic Relations
Optional protocol to the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations
concerning the compulsory settlement of disputes. Done at Vienna
Apr. 18, 1961. Entered into force Apr. 24, 1964; for the US Dec. 13,
1972. TIAS 7502.
Accession deposited: Kuwait, Feb. 21, 1991.
Judicial Procedure
Convention abolishing the requirement of legalization for foreign
public documents, with annex. Done at The Hague Oct. 5, 1961.
Entered into force Jan. 24, 1965; for the US Oct. 15, 1981. TIAS
10072.
Accession deposited: Panama, Oct. 30, 1990.1
Convention on the law applicable to trusts and on their recognition.
Done at The Hague July 1, 1985.2
Territorial Application: Extended by the UK to Montserrat, Jan. 10,
1991.
BILATERAL
Cuba
Agreement amending the agreement of May 30, 1977 (TIAS 9313),
relating to the establishment of Interests Sections of the United
States and Cuba in the Embassy of Switzerland in Havana and the
Embassy of Czechoslovakia in Washington, respectively. Effected by
exchange of notes at Washington Feb. 15 and 25, 1991. Entered into
force Feb. 25, 1991; effective Apr. 1, 1991.
France
Agreement on matters relating to fishing in the economic zones of
the French overseas territories of New Caledonia and Wallis and
Futuna Islands. Signed at Washington Mar. 1, 1991. Enters into
force Nov. 1, 1991.
Japan
Agreement amending the exchange of letters to the treaty of mutual
cooperation and security of Jan. 19, 1960 (TIAS 4509). Effected by
exchange of notes at Tokyo Dec. 26, 1990. Entered into force Dec.
26, 1990.
Agreement amending the agreement and memorandum of
understanding of Mar. 31, 1989, as amended, concerning the
acquisition and production in Japan of the SH-60J and UH-60J
aircraft. Effected by exchange of notes at Tokyo Mar. 29, 1991.
Entered into force Mar. 29, 1991.
Agreement amending the agreement of Mar. 27, 1990, concerning the
acquisition and production in Japan of the sparrow missile system
(AIM-7M). Effected by exchange of notes at Tokyo Mar. 29, 1991.
Entered into force Mar. 29, 1991.
Agreement concerning new special measures relating to Article
XXIV of the agreement of Jan. 19, 1960, under Art. VI of the treaty
of mutual cooperation and security regarding facilities and areas
and the status of US armed forces in Japan (TIAS 4510), with
agreed minutes. Signed at Washington Jan. 14, 1991. Entered into
force Apr. 17, 1991.
Panama
Arrangement for support and assistance from the US Coast Guard
for the National Maritime Service of the Ministry of Government and
Justice. Signed at Panama Mar. 18, 1991. Entered into force Mar.
18, 1991.
Treaty on mutual assistance in criminal matters, with annex and
appendix. Signed at Panama Apr. 11, 1991. Enters into force upon
the exchange of instruments of ratification.
Thailand
Treaty relating to extradition. Signed at Washington Dec. 14, 1983.
[Senate] Treaty Doc.
98-16.
Instruments of ratification exchanged: Apr. 17, 1991.
Entered into force: May 17, 1991.
United Kingdom
Agreement extending the agreement of May 14, 1987, as extended,
concerning Montserrat and narcotics activities, with annex and
forms. Effected by exchange of notes at Washington Feb. 26, 1991.
Entered into force Feb. 26, 1991; effective Mar. 1, 1991.
1 With designations.
2 Not in force. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 19, May 13, 1991
Title: Focus on Central and Eastern Europe: Summary of
Initiatives
Date: May 13, 19915/13/91
Category: Focus on Emerging Democracies
Region: E/C Europe
Country: Romania, Albania, Bulgaria,
Czechoslovakia (former), Hungary, Poland, Yugoslavia (former)
Subject: Trade/Economics, Development/Relief Aid,
Human Rights, Environment
[TEXT]
IMF Increases Loans to Region
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is taking a lead role in
encouraging market-oriented reforms in Central and Eastern Europe
and is providing substantial resources. Since January 1991, it has
completed agreements with Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary,
Poland, and Romania that will provide about $8.4 billion over the
next 3 years to those countries, $5 billion of which will be
forthcoming this year.
The most recent agreement, approved by the IMF Board on
April 18, will provide Poland with about $2.5 billion in financing
over 3 years in support of a comprehensive program of economic
stabilization and structural adjustment. Additional financing is
included in this package to ease the pressure of higher-than-
expected oil and natural gas prices in the wake of Iraq's invasion of
Kuwait.
The IMF loan to Poland continues to have tough conditions: the
Polish government must pursue tight monetary and fiscal policies,
strengthen the private banking sector, privatize state-owned
industries, liberalize trade, and continue other structural economic
reforms. Half of state-owned companies are to be put into private
hands by the end of 1993. A major policy objective is to cut
inflation, which was more than 17% in the final 3 months of 1990
and 250% for 1990. The goal is a rate of 1% a month during the
second half of 1991, 36% for all of 1991, and under 10% by 1993.
Private bankers welcomed the Polish accord. Poland must
"have an IMF agreement to proceed with the next steps for their
recovery," said Peter McPherson, executive vice president of Bank of
America.
The latest IMF efforts come when every Central and East
European country is suffering from serious declines in output and,
in some cases, rising inflation. In 1990, gross domestic product
plunged by about 12% in Bulgaria and Poland, 10% in Romania and
Yugoslavia, 3% in Czechoslovakia, and between 2% and 5% in
Hungary. IMF officials admit that the impact of economic reforms
in the region has been, and will continue to be, more severe than
anyone imagined when the countries overthrew the communists.
Approaches to dealing with economic reforms in the region and
their effect on the global economy were one of the key subjects
when the IMF's policy-making Interim Committee and the joint
World Bank and IMF Development Committee met in Washington
April 29 and 30.
IMF financing for Central and Eastern Europe will constitute
about 30% of the $17 billion in official bilateral and multilateral
assistance flowing to that region this year. In addition to the IMF's
$5 billion, about $2.7 billion will come from the World Bank, some
$3.6 billion from the Group of 24 industrial countries that have
promised to aid reforms, and the remaining $6 billion in the form of
debt relief.
Yugoslavia's drawings on IMF financing were suspended in
mid-1990 following that country's failure to meet the conditions of
a March 1990 accord signed with the IMF.
Although the IMF's experience with Central and Eastern Europe
has been fairly recent, IMF officials are developing a "regional
view" on how to approach problems in the area.
First, stabilization efforts and structural reform must be
comprehensive and implemented rapidly. A piecemeal approach does
not work.
Second, reform efforts have considerable costs in terms of
lost output and higher inflation that are difficult to avoid.
Therefore, social "safety nets" are needed to protect the people
most affected by the reforms.
Third, certain countries, such as Hungary and Poland, have
been able to switch faster than anticipated from reliance on trade
with neighboring countries to trade with the West.
IMF officials believe that the sharp output declines of 1990
will not be repeated this year and that modest growth in the range
of 2%-4%, depending on the country, will resume in 1992. The
output declines and slow recoveries are not surprising when one
realizes that the degree of structural change being implemented is
unprecedented in the post-World War II period.
Common to all IMF programs in Central and Eastern Europe is
reliance on tight monetary and fiscal policies to control inflation,
liberalization of prices and trade restrictions, and selling state-
owned enterprises, as in the case of Poland. IMF officials say the
potential for productivity growth and investment in Central and
East European countries is enormous.
Following is a brief outline of recent IMF financial assistance
to the region:
Albania
Albania has applied for IMF membership.
Bulgaria
.
In March 1991, the IMF approved a standby program of about $381
million. Under a standby program, the IMF lends resources in
quarterly installments to support economic-reform efforts,
following the country's fulfillment of various economic-
performance criteria negotiated with the IMF. In
February, under the Fund's Compensatory and Contingency Financing
Facility (CCFF), the IMF approved some $83 million to cover the
excess costs of oil imports in 1991.
Czechoslovakia
.
In January 1991, a standby program of about $845 million was
approved along with an additional $660 million in CCFF financing.
This was the first use of IMF financing by Czechoslovakia since
rejoining the IMF last year.
Hungary
.
CCFF financing amounting to $309 million was approved in January
1991. In February, a 3-year loan of about $1.1 billion was approved
under the Extended Fund Facility (EFF). EFF programs are similar to
standby programs in that disbursements are contingent upon policy
performance, but EFF programs are longer and generally contain a
stronger structural-reform component.
Poland
.
In April, the IMF approved a 3-year EFF program of $2.5 billion and
about $222 million under the CCFF.
Romania
.
CCFF financing of about $286 million was approved in March 1991,
the first IMF financing for Romania since 1984. A standby program
of about $750 million was approved in April.
Yugoslavia.
A $628-million standby arrangement was approved in March 1990.
Yugoslavia made one drawing of about $90 million but was
ineligible to make additional drawings due to its failure to comply
with IMF conditions.
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
Austria, Canada, Finland, France, Japan, and Sweden have committed
additional funding to the new European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (EBRD) to finance technical aid projects in Central and
Eastern Europe. (Taiwan, which is not a shareholder, also will
provide funds.) The bank was created in 1990 and held its inaugural
meeting in its London headquarters April 15-16, 1991.
On March 28, 1991, the United States formally ratified the
articles of agreement establishing the EBRD. The United States will
hold 10% of the capital of the newly formed institution. The paid-in
portion of the US subscription to EBRD shares for fiscal year 1991
is $70 million.
For more information about the EBRD, contact the Office of
Public Relations, EBRD, 6 Broadgate, London EC2M 2QS, United
Kingdom (Tel: 011-4471-496-0060).
Romania
Peace Corps.
The Peace Corps is currently training in Bucharest 14 US volunteers
who will soon serve in several orphanages in Moldavia Province to
help with early childhood development, special education, and
reintegration of the children and the orphanages into their
communities.
For more information about this program, call the Peace
Corps' Toby Lester at 202-606-3547.
Children's Programs
.
Five proposals from private voluntary organizations (PVOs) to
assist Romanian children are being considered for funding under the
fiscal year 1991 PVO Initiatives Grant Program. The proposals
total $3.3 million. During FY 1990, the following was done:
-- A $2-million grant to the UN Children's Fund;
-- A $2-million cooperative agreement with a consortium of
US PVOs (Private Agencies Collaborating Together, Project Concern,
and World Vision), which expects to generate an additional $9
million in resources from private sources; and
-- A $325,000 subgrant from Private Agencies Collaborating
Together (PACT) to the Holt International Children's Service for
adoption-related activities in Romania. The focus of the 2-year
program is to train Romanians to help Romanian children live with
their new parents.
Family Planning
.
A US medical team headed by former US Surgeon General Julius
Richmond went to Romania March 10-23 to assess family planning
practices and issues related to women's reproductive health and to
recommend family planning assistance. The team was organized by
the Boston-based PVO Trust Through Health, Inc. A $1.5-million
grant was given to the Centre for Development and Population
Assistance on March 12. It will undertake an 18-month program of
training, technical assistance, commodity procurement, and
institutional support to the Romanian family-planning association
called the Society for Education,
Contraception, and Sexuality.
Private Voluntary Organizations (PVOs):
.
The following PVOs work in Romania.
-- PACT leads a consortium comprising PACT, Project
Concern International (PCI), World Vision Relief and Development
(WVRD), and Holt International Children's Services in a 2-year
project to professionalize the child-welfare system within the
Romanian health system. Major objectives are to provide physical,
psychological, and social rehabilitation services to infant, child,
and adolescent populations and to facilitate adoption of children in
institutions.
For more information, call David Williams (PACT: 202-466-
5666), Arlene Lear (PCI: 202-667-5128), Lynn Belland (WVRD:
202-547-3743), or Susan Cox (Holt: 503-683-6175).
-- World Vision Relief and Development--Romania: A
3-year program to expand and strengthen ongoing field programs in
Romania such as training of health-care professionals and lay care
providers to deliver comprehensive services to the handicapped, and
to initiate a community-based health-care network in the
underserved areas of Moldavia and Transylvania.
For additional information, call Lynn Belland at
202-547-3743.
-- Feed the Children--Romania: A 3-year project to
rehabilitate five Romanian institutions housing severely disabled
children and adults, to provide emergency and on-going supplies of
food, medical, and non-medical relief commodities, and to develop
long-term support systems in collaboration with the Free Romania
Foundation.
For more information, call Kenneth Wood at 202-543-0695.
-- Project Concern International--Romania: A 3-year
program to provide direct medical services to children in 17
institutions for the severely handicapped and training of local
medical-service providers in 30 maternity hospitals and 5
communities.
For additional information, call Arlene Lear at 202-667-5128.
-- Operation Smile--Romania: A 2-year program to
aid deformed and disfigured children through reconstructive surgery
and to provide education and training through hands-on experience
and medical symposia to Romanian surgeons, nurses,
anesthesiologists, dentists, students, and other health-care
professionals to upgrade their skills so they can provide better care
for the Romanian population.
For more information, call Judy Ford at 619-279-9690.
Resource Guide Released
Solid opportunities exist for US private companies to carve out
niches and to compete in a new $38-billion market created by the
fall of communism in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Almost all
products and services are needed, with priorities in consumer
goods, environmental protection equipment, telecommunications,
tourism and services, banking, insurance, training and management
consulting, and medical equipment and technology.
While the US government has initiated programs to help
Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Yugoslavia,
it is expected that private US initiatives will play a greater role.
The State Department, in cooperation with other US agencies,
has just released Resource Guide to Doing Business in Central and
Eastern Europe. This 40-page pamphlet describes the bilateral and
multilateral support mechanisms that are in place to encourage the
CEE countries to move toward democracy and market economies.
It describes how to approach the CEE market and warns about
some problem areas. It provides a thorough list of contacts (with
mailing address and telephone/fax numbers) that businesses can
turn to for information and guidance:
-- US government agencies in Washington;
-- US embassies in the CEE countries;
-- CEE Trade Development Offices in the US; and
-- Commerce Department's US and Foreign Commercial
Service District Offices in the 50 states.
Finally, the Guide offers a selection of publications--official
and private--concerning the Central and East European countries and
how to do business there.
To order your copy of Resource Guide to Doing Business in
Central and Eastern Europe, use the order form on following
page.(###)