US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 29, July 22, 1991
Title: Group of Seven (G-7) Summit Declarations
Description: Texts of the economic, political and arms control
declarations issued at the close of the London Economic
Summit, London, England
Date: Jul 17, 19917/17/91
Country: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
United Kingdom, United States, USSR (former), Israel,
Iraq, South Africa, Hungary, Poland, Romania,
Czechoslovakia (former), Yugoslavia (former),
Egypt
Subject: Trade/Economics, International Organizations,
Resource Management, EC, Environment, Narcotics,
Immigration, Arms Control,
Nuclear Nonproliferation
[TEXT]
Building World Partnership
1. We, the Heads of State and Government of the seven major
industrial democracies and the representatives of the European
Community, met in London for our 17th annual Summit.
2. The spread of freedom and democracy which we celebrated
at Houston has gathered pace over the last year. Together the
international community has overcome a major threat to world
peace in the Gulf. But new challenges and new opportunities
confront us.
3. We seek to build world partnership, based on common
values, and to strengthen the international order. Our aim is to
underpin democracy, human rights, the rule of law and sound
economic management, which together provide the key to
prosperity. To achieve this aim, we will promote a truly
multilateral system, which is secure and adaptable and in which
responsibility is shared widely and equitably. Central to our aim is
the need for a stronger, more effective UN system, and for greater
attention to the proliferation and transfer of weapons.
Economic Policy
4. Over the last year, some of our economies have maintained
good growth, while most have slowed down and some gone into
recession. But a global recession has been avoided. The uncertainty
created by the Gulf crisis is behind us. We welcome the fact that
there are now increasing signs of economic recovery. Progress has
been made too in reducing the largest trade and current account
imbalances.
5. Our shared objectives are a sustained recovery and price
stability. To this end, we are determined to maintain, including
through our economic policy coordination process, the medium-term
strategy endorsed by earlier Summits. This strategy has contained
inflationary expectations and created the conditions for sustainable
growth and new jobs.
6. We therefore commit ourselves to implement fiscal and
monetary policies, which, while reflecting the different situations
in our countries, provide the basis for lower real interest rates. In
this connection, continued progress in reducing budget deficits is
essential. This, together with the efforts being made to reduce
impediments to private saving, will help generate the increase in
global savings needed to meet demands for investment. We also
welcome the close cooperation on exchange markets and the work to
improve the functioning of the international monetary system.
7. We will also, with the help of the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and other
institutions, pursue reforms to improve economic efficiency and
thus the potential for growth. These include:
a) greater competition in our economies, including regulatory
reform. This can enhance consumer choice, reduce prices and ease
burdens on business.
b) greater transparency, elimination or enhanced discipline in
subsidies that have distorting effects, since such subsidies lead to
inefficient allocation of resources and inflate public expenditure.
c) improved education and training, to enhance the skills and
improve the opportunities of those both in and out of employment,
as well as policies contributing to greater flexibility in the
employment system.
d) a more efficient public sector, for example through higher
standards of management and including possibilities for
privatisation and contracting out.
e) the wide and rapid diffusion of advances in science and
technology.
f) essential investment, both private and public, in
infrastructure.
8. We will encourage work nationally and internationally to
develop cost-effective economic instruments for protecting the
environment, such as taxes, charges and tradeable permits.
International Trade
9. No issue has more far-reaching implications for the future
prospects of the world economy than the successful conclusion of
the Uruguay Round. It will stimulate non-inflationary growth by
bolstering confidence, reversing protectionism and increasing trade
flows. It will be essential to encourage the integration of
developing countries and Central and East European nations into the
multilateral trading system. All these benefits will be lost if we
cannot conclude the Round.
10. We therefore commit ourselves to an ambitious, global
and balanced package of results from the Round, with the widest
possible participation by both developed and developing countries.
The aim of all contracting parties should be to complete the Round
before the end of 1991. We shall each remain personally involved in
this process, ready to intervene with one another if differences can
only be resolved at the highest level.
11. To achieve our objectives, sustained progress will be
needed in the negotiations at Geneva in all areas over the rest of
this year. The principal requirement is to move forward urgently in
the following areas taken together:
a) market access, where it is necessary, in particular, to cut
tariff peaks for some products while moving to zero tariffs for
others, as part of a substantial reduction of tariffs and parallel
action against non-tariff barriers.
b) agriculture, where a framework must be decided upon to
provide for specific binding commitments in domestic support,
market access and export competition, so that substantial
progressive reductions of support and protection may be agreed in
each area, taking into account non-trade concerns.
c) services, where accord on a general agreement on trade in
services should be reinforced by substantial and binding initial
commitments to reduce or remove existing restrictions on services
trade and not to impose new ones.
d) intellectual property, where clear and enforceable rules
and obligations to protect all property rights are necessary to
encourage investment and the spread of technology.
12. Progress on these issues will encourage final agreement
in areas already close to conclusion, such as textiles, tropical
products, safeguards and dispute settlement. Agreement to an
improved dispute settlement mechanism should lead to a
commitment to operate only under the multilateral rules. Taken all
together, these and the other elements of the negotiations,
including GATT rule-making, should amount to the substantial,
wide-ranging package which we seek.
13. We will seek to ensure that regional integration is
compatible with the multilateral trading system.
14. As we noted at Houston, a successful outcome of the
Uruguay Round will also call for the institutional reinforcement of
the multilateral trading system. The concept of an international
trade organization should be addressed in this context.
15. Open markets help to create the resources needed to
protect the environment. We therefore commend the OECD's
pioneering work in ensuring that trade and environment policies are
mutually supporting. We look to the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (GATT) to define how trade measures can properly be used
for environmental purposes.
16. We are convinced that OECD members must overcome in
the near future and, in any case, by the end of the year, remaining
obstacles to an agreement on reducing the distortions that result
from the use of subsidized export credits and of tied aid credits.
We welcome the initiative of the OECD in studying export credit
premium systems and structures and look forward to an early
report.
Energy
17. As the Gulf crisis showed, the supply and price of oil
remain vulnerable to political shocks, which disturb the world
economy. But these shocks have been contained by the effective
operation of the market, by the welcome increase in supplies by
certain oil-exporting countries and by the actions coordinated by
the International Energy Agency (IEA), particularly the use of
stocks. We are committed to strengthen the IEA's emergency
preparedness and its supporting measures. Since the crisis has led
to improved relations between producers and consumers, contacts
among all market participants could be further developed to
promote communication, transparency and the efficient working of
market forces.
18. We will work to secure stable worldwide energy supplies,
to remove barriers to energy trade and investment, to encourage
high environmental and safety standards and to promote
international cooperation on research and development in all these
areas. We will also seek to improve energy efficiency and to price
energy from all sources so as to reflect costs fully, including
environmental costs.
19. In this context, nuclear power generation contributes to
diversifying energy sources and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
In developing nuclear power as an economic energy source, it is
essential to achieve and maintain the highest available standards of
safety, including in waste management, and to encourage
cooperation to this end throughout the world. The safety situation
in Central and Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union deserves
particular attention. This is an urgent problem and we call upon the
international community to develop an effective means of
coordinating its responses.
20. The commercial development of renewable energy sources
and their integration with general energy systems should also be
encouraged, because of the advantages these sources offer for
environmental protection and energy security.
21. We all intend to take a full part in the initiative of the
European Community for the establishment of a European Energy
Charter on the basis of equal rights and obligations of signatory
countries. The aim is to promote free and undistorted energy trade,
to enhance security of supply, to protect the environment and to
assist economic reform in Central and East European countries and
the Soviet Union, especially by creating an open, non-discriminatory
regime for commercial energy investment.
Central and Eastern Europe
22. We salute the courage and determination of the countries
of Central and Eastern Europe in building democracy and moving to
market economies, despite formidable obstacles. We welcome the
spread of political and economic reform throughout the region.
These changes are of great historical importance. Bulgaria and
Romania are now following the pioneering advances of Poland,
Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Albania is emerging from its long
isolation.
23. Recognizing that successful reform depends principally on
the continuing efforts of the countries concerned, we renew our
own firm commitment to support their reform efforts, to forge
closer ties with them and to encourage their integration into the
international economic system. Regional initiatives reinforce our
ability to cooperate.
24. All the Central and East European countries except
Albania are now members of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
and the World Bank. We welcome the steps being taken by those
countries that are implementing IMF-supported programmes of
macro-economic stabilization. It is crucial that these programmes
are complemented by structural reforms, such as privatizing and
restructuring state-owned enterprises, increasing competition and
strengthening property rights. We welcome the establishment of
the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD),
which has a mandate to foster the transition to open, market-
oriented economies and to promote private initiative in Central and
East European countries committed to democracy.
25. A favourable environment for private investment, both
foreign and domestic, is crucial for sustained growth and for
avoiding dependence on external assistance from governments. In
this respect, technical assistance from our private sectors and
governments, the European Community and international
institutions should concentrate on helping this essential market-
based transformation. In this context, we emphasize the
importance of integrating environmental considerations into the
economic restructuring process in Central and Eastern Europe.
26. Expanding markets for their exports are vital for the
Central and East European countries. We welcome the substantial
increases already made in exports to market economies and we
undertake to improve further their access to our markets for their
products and services, including in areas such as steel, textiles and
agricultural produce. In this context, we welcome the progress
made in negotiating Association Agreements between the European
Community and Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, as well as the
Presidential Trade Enhancement Initiative announced by the United
States, all of which will be in accordance with GATT principles. We
will support the work of the OECD to identify restrictions to
East/West trade and to facilitate their removal.
27. The Group of Twenty-four (G24) process, inaugurated by
the Arch Summit and chaired by the European Commission, has
mobilised $31 billion in bilateral support for these countries,
including balance of payments finance to underpin IMF-supported
programmes. Such programmes are in place for Poland, Hungary and
Czechoslovakia. We welcome the contributions already made for
Bulgaria and Romania. We are intensifying the G24 coordination
process and we reaffirm our shared willingness to play our fair part
in the global assistance effort.
The Soviet Union
28. We support the moves towards political and economic
transformation in the Soviet Union and are ready to assist the
integration of the Soviet Union into the world economy.
29. Reform to develop the market economy is essential to
create incentives for change and enable the Soviet people to
mobilise their own substantial natural and human resources. A
clear and agreed framework within which the centre and the
republics exercise their respective responsibilities is fundamental
for the success of political and economic reform.
30. We have invited President Gorbachev to meet us for a
discussion of reform policies and their implementation, as well as
ways in which we can encourage this process.
31. We commend the IMF, World Bank, OECD and EBRD for their
study of the Soviet economy produced, in close consultation with
the European Commission, in response to the request we made at
Houston. This study sets out many of the elements necessary for
successful economic reform, which include fiscal and monetary
discipline and creating the framework of a market economy.
32. We are sensitive to the overall political context in which
reforms are being conducted, including the "New Thinking" in Soviet
foreign policy around the world. We are sensitive also to the
importance of shifting resources from military to civilian use.
33. We are concerned about the deterioration of the Soviet
economy, which creates severe hardship not only within the Soviet
Union but also for the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
The Middle East
34. Many countries have suffered economically as a result of
the Gulf crisis. We welcome the success of the Gulf Crisis
Financial Coordination Group in mobilising nearly $16 billion of
assistance for those countries suffering the most direct economic
impact of the Gulf crisis and urge all donors to complete
disbursements rapidly. Extensive assistance is being provided by
Summit participants for the Mediterranean and the Middle East, as
well as by the IMF and World Bank.
35. We believe that enhanced economic cooperation in this
area, on the basis of the principles of non-discrimination and open
trade, could help repair the damage and reinforce political stability.
We welcome the plans of major oil exporting countries for providing
financial assistance to others in the region and their decision to
establish a Gulf Development Fund. We support closer links between
the international financial institutions and Arab and other donors.
We believe this would encourage necessary economic reforms,
promote efficient use of financial flows, foster private sector
investment, stimulate trade liberalization and facilitate joint
projects e.g., in water management, which would draw on our
technical skills and expertise.
Developing Countries and Debt
36. Developing countries are playing an increasingly
constructive role in the international economic system, including
the Uruguay Round. Many have introduced radical policy reforms and
are adopting the following principles:
a) respect for human rights and for the law, which encourages
individuals to contribute to development;
b) democratic pluralism and open systems of administration,
accountable to the public;
c) sound, market-based economic policies to sustain
development and bring people out of poverty;
We commend these countries and urge others to follow their
example. Good governance not only promotes development at home,
but helps to attract external finance and investment from all
sources.
37. Our steadfast commitment to helping developing
countries, in conjunction with a durable non-inflationary recovery
of our economies and the opening of our markets, will be the most
effective way we have of enhancing prosperity in the developing
world.
38. Many of these countries, especially the poorest, need our
financial and technical assistance to buttress their own
development endeavours. Additional aid efforts are required, to
enhance both the quantity and the quality of our support for priority
development issues. These include alleviating poverty, improving
health, education and training and enhancing the environmental
quality of our aid. We endorse the increasing attention being given
to population issues in devising strategies for sustainable progress.
39. Africa deserves our special attention. Progress by
African governments towards sound economic policies, democracy
and accountability is improving their prospects for growth. This is
being helped by our continued support, focused on stimulating
development of the private sector, encouraging regional integration,
providing concessional flows and reducing debt burdens. The
special Programme of Assistance for Africa, coordinated by the
World Bank and providing support for economic reform in over 20
African countries, is proving its worth. We will provide
humanitarian assistance to those parts of Africa facing severe
famine and encourage the reform of United Nations structures in
order to make this assistance more effective. We will also work to
help the countries concerned remove the underlying causes of
famine and other emergencies, whether these are natural or
provoked by civil strife.
40. In the Asia-Pacific region, many economies, including
members of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN)
and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), continue to
achieve dynamic growth. We welcome the efforts by those
economies of the region which are assuming new international
responsibilities. Other Asian countries, which are strengthening
their reform efforts, continue to need external assistance.
41. In Latin America we are encouraged by the progress being
made in carrying out genuine economic reforms and by developments
in regional integration. We welcome the continuing discussions on
the Multilateral Investment Fund, under the Enterprise for the
Americas Initiative which, together with other efforts, is helping
to create the right climate for direct investment, freer trade and a
reversal of capital flight.
42. We recognize with satisfaction the progress being made
under the strengthened debt strategy. Some countries have already
benefited from the combination of strong adjustment with
commercial bank debt reduction or equivalent measures. We
encourage other countries with heavy debts to banks to negotiate
similar packages.
43. We note:
a) the agreement reached by the Paris Club on debt reduction
or equivalent measures for Poland and Egypt, which should be
treated as exceptional cases;
b) the Paris Club's continued examination of the special
situation of some lower middle-income countries on a case by case
basis.
44. The poorest, most indebted countries need very special
terms. We agree on the need for additional debt relief measures, on
a case by case basis; for these countries, going well beyond the
relief already granted under Toronto terms. We therefore call on
the Paris Club to continue its discussions on how these measures
can best be implemented promptly.
45. We recognize the need for appropriate new financial
flows to developing countries. We believe the appropriate way to
avoid unsustainable levels of debt is for developing countries to
adopt strengthened policies to attract direct investment and the
return of flight capital.
46. We note the key role of the IMF, whose resources should
be strengthened by the early implementation of the quota increase
under the Ninth General Review and the associated Third Amendment
to the Articles of Agreement.
Environment
47. The international community will face formidable
environmental challenges in the coming decade. Managing the
environment continues to be a priority issue for us. Our economic
policies should ensure that the use of this planet's resources is
sustainable and safeguards the interests of both present and future
generations. Growing market economies can best mobilise the
means for protecting the environment, while democratic systems
ensure proper accountability.
48. Environmental considerations should be integrated into
the full range of government policies, in a way which reflects their
economic costs. We support the valuable work in this field being
undertaken by the OECD. This includes the systematic review of
member countries' environmental performance and the development
of environmental indicators for use in decision-making.
49. Internationally, we must develop a cooperative approach
for tackling environmental issues. Industrial countries should set
an example and thus encourage developing countries and Central and
East European nations to play their part. Cooperation is also
required on regional problems. In this context, we welcome the
consensus reached on the Environmental Protocol of the Antarctic
Treaty, aimed at reinforcing the environmental preservation of this
continent. We note the good progress of the Sahara and Sahel
Observatory as well as the Budapest Environmental Centre.
50. The UN Conference on Environment and Development
(UNCED) in June 1992 will be a landmark event. It will mark the
climax of many international environmental negotiations. We
commit ourselves to work for a successful Conference and to give
the necessary political impetus to its preparation.
51. We aim to achieve the following by the time of UNCED:
a) an effective framework convention on climate change,
containing appropriate commitments and addressing all sources and
sinks for greenhouse gases. We will seek to expedite work on
implementing protocols to reinforce the convention. All
participants should be committed to design and implement concrete
strategies to limit net emissions of greenhouse gases, with
measures to facilitate adaptation. Significant actions by industrial
countries will encourage the participation of developing and East
European countries, which is essential to the negotiations.
b) agreement on principles for the management, conservation
and sustainable development of all types of forest, leading to a
framework convention. This should be in a form both acceptable to
the developing countries where tropical forests grow and
consistent with the objective of a global forest convention or
agreement which we set at Houston.
52. We will seek to promote, in the context of UNCED:
a) mobilisation of financial resources to help developing
countries tackle environmental problems. We support the use of
existing mechanisms for this purpose, in particular the Global
Environment Facility (GEF). The GEF could become the
comprehensive funding mechanism to help developing countries
meet their obligations under the new environmental conventions.
b) encouragement of an improved flow of beneficial
technology to developing countries, making use of commercial
mechanisms.
c) a comprehensive approach to the oceans, including regional
seas. The environmental and economic importance of oceans and
seas means that they must be protected and sustainably managed.
d) further development of international law of the
environment, drawing inter alia on the results of the Siena Forum.
e) the reinforcement of international institutions concerned
with the environment, including the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), for the decade ahead.
53. We support the negotiation, under the auspices of UNEP, of
an acceptable framework convention on biodiversity, if possible to
be concluded next year. It should concentrate on protecting
ecosystems, particularly in species-rich areas, without impeding
positive developments in biotechnology.
54. We remain concerned about the destruction of tropical
forests. We welcome the progress made in developing the pilot
programme for the conservation of the Brazilian tropical forest,
which has been prepared by the Government of Brazil in consultation
with the World Bank and the European Commission, in response to
the offer of cooperation extended following the Houston Summit.
We call for further urgent work under the auspices of the World
Bank, in cooperation with the European Commission, in the
framework of appropriate policies and with careful attention to
economic, technical and social issues. We will financially support
the implementation of the preliminary stage of the pilot program
utilising all potential sources, including the private sector, non-
governmental organisations, the multilateral development banks,
and the Global Environmental Facility. When details of the
programme have been resolved, we will consider supplementing
these resources with bilateral assistance, so that progress can be
made on the ground. We believe that good progress with this
project will have a beneficial impact on the treatment of forests at
UNCED. We also welcome the spread of debt for nature exchanges,
with an emphasis on forests.
55. The burning oil wells and polluted seas in the Gulf have
shown that we need greater international capacity to prevent and
respond to environmental disasters. All international and regional
agreements for this purpose, including those of the International
Maritime Organisation (IMO), should be fully implemented. We
welcome the decision by UNEP to establish an experimental centre
for urgent environmental assistance. In the light of the recent
storm damage in Bangladesh, we encourage the work on flood
alleviation under the auspices of the World Bank, which we called
for at the Arch Summit.
56. Living marine resources threatened by over-fishing and
other harmful practices should be protected by the implementation
of measures in accordance with international law. We urge control
of marine pollution and compliance with the regimes established by
regional fisheries organisations through effective monitoring and
enforcement measures.
57. We call for greater efforts in cooperation in
environmental science and technology, in particular:
a) scientific research into the global climate, including
satellite monitoring and ocean observation. All countries, including
developing countries, should be involved in this research effort. We
welcome the development of information services for users of earth
observation data since the Houston Summit.
b) the development and diffusion of energy and environment
technologies, including proposals for innovative technology
programmes.
Drugs
58. We note with satisfaction progress made in this field
since our Houston meeting, notably the entry into force of the 1988
United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs
and Psychiatric [sic] Substances. We welcome the formation of the
United Nations International Drugs Control Programme (UNDCP).
59. We will increase our efforts to reduce the demand for
drugs as a part of overall anti-drug action programmes. We
maintain our efforts to combat the scourge of cocaine and will
match these by increased attention to heroin, still the principal
hard drug in Europe and Asia. Enhanced cooperation is needed both
to reduce production of heroin in Asia and to check its flow into
Europe. Political changes in Central and Eastern Europe and the
opening of frontiers there have increased the threat of drug misuse
and facilitated illicit trafficking, but have also given greater scope
for concerted Europe-wide action against drugs.
60. We applaud the efforts of the "Dublin Group" of European,
North American and Asian governments to focus attention and
resources on the problems of narcotics production and trafficking.
61. We commend the achievements of the task-forces
initiated by previous Summits and supported by an increasing
number of countries:
a) We urge all countries to take part in the international fight
against money laundering and to cooperate with the activities of
the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). We strongly support the
agreement on a mutual evaluation process of each participating
country's progress in implementing the FATF recommendations on
money laundering. We endorse the recommendation of the FATF that
it should operate on a continuing basis with a secretariat supplied
by the OECD.
b) We welcome the report of the Chemical Action Task Force
(CATF) and endorse the measures it recommends for countering
chemical diversion, building on the 1988 UN Convention against drug
trafficking. We look forward to the special meeting in Asia,
concentrating on heroin, and the CATF meeting due in March 1992,
which should consider the institutional future of this work.
62. We are concerned to improve the capacity of law
enforcement agencies to target illicit drug movements without
hindering the legitimate circulation of persons and goods. We invite
the Customs Cooperation Council to strengthen its cooperation with
associations of international traders and carriers for this purpose
and to produce a report before our next Summit.
Migration
63. Migration has made and can make a valuable contribution
to economic and social development, under appropriate conditions,
although there is a growing concern about worldwide migratory
pressures, which are due to a variety of political, social and
economic factors. We welcome the increased attention being given
these issues by the OECD and may wish to return to them at a future
Summit.
Next Meeting
64. We have accepted an invitation from Chancellor Kohl to
hold our next Summit in Munich, Germany in July 1992.
Strengthening the International Order
1. We, the leaders of our seven countries and the representatives of
the European Community, renew our firm commitment to the ideal
of a peaceful, just, democratic and prosperous world. The
international community faces enormous challenges. But there is
also reason for hope. We must reinforce the multilateral approach
to the solution of common problems and work to strengthen the
international system of which the United Nations, based on its
charter, remains so central a part. We call on the leaders of other
nations to join us in that cause.
2. It is a matter for hope and encouragement that the UN
Security Council, with the backing of the international community,
showed during the Gulf crisis that it could fulfill its role of acting
to restore international peace and security and to resolve conflict.
With the East-West confrontation of the last four decades behind
us, the international community must now build on this new spirit
of cooperation not only in the Middle East but wherever danger and
conflict threaten or other challenges must be met.
3. We believe the conditions now exist for the United Nations
to fulfill completely the promise and the vision of its founders. A
revitalized United Nations will have a central role in strengthening
the international order. We commit ourselves to making the United
Nations stronger, more efficient and more effective in order to
protect human rights, to maintain peace and security for all and to
deter aggression. We will make preventive diplomacy a top priority
to help avert future conflicts by making clear to potential
aggressors the consequences of their actions. The UN's role in
peacekeeping should be reinforced and we are prepared to support
this strongly.
4. We note that the urgent and overwhelming nature of the
humanitarian problem in Iraq caused by violent oppression by the
government required exceptional action by the international
community, following UNSCR 688. We urge the United Nations and
its affiliated agencies to be ready to consider similar action in the
future if the circumstances require it. The international community
cannot stand idly by in cases where widespread human suffering
from famine, war, oppression, refugee flows, disease or flood
reaches urgent and overwhelming proportions.
5. The recent tragedies in Bangladesh, Iraq, and the Horn of
Africa demonstrate the need to reinforce UN relief in coping with
emergencies. We call on all Member States to respond to the
secretary general's appeal for voluntary contributions. We would
like to see moves to strengthen the coordination, and to accelerate
the effective delivery, of all UN relief for major disasters. Such
initiatives, as part of an overall effort to make the United Nations
more effective could include:
a) the designation of a high level official, answerable only to
the UN Secretary General, who would be responsible for directing a
prompt and well-integrated international response to emergencies,
and for coordinating the relevant UN appeals; and
b) improvements in the arrangements whereby resources from
within the UN system and support from donor countries and NGOs
can be mobilised to meet urgent humanitarian needs in time of
crisis. The United Nations would then be able to take the early
action that has sometimes been missing in the past. The United
Nations should also make full use of its early warning capacity to
alert the international community to coming crises and to work on
the preparation of contingency plans, to include the question of
prior earmarking of resources and material that would be available
to meet these contingencies.
6. Since we last met the world has witnessed the invasion,
occupation and subsequent liberation of Kuwait. The overwhelming
response of the international community in reversing the forcible
annexation of one small nation was evidence of the widespread
preference for:
-- taking collective measures against threats to the peace
and to suppress aggression,
-- settling disputes peacefully,
-- upholding the rule of law, and
-- protecting human rights.
These principles are essential to the civilised conduct of relations
between states.
7. We express our support for what the countries of the Gulf
and their neighbours are doing to ensure their security in future.
We intend to maintain sanctions against Iraq until all the relevant
resolutions of the Security Council have been implemented in full
and the people of Iraq, as well as their neighbours, can live without
fear of intimidation, repression or attack. As for the Iraqi people,
they deserve the opportunity to choose their leadership openly and
democratically. We look forward to the forthcoming elections in
Kuwait and to an improvement of the human rights situation there
and in the region.
8. We attach overriding importance to the launching of a
process designed to bring comprehensive, just and lasting peace
between Israel and her Arab neighbours, including the Palestinians.
Such a peace should be based on UN SCRs 242 and 338 and the
principle of territory for peace. We support the concept of a peace
conference starting parallel and direct negotiations between Israel
and representative Palestinians on the one hand and Israel and the
Arab states on the other. We confirm our continuing support for the
current American initiative to advance the peace process, which we
believe offers the best hope of progress towards a settlement. We
urge all the parties to the dispute to adopt reciprocal and balanced
confidence-building measures and to show the flexibility necessary
to allow a peace conference to be convened on the basis set out in
this initiative. In that connection we believe that the Arab boycott
should be suspended as should the Israeli policy of building
settlements in the occupied territories.
9. We take note with satisfaction of the prospects opened by
the restoration of security in Lebanon. We continue to support
efforts by the Lebanese authorities to achieve the implementation
of the Taif process, which will lead to the departure of all foreign
forces and the holding of free elections.
10. We express our willingness to support the development of
economic cooperation among the countries of the Middle East on the
basis of liberal policies designed to encourage the repatriation of
capital, an increase in investment and a decrease in obstacles to
trade. Such policies should be accompanied by comprehensive long-
term efforts to bring about more stability for the Middle East and
the Mediterranean.
11. We welcome the further substantial progress in reform,
both political and economic, achieved in the countries of Central
and Eastern Europe during the last year and recognise that these
gains will need to be maintained through a difficult period of
economic transition, including through regional initiatives. We have
a strong interest in the success of market reforms and democracy
in Central and Eastern Europe and we commit ourselves to full
support for these reforms. We also take note of the progress of
Albania towards joining the democratic community of nations.
12. Our support for the process of fundamental reform in the
Soviet Union remains as strong as ever. We believe that new
thinking in Soviet foreign policy, which has done so much to reduce
East/West tension and strengthen the multilateral peace and
security system, should be applied on a global basis. We hope that
this new spirit of international cooperation will be as fully
reflected in Asia as in Europe. We welcome efforts to create a new
union, based on consent not coercion, which genuinely responds to
the wishes of the peoples of the Soviet Union. The scale of this
undertaking is enormous: an open and democratic Soviet Union able
to play its full part in building stability and trust in the world. We
reiterate our commitment to working with the Soviet Union to
support their efforts to create an open society, a pluralistic
democracy and a market economy. We hope the negotiations
between the USSR and the elected governments of the Baltic
countries will resolve their future democratically and in
accordance with the legitimate aspirations of the people.
13. It is for the peoples of Yugoslavia themselves to decide
upon their future. However the situation in Yugoslavia continues to
cause great concern. Military force and bloodshed cannot lead to a
lasting settlement and will only put at risk wider stability. We call
for a halt to violence, the deactivation and return of military forces
to barracks and a permanent cease-fire. We urge all parties to
comply with the provisions of the Brioni agreement as it stands.
We welcome the efforts of the European Community and its member
states in assisting in the resolution of the Yugoslav crisis. We
therefore support the dispatch of EC monitors to Yugoslavia, within
the framework of the CSCE emergency mechanism. We will do
whatever we can, with others in the international community, to
encourage and support the process of dialogue and negotiation in
accordance with the principles enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act
and the Paris Charter for a new Europe, in particular respect for
human rights, including rights of minorities and the right of peoples
to self-determination in conformity with the Charter of the United
Nations and with the relevant norms of international law, including
those relating to territorial integrity of states. The normalization
of the present situation will allow us to contribute to the
indispensable economic recovery of the country.
14. We welcome the positive developments in South Africa,
where the legislative pillars of apartheid have at last been
dismantled. We hope that these important steps will be followed by
the de facto elimination of apartheid and improvement in the
situation of the most impoverished among the population of South
Africa. We hope that negotiations on a new Constitution leading to
non-racial democracy will begin shortly and will not be disrupted
by the tragic upsurge of violence. All parties must do all that is in
their power to resolve the problem of violence. We are concerned
that the foundation for a new non-racial South Africa will be
undermined by mounting social problems and declining economic
prospects for the majority of the population, which have
contributed to the violence. There is an urgent need to restore
growth to the economy to help reduce inequalities of wealth and
opportunity. South Africa needs to pursue new economic,
investment and other policies that permit normal access to all
sources of foreign borrowing. In addition to its own domestic
efforts, South Africa also needs the help of the international
community, especially in those areas where the majority have long
suffered deprivation: education, health, housing and social welfare.
We will direct our aid for these purposes.
15. Finally, we look for further strengthening of the
international order by continued vigorous efforts to deter terrorism
and hostage taking. We call for the immediate and unconditional
release of all hostages wherever they may be held and for an
accounting of all persons taken hostage who may have died while
being held. We welcome the undertakings given by governments
with an influence over hostage holders to work for the release of
hostages and urge them to intensify their efforts to this end. We
extend our sympathy to the friends and relations of those held. We
reaffirm our condemnation of all forms of terrorism. We will work
together to deter and combat terrorism by all possible means
within the framework of international law and national legislation,
particularly in the fields of international civil aviation security and
the marking of plastic explosives for the purpose of detection.
16. This forum continues to provide an invaluable opportunity
for representatives from Europe, Japan and North America to
discuss the critical challenges of the coming years. But we cannot
succeed alone. We call on the leaders of the other nations to join us
in our efforts to make a practical and sustained contribution to the
cause of peace, security, freedom and the rule of law, which are the
preconditions for trying to bring about greater justice and
prosperity throughout the world.
Declaration on Conventional Arms Transfers and NBC Non-
Proliferation
1. At our meeting in Houston last year, we, the Heads of State and
Government and the representatives of the European Community,
underlined the threats to international security posed by the
proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and of
associated missile delivery systems. The Gulf crisis has
highlighted the dangers posed by the unchecked spread of these
weapons and by excessive holdings of conventional weapons. The
responsibility to prevent the re-emergence of such dangers is to be
shared by both arms suppliers and recipient countries as well as the
international community as a whole. As is clear from the various
initiatives which several of us have proposed jointly and
individually, we are each determined to tackle, in appropriate fora,
these dangers both in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Conventional Arms Transfers
2. We accept that many states depend on arms imports to
assure a reasonable level of security and the inherent right of self-
defence is recognized in the UN Charter. Tensions will persist in
international relations so long as underlying conflicts of interest
are not tackled and resolved. But the Gulf conflict showed the way
in which peace and stability can be undermined when a country is
able to acquire a massive arsenal that goes far beyond the needs of
self defence and threatens its neighbours. We are determined to
ensure such abuse should not happen again. We believe that
progress can be made if all states apply the three principles of
transparency, consultation and action.
3. The principle of transparency should be extended to
international transfers of conventional weapons and associated
military technology. As a step in this direction we support the
proposal for a universal register of arms transfers under the
auspices of the United Nations, and will work for its early adoption.
Such a register would alert the international community to an
attempt by a state to build up holdings of conventional weapons
beyond a reasonable level. Information should be provided by all
states on a regular basis after transfers have taken place. We also
urge greater openness about overall holdings of conventional
weapons. We believe the provision of such data, and a procedure for
seeking clarification, would be a valuable confidence and security
building measure.
4. The principle of consultation should now be strengthened
through the rapid implementation of recent initiatives for
discussions among leading arms exporters with the aim of agreeing
a common approach to the guidelines which are applied in the
transfer of conventional weapons. We welcome the recent opening
of discussions on this subject. These include the encouraging talks
in Paris among the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council
on 8/9 July; as well as ongoing discussions within the framework
of the European Community and its Member States. Each of us will
continue to play a constructive part in this important process, in
these and other appropriate fora.
5. The principle of action requires all of us to take steps to
prevent the building up of disproportionate arsenals. To that end all
countries should refrain from arms transfers which would be
destabilising or would exacerbate existing tensions. Special
restraint should be exercised in the transfer of advanced technology
weapons and in sales to countries and areas of particular concern.
A special effort should be made to define sensitive items and
production capacity for advanced weapons, to the transfer of which
similar restraints could be applied. All states should take steps to
ensure that these criteria are strictly enforced. We intend to give
these issues our continuing close attention.
6. Iraqi aggression and the ensuing Gulf war illustrate the
huge costs to the international community of military conflict. We
believe that moderation in the level of military expenditure is a key
aspect of sound economic policy and good government. While all
countries are struggling with competing claims on scarce
resources, excessive spending on arms of all kinds diverts
resources from the overriding need to tackle economic development.
It can also build up large debts without creating the means by which
these may be serviced. We note with favor the recent report issued
by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the
recent decisions by several donor countries to take account of
military expenditure where it is disproportionate when setting up
aid programmes and encourage all other donor countries to take
similar action. We welcome the attention which the managing
director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the President
of the World Bank have recently given to excessive military
spending, in the context of reducing unproductive public
expenditure.
Non-Proliferation
7. We are deeply concerned about the proliferation of nuclear,
biological and chemical weapons and missile delivery systems. We
are determined to combat this menace by strengthening and
expanding the non-proliferation regimes.
8. Iraq must fully abide by Security Council Resolution 687,
which sets out requirements for the destruction, removal or
rendering harmless under international supervision of its nuclear,
biological, and chemical warfare and missile capabilities; as well
as for verification and long-term monitoring to ensure that Iraq's
capability for such weapon systems is not developed in the future.
Consistent with the relevant UN resolutions, we will provide every
assistance to the United Nations Special Commission and the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) so that they can fully
carry out their tasks.
9. In the nuclear field, we:
-- Re-affirm our will to work to establish the widest
possible consensus in favor of an equitable and stable non-
proliferation regime based on a balance between nuclear non-
proliferation and the development of peaceful uses of nuclear
energy.
-- Reaffirm the importance of the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) and call on all other non-signatory states to subscribe
to this agreement;
-- Call on all non-nuclear weapon states to submit all their
nuclear activities to IAEA safeguards, which are the cornerstone of
the international non-proliferation regime;
-- Urge all supplier states to adopt and implement the
Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines;
We welcome the decision of Brazil and Argentina to conclude a full-
scope safeguard agreement with the IAEA and to take steps to bring
the Treaty of Tlatelolco into force, as well as the accession of
South Africa to the NPT.
10. Each of us will also work to achieve:
-- Our common purpose of maintaining and reinforcing the
NPT regime beyond 1995;
-- A strengthened and improved IAEA safeguards system;
-- New measures in the Nuclear Suppliers Group to ensure
adequate export controls on dual-use items.
11. We anticipate that the Biological Weapons Review
Conference in September will succeed in strengthening
implementation of the convention's existing provisions by
reinforcing and extending its confidence-building measures and
exploring the scope for effective verification measures. Each of us
will encourage accession to the convention by other states and urge
all parties strictly to fulfill their obligations under the convention.
We each believe that a successful Review Conference leading to
strengthened implementation of the BWC, would make an important
contribution to preventing the proliferation of biological weapons.
12. The successful negotiation of a strong, comprehensive,
and effectively verifiable convention banning chemical weapons, to
which all states subscribe, is the best way to prevent the spread of
chemical weapons. We welcome recent announcements by the
United States which we believe will contribute the swift
conclusion of such a convention. We hope that the negotiation will
be successfully concluded as soon as possible. We reaffirm our
intention to become original parties to the convention. We urge
others to become parties at the earliest opportunity so that it can
enter into force as soon as possible.
13. We must also strengthen controls on exports which could
contribute to the proliferation of biological and chemical weapons.
We welcome the measures taken by members of the Australia Group
and by other states on the control of exports of chemical weapons
precursors and related equipment. We seek to achieve increasingly
close convergence of practice between all exporting states. We
urge all states to support these efforts.
14. Our aim is a total and effective ban on chemical and
biological weapons. Use of such weapons is an outrage against
humanity. In the event that a state uses such weapons each of us
agrees to give immediate consideration to imposing severe
measures against it both in the UN Security Council and elsewhere.
15. The spread of missile delivery systems has added a new
dimension of instability to international security in many regions
of the world. As the founders of the Missile Technology Control
Regime (MTCR), we welcome its extension to many other states in
the last two years. We endorse the joint appeal issued at the Tokyo
MTCR meeting in March 1991 for all countries to adopt these
guidelines. These are not intended to inhibit cooperation in the use
of space for peaceful and scientific purposes.
16. We can make an important contribution to reducing the
dangers of proliferation and conventional arms transfers. Our
efforts and consultations on these issues, including with other
supplier countries, will be continued in all appropriate fora so as to
establish a new climate of global restraint. We will only succeed if
others, including recipient countries, support us and if the
international community unites in a new effort to remove these
threats which can imperil the safety of all our peoples. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 29, July 22, 1991
Title: G-7 Agreement on Multilateral Issues
Description: Opening statement during a press briefing, London,
England
Date: Jul 16, 19917/16/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Country: Iraq, USSR (former), Bangladesh
Subject: Mideast Peace Process, United Nations,
Trade/Economics, Arms Control
[TEXT]
On behalf of President Bush and the entire American delegation, let
me begin by thanking [British] Prime Minister [John] Major, Foreign
Minister [Douglas] Hurd, and all of their colleagues for the fine
hospitality and excellent work that has gone into putting together
this series of very productive meetings.
Foreign Minister Hurd, of course, has already released the
political and non-proliferation declarations, and he has presented to
you the Chairman's statement in some detail. But let me highlight
just a couple of points.
First, we have issued separately a declaration on non-
proliferation. As the world's continuing problems with Iraqi
weapons programs remind us daily, the proliferation of weapons is
a problem that we must all work together to solve. We think that
today's statement builds constructively on President Bush's
initiative and builds constructively on what was a very successful
meeting last week in Paris.
Second, the seven [Group of 7 (G-7)] made clear that they attach
overriding importance to launching a process designed to bring
comprehensive, just, and lasting peace and reconciliation between
Israel, the Arab states, and the Palestinians. The declaration
supports the concept of a peace conference, starting parallel and
direct negotiations between Israel and representative Palestinians
on the one hand, and Israel and the Arab states on the other. Our G-
7 partners have confirmed their continuing support for our current
initiative to advance the peace process which we collectively
believe offers the best hope of progress toward a settlement.
Third, the seven are agreed on the need for a high-level official
to direct and coordinate UN emergency and disaster relief efforts.
With the recent tragedies in Bangladesh, in Iraq, and the Horn of
Africa, we hope that such a streamlined mechanism will greatly
facilitate the international community's efforts not only to cope
with but, indeed, to prevent such tragedies.
Fourth, as you know, tomorrow the leaders will meet with
[Soviet] President [Mikhail] Gorbachev. Our common aim is to
support the political and economic transformation of the Soviet
Union in their effort to build multi-party democracy and a free
market economy. That transformation, as we have said before, will
take time, and it will be difficult. So we see tomorrow's meeting
not as a one-shot event but as another step in an engagement that
will extend far into the future. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 29, July 22, 1991
Title: International Monetary Fund
Date: Jul 22, 19917/22/91
Category: Policy Briefs (Gist)
Subject: Trade/Economics, International Organizations
[TEXT]
Background
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was established in December
1945 to help reverse protectionist trade policies and competitive
exchange rate devaluations that damaged the world economy in the
1930s. It has headquarters in Washington, DC.
Membership
The IMF provides a permanent forum for its 155 members to
cooperate on international policies to promote sustainable growth
in the world economy. IMF membership is a prerequisite to
membership in the World Bank, and the two institutions work
closely. In 1990 and early 1991, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Namibia,
and Mongolia joined the IMF, and Switzerland's application was
approved (Swiss entry depends on domestic ratification). The
Soviet Union is not an IMF member.
Funding
Each member contributes to the IMF's general resources according
to its quota, expressed in Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), generally
based on its relative economic and financial importance in the
world economy.1 Quotas, in turn, determine IMF voting shares and
access to Fund resources.
At its May 1990 meeting, the IMF's Interim Committee agreed
to a 50% increase in quotas to about SDR 137 billion. The United
States will retain the largest quota, with more than 19% of total
quota shares. Japan and Germany will share second place with
about 6% each, and the United Kingdom and France will share the
next position with about 5.5% each. Implementation of the quota
increase is linked to ratification of an amendment to the Articles
of Agreement to allow suspension of voting and related rights of
members that fail to fulfill their obligations to the Fund.
Operations
The IMF has regulatory, surveillance, and financial functions that
apply equally to all members. It conducts regular reviews of
national economies and the world economy; advises members on
sound economic policies; and seeks to ensure compliance with IMF
rules to eliminate exchange restrictions and maintain orderly
exchange rate arrangements. The Fund cooperates with the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the Bank for
International Settlements (BIS).
The IMF also provides adjustment assistance to members
facing balance-of-payments difficulties. In response to the
developing country debt crisis in the 1980s, the IMF created new
facilities and medium-term financing arrangements designed to
support members' economic adjustment efforts. IMF programs
stress sound fiscal and monetary policies, appropriate interest and
exchange rates, and reliance on market forces.
Under the strengthened international debt strategy endorsed
in 1989, the IMF renewed its efforts to help debtor countries pursue
market-oriented policies by supporting debt and debt service
reduction operations negotiated between commercial bank creditors
and reforming debtor countries. Particular emphasis has been given
to measures to encourage new foreign investment and repatriation
of flight capital. To date, eight countries (Chile, Costa Rica,
Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Philippines, Uruguay, and Venezuela) have
negotiated IMF arrangements with special Fund resources to support
debt and debt service reduction operations.
Most countries undertake IMF-supported adjustment programs
because they face unsustainable external and internal economic
imbalances and reduced access to international credit. IMF
financial and technical assistance allows adjustment in a more
orderly manner than would be possible otherwise. Economic policy
reforms also improve a member's access to new bank loans and
official donor assistance.
Developing countries have borrowed primarily from the Fund
in recent years. In 1990, new loan commitments totaled more than
SDR 2 billion. Drawings on IMF loans were SDR 4.3 billion, compared
with SDR 3.5 billion in 1989. However, aggregate general credit
outstanding fell slightly from SDR 22.3 billion in late 1989 to SDR
20.7 billion in late 1990. Fund disbursements and credit
outstanding are expected to increase significantly in 1991 and
subsequent years in response to rising demands on IMF resources to
support economic adjustment efforts.
The IMF adopted a series of modifications to its lending
policies in November 1990 to respond to the financial effects of the
Persian Gulf crisis. One provision allowed members to draw on IMF
resources to offset the effects of increased oil import costs. Under
this provision, more than SDR 2 billion were disbursed in balance-
of-payments assistance during January-May 1991.
Arrears to the Fund grew rapidly in the 1980s, totaling SDR
3.4 billion in late 1990. At its May 1990 session, the Interim
Committee endorsed a strengthened arrears strategy consisting of
incentives to reward sound economic performance and measures to
discourage accumulation of arrears. Under the new approach, an
existing arrears country will be able to earn "rights," based on
sustained economic performance under a Fund-monitored program,
toward extraordinary financing to settle its arrears. Strengthened
remedial measures will include suspension of voting and
representation rights of member countries which do not fulfill their
Fund obligations.
US Policy and the IMF
The United States strongly supports the IMF and its central
role in the international financial system. IMF activities
complement a key US foreign policy objective: maintenance of a
stable, open world trade and payments system. The IMF assists less
developing debtor countries and plays an important role in helping
East European countries restructure their economies on a more
market-oriented basis. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 29, July 22, 1991
Title: The World Bank
Date: Jul 22, 19917/22/91
Category: Policy Briefs (Gist)
Subject: Trade/Economics
[TEXT]
Background
The 155-country World Bank provides advice on long-term finance
and policy issues to developing countries. It promotes economic
growth and works to raise living standards by investing in
productive projects and by promoting the adoption of sustainable
economic and financial policies. Although the Bank traditionally
has financed infrastructure such as roads and power facilities, it
also "invests" in people by expanding opportunities for education,
health care, and housing. The World Bank also emphasizes
agriculture and rural development, and, more recently, it has
provided structural adjustment loans to help countries grow out of
their financial problems through market-oriented and institutional
reforms. Its multilateral character and professional expertise put
it in a strong position to advise countries undertaking these
programs.
The World Bank Group: Funding
The World Bank Group comprises four funding institutions:
-- The International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (IBRD)
obtains most of its resources from
borrowing in private capital markets, backed by its member
governments' guarantees. Despite the economic difficulties facing
many IBRD borrowers, most maintain excellent repayment records.
The IBRD's superior financial reputation keeps the cost of borrowing
low. It regularly earns a profit, which it uses to improve its
financial position and finance new loans.
Founded in 1945, the IBRD lends at market-related rates of
interest to countries at more advanced stages of development. In
its 1990 fiscal year, the IBRD made loan commitments valued at
$15.2 billion to 37 countries. Cumulative lending at the end of FY
1990 was $187 billion.
-- The International Development Association
(IDA)
finances most of its lending operations from direct
contributions from developed country members. Donors agreed to a
3-year replenishment of $14.6 billion in December 1989.
The IDA was established in 1960 to provide credits on
concessional terms to the poorest countries--those that cannot
afford alternative financing. It committed $5.5 billion to 52
countries in FY1990. Total IDA credits since its founding amounted
to $58 billion at the end of FY 1990.
-- International Finance Corporation (IFC)
funding comes from members' subscriptions (contributions) and
from borrowings. An increase in the IFC capital base is currently
under consideration.
Since its establishment in 1956, the IFC has sought to
mobilize resources for private sector development. In FY 1990, the
IFC invested $2.2 billion in loans and equity capital to private
businesses in 39 developing countries.
-- The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency
(MIGA)
is funded from members' subscriptions.
The MIGA, which began operating in June 1988, insures private
foreign investment in developing countries against non-commercial
risks such as expropriation, civil strife, and inconvertibility.
Burden-sharing
The United States is the largest contributor to the World Bank, with
about 18% of IBRD subscriptions. Only 3% of the current US capital
subscription requires a direct budgetary outlay. The IBRD has the
added advantage of leveraging the money actually paid in by
borrowing in private capital markets. In FY 1990 for example, the
IBRD lent $217 for each dollar of capital paid in by the US
government. The US share of the latest IDA replenishment is 21.6%.
For each dollar the United States contributes to the IDA, other
countries contribute about four. The US share of IFC capital is 24%.
US Interest
The US position as a world leader depends on an open and growing
economy based on economic and political freedom. The World Bank
has proved to be a cost-effective instrument for promoting the US
interest in integrating the developing countries into the
international trade and financial system. It reinforces the US aid
program by providing substantial assistance in many countries
where the United States has important political and security
interests. The Bank helps to meet US humanitarian and
environmental concerns by assisting in alleviating poverty,
encouraging sound environmental policies, and rebuilding countries
affected by natural disasters. It also serves US commercial
interests by expanding markets for US exports and financing the
purchase of US goods and services.
The Future
As it builds on its traditional strengths in the design and financing
of sound investment projects, the World Bank also must remain
flexible to respond to the changing needs of borrowers. Measures to
support economic growth will continue to be at the center of its
lending program. The Bank will be called upon to promote private
sector development, to catalyze capital flows, and to ensure that
all resources are used in an effective and environmentally
sustainable manner.
In 1990, the World Bank launched a new Global Environment
Facility, in conjunction with the UN Development Program and the
UN Environment Program. The facility, to be funded by $1.2 billion
in direct donor contributions, co-financing, parallel finances, and
the Bank's retained earnings, will provide grants or concessional
loans to developing countries to assist them in implementing
programs that help protect the global environment.
The World Bank, in support of the Brady Plan (an international
debt strategy of the US Treasury Secretary), is designing programs
to help major debtor countries undertaking structural economic
reforms to improve their efficiency and productivity. The United
States has asked the Bank and private lenders to support countries
undertaking serious growth-oriented, self-help efforts. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 29, July 22, 1991
Title: European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
Date: Jul 22, 19917/22/91
Category: Policy Briefs (Gist)
Region: Europe, E/C Europe, Eurasia, North America,
MidEast/North Africa
Country: Australia, Austria, Belgium,
Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus,
Czechoslovakia (former), Denmark, Egypt,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Iceland,
Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan,
South Korea, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg,
Malta, Mexico, Morocco,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey,
United States, USSR (former), Yugoslavia (former)
United Kingdom
Subject: Trade/Economics, Democratization
[TEXT]
French President Mitterrand proposed the creation of a development
bank for the nations of Central and Eastern Europe in a speech to the
European Parliament in November 1989. The member countries of
the European Community endorsed the proposed bank in December.
After negotiations eventually involving 42 participants, the
Articles of Agreement for the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (EBRD) were signed on May 29, 1990, in Paris. The
EBRD formally came into existence on March 28, 1991, when
members representing at least two-thirds of total capital
subscriptions had deposited their instruments of ratification,
acceptance, or approval. The inaugural meeting of the Board of
Governors took place on April 15, 1991.
Structure
The EBRD's principal decision-making body is the 23-member Board
of Directors, 11 appointed from the EC and its member states and
12 appointed by non-EC countries. Some major policy decisions will
be referred to the Board of Governors, comprising the finance
ministers or their designates from each of the member countries.
Former French Presidential Adviser Jacques Attali, who
chaired the negotiations, is the president of the EBRD. He is
supported by five vice presidents and staff. The headquarters of the
bank are in London.
Membership
The bank's 41 member shareholders are: Australia, Austria,
Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel,
Italy, Japan, South Korea, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico,
Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal,
Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, United States,
USSR, Yugoslavia, European Community, and European Investment
Bank.
Principal Features
The EBRD was created in order to promote the development of open
market-oriented economies and private entrepeneurial initiative,
and to support the transition to pluralism and multi-party
democracy in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (Bulgaria,
Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Yugoslavia) and the
USSR that will borrow from the bank.
The EBRD's total capital is set at 10 billion European currency
units (ECU), about $11.7 billion, with 30% paid-in and the remainder
callable. The US, with 10% of the bank's capital, is the single
largest shareholder. The EC and its member countries together hold
51% of the EBRD's capital. Japan and the four largest West European
countries each hold 8.52%. The USSR holds 6% and the other Central
and East European countries 5.95%.
At least 60% of the EBRD's resources must be devoted to the
private sector, including state-owned firms moving to private
ownership and control. The balance will be available for
infrastructure and environmental projects supporting private sector
development and for loans to state-owned enterprises operating
competitively.
The EBRD is the only multilateral development bank that
specifies environmental objectives in its charter. The Board of
Directors, as one of its first acts, approved operational guidelines
to ensure that environmental considerations are factored into to the
EBRD's operations. The United States is encouraging the bank to
take further steps to ensure effective public participation in
consideration of environmental impact statements.
The USSR agreed to limit its borrowing for an initial 3-year
period to the level of its paid-in capital (about $216 million).
Operations in the USSR will be confined to the private sector,
including privatization, and to helping enterprises operating
competitively and moving to a market orientation. Any change in
the USSR's borrowing status requires the agreement of 75% of the
member countries representing at least 85% of voting power.
The bank's capital is denominated in ECU. Capital
subscriptions can be made in ECU, US dollars, or Japanese yen with
the exchange rate for the dollar and yen set at the average over the
period October 1989 through March 1990.
Operations
The EBRD's Board of Directors has already approved many of the
bank's regulations, legal agreements, and operating guidelines. The
staff has begun developing country strategies for lending in each of
the borrowing members. These country strategies will be reviewed
and endorsed by the Board of Directors. Lending operations began in
April 1991 and some of the first loans will be made to co-finance
projects being developed by the World Bank and other established
financial institutions.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 29, July 22, 1991
Title: European Community
Date: Jul 22, 19917/22/91
Category: Focus on Emerging Democracies
Region: Europe
Country: Belgium, Denmark, France,
Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy,
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal,
Spain, United Kingdom
Subject: Trade/Economics, EC
[TEXT]
The European Community (EC) was established in 1957 by the Treaty
of Rome. Currently there are 12 members: Belgium, Denmark,
France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands,
Portugal, Spain, and UK.
The EC's primary goal is increased economic and political
integration among its members. A major step toward that goal is
the creation of a single, integrated market by the end of 1992. In
December 1990, the EC also decided to begin the process of seeking
economic-monetary and political union.
EC Institutions and Presidency
Major EC institutions are the EC Commission, the Council of
Ministers, the European Parliament, and the Court of Justice. The
Commission, made up of 17 members appointed by common
agreement of the 12 governments, has primary responsibility for
initiating and implementing EC policy in areas that fall under EC
treaties (for example, the internal market, external trade, and
agricultural policy). The Council of Ministers, representing the
member states, occupies the preeminent position in the current
institutional power balance and decides on the Commission's
proposals. The Parliament, the only EC institution that directly
represents European citizens, has significant power over budgetary
matters and can amend or reject certain legislation approved by the
Council. The Court, which has a role similar to that of the US
Supreme Court, is the final authority on the interpretation of EC
laws.
Every January and July, the presidency of the Council of
Ministers rotates. The presidency country presides at all meetings
of the 12 member states and serves as spokesman in dealing with
third countries on inter-governmental matters, including efforts to
coordinate the foreign policies of the member states. This foreign
policy coordination process, known as European Political
Cooperation, is one of seeking consensus for joint action by the 12
members on international political issues, such as the Gulf crisis
and refugee aid, the Middle East peace process, South Africa,
Central America, and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in
Europe.
The EC has taken increasing responsibility in areas such as
environmental and narcotics policy, formerly reserved to individual
members. Since mid-1989, the EC has played a key coordinating
role for Western assistance to Central and Eastern Europe.
European Integration
In December 1990, the EC convened two intergovernmental
conferences to discuss deeper integration, in part via revisions to
the Treaty of Rome. The EC is expected to establish a single
European Central Bank and a single currency by the end of the
decade, although all 12 member countries may not enter the new
arrangements at once. Proposals under debate for greater political
integration include a common foreign and security policy, extension
of majority voting to political as well as trade issues, and greater
powers for the European Parliament.
EC Economy
As a result of German unification on October 3, 1990, the
population of the EC is now roughly 344 million. In 1989, the EC had
a population of 326 million, a gross national product of $4.8 trillion
(almost that of the US), and an average per capita GNP of $14,850.
The EC is the world's largest trading entity. Its total foreign
trade in 1989 was $962 billion, which is about 16% of world
commerce. An important aspect of the EC's economy is its Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP), a complicated system of price supports,
subsidies, and protection that consumes almost two-thirds of the
EC budget. The Community is more than self-sufficient in many
agricultural commodities.
US-EC Relations
The United States has an important economic relationship with the
EC and growing ties in other areas. The European Community is the
United States' largest trading partner. Total US-EC trade was $172
billion in 1989 and $190 billion in 1990. In 1990, US imports from
the EC represented 19% of total imports. US exports to the EC were
25% of total exports.
In 1990, the US trade surplus with the European Community
rose to $6 billion, up from almost $1.5 billion in 1989 (the first
trade surplus year since 1982). The United States and the
Community are each other's most significant source of direct
investment. By the end of 1989, the Community had $235 billion
invested in the United States, and the United States had about $150
billion in the EC.
The United States supports the EC's plan to develop an
integrated market by the end of 1992. It is in the interest of the EC
and the United States that the program be implemented in an open
fashion without new trade barriers. The United States holds regular
meetings with the Community to discuss various aspects of the
1992 program and to resolve trade differences, many concerning
agriculture. In its negotiations with the Community on trade and
investment issues, the US Government works to ensure that
American interests are not discriminated against in post-1992
Europe. The global reform of agricultural policies, including the
CAP, remains an important US objective and a major task of the
current round of multilateral trade negotiations. The United States
cooperates with the EC to mobilize economic and financial support
for Central and Central and Eastern Europe.
The United States has long discussed foreign and trade policy
issues on an ad hoc basis with the Commission, through the EC
presidency country, the EC troika (the current presidency country
and its immediate predecessor and successor), meetings with the
EC-12, and with the EC Commission. These arrangements were
formalized by the US-EC Declaration of November 23, 1990. As
agreed in the declaration, the US president meets twice annually
with the head of state or government of the presidency country and
the president of the EC Commission. The secretary of state meets
twice annually with the EC foreign ministers and in practice
several more times with the presidency or troika foreign ministers.
The secretary also meets twice annually, along with some cabinet
colleagues, with the EC Commission. Discussions include a broad
range of issues: bolstering international peace and security in
areas such as the Gulf, the Middle East, and Central America; the
Uruguay Round and other international trade issues; supporting the
emerging democracies of Eastern and Central Europe; and science
and technology.
The EC cooperated closely with the United States during the
Persian Gulf crisis. The EC and its member states swiftly
condemned the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and imposed sweeping
economic sanctions on Iraq, including an embargo on trade and a
freeze on Iraqi assets. The EC and its member states provided
generous financial support to the frontline states. EC members
consistently supported the various UN Security Council Resolutions
on the Gulf crisis. The Community has moved actively to relieve the
plight of Kurdish and other refugees. Its members are providing
some $180 million in refugee aid, and several have sent military
units to protect the refugees and deliver the aid on the ground.
Relations With Other Countries
EC countries have long-standing political and economic ties with
the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. However, the EC
established diplomatic relations with most East European
governments only in 1988. It provides significant economic
assistance to the emerging East European democracies and has
eased access to its markets for them. A European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (in which the United States is an
active member) has been established to assist economic recovery
and reform in Central and Eastern Europe. The EC and the six-
country European Free Trade Association plus Liechtenstein agreed
to negotiate a closer relationship, to be known as the European
Economic Area.
The Community has placed priority on improving relations.
The Lome Convention, a framework for EC development cooperation
with 68 African, Caribbean, and Pacific countries, was established
in 1975. In 1990, a new 10-year agreement was signed to provide
aid to development projects, free access to EC markets for almost
all manufactured imports from those countries, and incentives to
promote European investment in developing countries. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 29, July 22, 1991
Title: The G-24 and Aid to Eastern Europe
Date: Jul 22, 19917/22/91
Region: E/C Europe
Country: Czechoslovakia (former), Bulgaria, Poland,
Yugoslavia (former), Australia, Austria,
Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Iceland,
Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway,
Portugal, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom,
United States
Subject: Development/Relief Aid
[TEXT]
Background
President Bush and the other leaders at the Paris economic summit
meeting in July 1989 agreed on the need to coordinate Western
assistance in support of political and economic changes in Poland
and Hungary. The European Community (EC) Commission, which was
chosen to coordinate the process, has convened a series of meetings
of 24 interested countries known as the G-24. In July 1990, the G-
24 extended coordinated assistance to Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and
Yugoslavia. Romania became eligible in January 1991.
Representatives from the International Monetary Fund (IMF),
the World Bank, the Paris Club (official bilateral creditors), the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Bank for
International Settlements, and the European Investment bank,
attend the official (high-level) and ministerial meetings.
At its first meeting in August 1989, the G-24 established
working groups on food aid, management training, environmental
issues, market access/trade, and investment. The G-24 has agreed
not to duplicate the work of international organizations and to
coordinate its activities with them.
Structure
The EC Commission functions as the secretariat to the G-24. After
consultation with key participants, the EC sets the dates and agenda
for the working group, high-level, and ministerial meetings.
Working group participation is open to all interested G-24 members
and involved international organizations. In June 1991, the G-24
decided to invite recipient countries to participate in the meetings
of the working groups. Working group participants discuss
proposed and ongoing projects, provide updates on bilateral
activities, and share information obtained from visits and
discussions in recipient countries. Periodic meetings of senior
officials and ministerial-level meetings give policy direction to the
G-24.
Accomplishments
The G-24 process has been very successful in mobilizing
substantial commitments to the countries of Eastern Europe. By
June 1991, total pledges exceeded $31 billion, of which $7 billion is
grant assistance. Major contributors are Germany, Japan, the EC,
and the United States. The United States has provided $944 million
in grants and more than $1 billion in other assistance in FY 1990-
91.
G-24 activities have included:
-- The funding under US leadership of the $1-billion Polish
exchange stabilization fund;
-- Provision of about $3 billion in supplementary balance-of-
payments
financing to Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania;
-- Delivery of food aid, including a US commitment of more
than $250 million, and the use of generated local counterpart funds
to supply credit for projects involving small farmers, water supply,
telephones, and rural banking; and
-- Joint or co-financed projects such as the Budapest
Regional Center for the Environment and US sector grants that
complement World Bank structural adjustment loans.
Working groups continue to make progress. Food aid programs
have been largely implemented, and technical assistance programs
in agriculture are under discussion. Training and environment
projects are being developed, evaluated, and implemented in
cooperation with the countries of Eastern Europe.
The EC has increased coordination with other international
institutions involved in the reforming countries. The IMF, the World
Bank, the International Labor Organization, and the OECD are using
their expertise in the region and are cooperating with the G-24 to
guarantee the most efficient assistance operation.
Policy on Reforms
G-24-coordinated assistance is dependent on progress toward
implementation of the rule of law, respect for human rights, and the
development of a market economy. This conditionality has
distinguished the G-24 from other assistance efforts and has helped
to support economic and political reforms in Eastern Europe.
G-24 Countries
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 29, July 22, 1991
Title: GATT and the International Trading System
Date: Jul 22, 19917/22/91
Category: Policy Briefs (Gist)
Country: Zimbabwe, Czechoslovakia (former), Bulgaria,
Yugoslavia (former), USSR (former), Romania
Subject: Trade/Economics
[TEXT]
Background
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which entered
into force in 1948, sets rules for international trade and provides a
forum for multilateral trade negotiations. The United States is
among the founding members and a chief author of the GATT. It now
has 102 members, known as contracting parties, which account for
almost 90% of world trade. An additional 28 countries apply GATT
rules.
International trade has grown in volume, importance, and
complexity since the inception of the GATT. This growth has
occurred partly as a result of a consensus among GATT members
that the world's economic welfare depends on freer trade, without
the risk of escalating tariff wars. Seven rounds of multilateral
negotiations under the GATT have succeeded in reducing average
tariffs in the industrial countries from more than 40% in the early
1950s to less than 5% today.
The 1974-79 Tokyo Round established additional international
agreements (codes) on rules of conduct in non-tariff areas: use of
subsidies and countervailing duties, technical barriers to trade
(standards), import licensing procedures, anti-dumping actions,
government procurement, customs valuation, and trade in bovine
meat, dairy products, and civil aircraft.
Uruguay Round
The eighth and current series of negotiations, the Uruguay Round,
began in 1986 in Punta del Este, Uruguay. It is the most
comprehensive round of multilateral trade negotiations ever
attempted. Issues that have been discussed for the first time
include trade in services, foreign investment, and protection of
intellectual property (patents, trademarks, and copyrights). Fifteen
negotiating groups were established to deal with the various issues.
The Uruguay Round originally was scheduled to conclude in
Brussels in December 1990. Although progress was made in many
important areas, critical issues, especially reform in agriculture,
remain to be agreed. Therefore, the round has been extended in
order to provide more time to reach a successful conclusion.
Negotiations are now in their final and critical stage.
US Policy
The top US trade priority is successful conclusion of the Uruguay
Round, which could result in more than $4 trillion of global
economic expansion during the next 10 years. Failure of the round
could produce an increase in unilateral protectionist measures by
many countries. Increasing protectionism would slow the world's
economic growth and retard the development of emerging
democracies in Central America and Central and Eastern Europe.
The United States has made it clear that, at a minimum, it
wants comprehensive reform of agricultural trade, expanded market
access for goods and services, meaningful disciplines in the "new
areas" (intellectual property, services, and investment), and more
complete integration of developing countries into the global trading
system.
A top priority for the United States is agreement on new
market-oriented rules to reduce, and, ultimately, to eliminate the
numerous government measures which distort world trade in
agriculture. The United States has taken the position that
fundamental agricultural reform can only be achieved through the
negotiation of specific commitments to reduce barriers to market
access, export subsidies, and trade-distorting internal supports and
through an agreement to avoid using sanitary and phytosanitary
(plant health) measures to restrict trade.
The United States expects the final Uruguay Round package to
include agreements in the new areas of services, trade-related
investment measures, and protection of intellectual property. The
US objective in services is to allow services providers (such as
architects) to operate in foreign markets and compete like local
firms. The United States seeks to eliminate or restrict foreign
investment rules which have trade-distorting effects or which put
foreign investors at a competitive disadvantage with local firms.
US goals on intellectual property include higher standards of
protection, effective enforcement of those standards, and an
effective dispute settlement mechanism.
The Uruguay Round, like previous rounds, includes a
challenging set of negotiations on market access--tariffs and non-
tariff measures restricting trade. The United States has offered to
cut its tariffs by more than 40%, exceeding the 33% target set for
the round. The United States continues to pursue its proposal to
slash tariffs to zero in nine important, heavily traded sectors:
electronics, pharmaceuticals, wood products, steel, paper, non-
ferrous metals, construction materials, fish, and beer. Improved
market access would result from successful negotiations to reduce
barriers to trade in tropical products and natural resource-based
products and to integrate textiles into a strengthened system of
GATT rules.
The United States hopes to gain agreement on improved GATT
rules for tighter discipline on subsidies and trade restrictions for
balance-of-payments reasons, stronger dispute settlement
procedures, and greater commitment by developing countries to
GATT rules. The US government has pressed its goal of achieving
one set of rules for all GATT members including developing
countries, which now account for more than $500 billion in trade.
US Policy on MFN
The United States grants unconditional most-favored-nation (MFN)
trade treatment to most of its trading partners. In most cases,
countries are entitled to receive MFN treatment from the United
States by virtue of their membership in the GATT. MFN status is
may also be the result of a bilateral treaty. In a few cases,
conditional MFN treatment must be granted, and a bilateral
commercial agreement or treaty is required. Exports from
countries granted MFN treatment are subject to duty at the lowest
available non-preferential rates, i.e., those listed under "Column I"
of the US tariff schedule. Imports from countries not granted MFN
treatment are assessed substantially higher duties under "Column
II" of the US tariff schedule. The only countries not receiving MFN
treatment from the United States are Afghanistan, Albania,
Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, Romania, the Soviet
Union, and Vietnam.
MFN treatment had been withdrawn from most communist
countries under the Trade Expansion Act of 1951, which denied MFN
treatment to any country under the control of the "world communist
movement." The Trade Act of 1974 set new conditions for granting
MFN treatment to non-market economy (communist) countries.
First, a non-market economy must satisfy or receive a
presidential waiver of the freedom of emigration criteria contained
in Title IV of the 1974 act. The President may grant a 1-year
waiver of the application of the freedom of emigration provisions
of the act (the Jackson-Vanik amendment), if he determines that
extension of the waiver would substantially promote freedom of
emigration. The President also may find a country in compliance
with the amendment (thus making a waiver unnecessary) by virtue
of its emigration law and practices. The President can withdraw
MFN status at any time if he determines that a country no longer
satisfies the Title IV provisions.
Second, once these conditions have been met or waived, Title
IV also requires conclusion of a bilateral commercial agreement
before MFN status is granted. Among the specific issues that must
be addressed in such agreements are reciprocal granting of MFN
treatment, safeguards, trade promotion, and adequate protection of
intellectual property rights. These agreements have a renewable
term of 3 years.
As of June 1991, China, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Mongolia,
Poland, and Yugoslavia had MFN status. Poland and Yugoslavia are
exempt from the provisions of Title IV. In February 1990, the
President certified Hungary to be in compliance with the emigration
criteria under the Jackson-Vanik amendment.
The United States has negotiated a bilateral commercial
agreement that would grant MFN treatment to the Soviet Union. The
President has waived the Jackson-Vanik amendment for the Soviet
Union but has not submitted the trade agreement to Congress for
ratification. Under the waiver the Soviet Union also can have
access to US commodity credit facilities to finance imports of US
agricultural products.
The President has issued a Jackson-Vanik waiver for
Czechoslovakia, and a trade agreement has been concluded.
Czechoslovakia has had MFN treatment under this agreement since
November 1990. Bulgaria also has been issued a Jackson-Vanik
waiver. A trade agreement signed in April 1991 has been submitted
to Congress for ratification. Romania has requested that MFN
treatment be restored; it was lost in 1988 when the Ceausescu
government renounced MFN treatment tied to the continued
observance of the Jackson-Vanik conditions. At this point, no
consideration has been given to a Jackson-Vanik waiver for Albania.
FUNDAMENTALS OF GATT
Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) Status
. GATT
members must extend to all other members the most favorable
treatment granted to any trading partner. This non-discriminatory
treatment ensures that any tariff reduction or other trade
concession is automatically extended to all GATT parties,
multiplying its liberalizing effects. The GATT allows some
exceptions, primarily for customs unions such as the European
Community and free-trade areas such as the US-Canada Free Trade
Agreement.
National Treatment.
GATT members must
give imported goods treatment equal to that accorded domestic
goods in domestic markets. Any restrictions applied to imported
products also must apply to like domestic products.
Protection Through Tariffs
. The GATT generally
prohibits quantitative restrictions or quotas. Contracting parties
must, to the extent possible, provide protection solely by means of
tariffs, which are transparent and subject to negotiation in the GATT.
Dispute Settlement.
Parties may challenge
trade actions of other parties that may be inconsistent with the
GATT. GATT members decide whether to accept by consensus the
resulting findings of a panel of trade experts. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 29, July 22, 1991
Title: Refugee Situation in Liberia
Lyman
Source: Princeton N. Lyman, Director, Bureau for Refugee
Programs
Description: Statement before the Subcommittee on Africa of the
House Foreign Affairs Committee, Washington, DC
Date: Jul 16, 19917/16/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Subsaharan Africa
Country: Liberia, Sierra Leone
Subject: Regional/Civil Unrest, Refugees
[TEXT]
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss, today, refugee
issues relating to the conflict in Liberia. As you know, the Liberia
crisis has resulted in mass movements of people across West
Africa. Today, close to 600,000 Liberians are counted as refugees
outside their country. At least an equal number have been uprooted
within Liberia. In addition, almost 100,000 Sierra Leoneans have
been forced to flee Liberian rebel incursions into their country. I
would like to talk briefly about both refugee populations, the US and
international humanitarian response for these groups, and our
thinking about future needs in the region.
Liberian Refugee Assistance
Liberia today has the dubious distinction, along with Ethiopia, of
being the second largest generator of refugees on the African
continent after Mozambique. Throughout 1990 and into 1991, armed
conflict, fear of ethnic reprisals, and hunger forced originally over
750,000 Liberians out of their country. The bulk of them fled to the
three neighboring states. Today, there are an estimated 227,500
Liberian refugees in Cote d'Ivoire and 342,000 in Guinea; there were
an estimated 125,000 in Sierra Leone until, as I will discuss later,
National Patriotic Front of Liberia forces invaded in March of this
year. Today, only about 10,000 Liberians are receiving assistance
as refugees inside Sierra Leone. While these three countries have
borne the brunt of the Liberian refugee crisis, other countries also
have felt the impact. Ghana hosts at least 6,000 Liberian refugees,
while Nigeria, the Gambia, Mali, and others have also hosted some,
though smaller, numbers. Liberians continue to move out of their
country--albeit at a very much diminished rate.
It is worth pointing out that this crisis also has generated
movements of people not termed refugees. West African countries
also have had to cope with transiting third country nationals fleeing
Liberia as well as, in some cases, the return of thousands of their
own nationals who had lived and worked in Liberia.
Not surprisingly, these large-scale movements of people
across many countries made the coordination of relief initially very
difficult. For example, since West Africa as a region had not
recently been a heavy generator of refugees, the [Office of the] UN
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was not strongly staffed
there prior to the crisis--nor was the World Food Program, another
major refugee relief player. The needs of other non-refugee
affected groups--the affected refugee hosts, the internally
displaced, the uprooted third country nationals--do not fall
squarely under the purview of any one UN agency. Relief activities
were initially hampered by poor overall UN coordination, a lack of
private voluntary organizations to implement assistance programs,
sluggish other donor response, and poor transport and
communications networks, (particularly in Guinea and Sierra Leone).
Despite the initial difficulties, I can now report that the
relief system for Liberian refugees has largely moved beyond the
emergency phase and is comparatively well in hand. UNHCR and the
World Food Program, in conjunction with UNICEF [UN International
Emergency Children's Fund], the League of the Red Cross and Red
Crescent Societies, national Red Cross Societies and PVOs [private
voluntary organizations], including Medecins Sans Frontieres, have,
in large part, helped refugees address such emergency needs as
clean water supply, food, access to vaccinations and medical care,
and shelter. Problems certainly remain. More clean water is
needed; food deliveries need to be more reliable; nutritional
monitoring should be more regularized; not all refugees have
uncrowded, adequate shelter; children's education has been
interrupted; life is far from normal. But reports from the field
indicate that basic life-support needs are being met.
I should say, at this point, that the Liberian refugees' ability
to survive, especially in the early phases of the emergency, is due,
in large part, to the generosity of their neighbors. Liberians in
Cote d'Ivoire and Guinea, as many of you know, are living in local
communities and not in camps. Host populations have shared their
homes, food, water supply, medical facilities, and other resources
with them. While the international community can never fully repay
these people for their generosity, they are accruing some benefits
from ongoing relief activities. In the forest region of Guinea, for
example, a concerted borehole drilling campaign is being initiated
for the first time; roads to remote villages are being improved;
schools are receiving additional supplies in compensation for
refugee access to classrooms; and health monitoring activities have
increased. Refugees share their food rations with their local hosts,
and some refugees are helping their hosts work the fields.
Donor Contributions and UN Coordination
Improvements over the last year have also been due, in large part,
to our ability to mobilize UN and other donor resources for
assistance. In addition, we believe our persistence in pushing the
UN system to mobilize and coordinate has had a significant impact
as well.
The US Government has committed to date over $130 million
to the Liberian relief effort. The bulk of this--$112 million--
comes in food, with much of the remainder coming as cash
contributions from my Bureau and from USAID's [US Agency for
International Development] Office of US Foreign Disaster
Assistance. The Bureau for Refugee Programs has contributed over
$12 million for emergency assistance. This includes $5.5 million in
earmarked contributions to UNHCR, $3 million to UNICEF, $2 million
to the League, $1.2 million to [the] ICRC [International Committee of
the Red Cross] and smaller amounts to PVOs such as the
International Rescue Committee and the Adventist Development and
Relief Agency. These contributions come over and above our
regular, annual contributions to international organizations which,
to date, in Fiscal Year 1991 amount to $50 million for UNHCR and
$18.5 million to ICRC for their Africa programs. The Bureau also
has called upon the services of the Centers for Disease Control in
Atlanta to carry out a nutritional assessment in Guinea and to
assess refugee health care programs throughout the region.
We also have worked--and will continue to work--to sensitize
other donors to needs in West Africa. While other countries have
had a tendency to perceive the Liberia crisis as a US problem, we
have vigilantly pursued a multilateral response. The EC [European
Community], Nordic countries, and Canada have responded
particularly well.
In addition, I think it is worth pointing out that our financial
and hortatory efforts to keep the UN system energized to address
the Liberia problem have shown results. A multi-agency
assessment of conditions throughout Liberia recently took place.
We are not completely satisfied with UN performance--we have not
been successful in getting a UN regional coordinator assigned to
this problem, for example--but communication among agencies in
the field now appears to be working well. We continue to see a role
for the US Government in keeping the UN system's shoulder to the
wheel.
New Crisis in Sierra Leone
Before discussing what we see as the next requirements for the
refugee assistance program--that is, the need for increased refugee
self-sufficiency programs and planning for repatriation --let me
first address the "new" emergency generated by the March NPFL
[National Patriotic Front of Liberia] incursion into Sierra Leone.
The invasion of Sierra Leone by [Charles] Taylor's troops
disrupted a relief program for an estimated 125,000 Liberian
refugees and uprooted hundreds of thousands of Sierra Leoneans. An
estimated 107,000 people fled into Guinea--about 97,000 Sierra
Leoneans and 10,000 Liberians. The relief systems established in
Guinea for the existing Liberian refugee population were able to
respond rather quickly to the needs of new arrivals. Additional
vaccines and medical supplies were brought into the impacted area.
Food, already stocked nearby, was distributed on an emergency
basis; equipment was on hand to initiate the digging of new wells;
and emergency shelters went up quickly. Severe diarrhea, due to a
lack of clean water, was the most serious initial problem. The UN
system is addressing that need now. [The] UNHCR is now opening a
new sub-office in the impacted area and has revised its budget to
assure that the needs of this new population are addressed. My
Bureau has recently provided funds to the International Rescue
Committee to shore up health and sanitation programs for the new
arrivals.
Inside Sierra Leone, the NPFL invasion forced the termination
of Liberian relief programs throughout the eastern portion of the
country. A period of chaos ensued where thousands of Liberians
surged toward Freetown, while others moved north to Guinea or
back into Taylor-held areas of Liberia. Relief agencies set up a
series of make-shift, temporary relief sites before finally
establishing a single refugee camp just outside of Freetown. Many
Liberians, however, have chosen not to remain in Sierra Leone. They
have left out of a fear of retribution, a desire to avoid a refugee
camp setting, and because the Liberian interim government has
encouraged them to come home. Our embassy in Liberia has reported
that at least 20,000 have returned from Freetown to Monrovia by
boat since March.
While the picture in Sierra Leone is still not entirely clear,
initial reports indicate that there are at least 90,000 people
displaced inside the country with hundreds of thousands affected by
the insecurity. In addition to those who fled to Guinea, we have
initial reports that some 12,000 Sierra Leoneans have crossed into
Taylor-held areas of Liberia seeking refuge. The UN system is
incorporating these refugees into its plans for a Liberia-wide UN-
led relief program.
The invasion of Sierra Leone by NPFL forces has heightened
anxieties throughout the region about the perceived national
security risk that the presence of thousands of Liberian refugees
may pose. There are some signs that generosity toward refugees is
waning not only in Sierra Leone but in Guinea and Cote d'Ivoire, as
well. We continue to stress to both UNHCR and host countries our
interest in seeing first asylum maintained for refugees. While we
are hopeful that repatriation will be the ultimate solution for these
refugees, we would not want to see repatriation begin simply
because conditions in asylum countries have grown inhospitable.
Self-Sufficiency Activities and Repatriation
For the remainder of 1991, we would hope to see the relief
agencies, with host country concurrence, begin to work on more
self-sufficiency activities for refugees. We have in mind income-
generating activities for refugee women and enlarged agricultural
programs, as well as improved primary education programs. To this
end, we are financing PVO activities that complement UNHCR
programming in education and agriculture. These are relatively
modest interventions, designed not to root refugees in their host
countries but rather to enlarge their resource base and give them
something to bring home--be it new skills, cash, seeds/tools, or
crops. In the long run, we hope these activities will not only
improve refugees' quality of life but also make refugees less of a
burden on their hosts and the international community.
While relief agencies are beginning to focus on self-
sufficiency activities in asylum countries, there is also much
discussion about repatriation to Liberia. The interim Government of
Liberia has been active in repatriating Liberians to Monrovia on a
small scale. In addition, there are numerous reports of refugees
moving freely between their asylum country and Taylor-held
Liberia. Medecins Sans Frontieres/Belgium, based on its cross-
border relief activities from Cote d'Ivoire into Liberia, reports that
the population of Nimba County is growing. Local missionaries in
the forest region report that refugees, largely from the Gio tribe,
are moving back from Guinea.
UNHCR is establishing a small anticipatory presence in
Liberia. Once there are guarantees of peace and security throughout
Liberia, we would envision a large-scale UNHCR-organized
repatriation program. We do not believe that conditions are yet ripe
for massive returns, but are coordinating closely with our
colleagues working on conflict resolution. When conditions are
ripe, my Bureau will be prepared to consider a significant financial
contribution to UNHCR for its repatriation activities. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 29, July 22, 1991
Title: US Arrearage Payments to UN Organizations
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Jul 12, 19917/12/91
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Subject: United Nations
[TEXT]
In fulfillment of President Bush's personal commitment to repay US
arrearages to the United Nations and other international
organizations over a 5-year period, the United States has paid $57.9
million this week.
The United States also has paid to the United Nations $18.5
million for the UN-Iraq-Kuwait Observer Mission (UNIKOM),
representing the full US assessment. Additionally, we paid $24.3
million toward US peacekeeping arrearages.
The Congress, recognizing the emerging importance of the
United Nations, appropriated the funds for these arrearage payments
in the fiscal [year] 1991 State Department appropriations bill. The
President and the Secretary of State have urged Congress to include
funds for the second arrearage payment in the fiscal 1992 funding
bill now under consideration.
In calendar [year] 1990, the United States paid its full
assessment of $1.2 billion to the United Nations, its agencies, and
other international organizations, including $88.8 million for UN
peacekeeping operations, and voluntary contributions for other UN
organizations such as UN International Children's Emergency Fund
(UNICEF), and $112 million for UN refugee programs.
US Calendar 1990 Payments ($millions)
[TEXT]
UN New York $302.6
Other organizations 407.9
UN peacekeeping 88.8
UN refugee programs 112
Voluntary contributions 274
The President's budget request for the UN, its agencies, other
international organizations, and UN peacekeeping activities for
fiscal 1992 (calendar 1991 assessments) is $1.3 billion.
Note: Current (calendar 1991) US dues are not reflected in
arrearage amounts. Under the US Congressional appropriations
process, funds cannot be paid until Congress makes them available
after each fiscal year begins on October 1.
Overview of US Payments (dollars in thousands)
[TEXT]
Organization Arrearage Payment Arrearage Balance* Current Dues
United Nations $36,144 183,399 260,935**
International Civil
Aviation Organization 331 1,234 9,811
International Labor
Organization 4,979 20,796 49,398
UN Industrial Development
Organization 2,515 12,761 20,839
World Health Organization 4,262 21,628 78,277
World Meteorological
Organization 427 1,711 8,182
Inter-American Institute
for Cooperation on
Agriculture 922 4,680 15,201
Organization of American
States 6,309 32,018 42,989
Pan American Health
Organization 2,147 10,891 44,215
South Pacific Commission 81 322 1,124
Customs Cooperation Council 96 383 2,762
General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade 358 1,432 8,524
International Wheat Council 52 211 375
UN Interim Force in Lebanon 24,155 103,565 46,606
UN Disengagement Observer
Force 193 772 11,686
18 other organizations 231 924 3,474
*Amounts are subject to variations in exchange rates and other
adjustments. Final accounting will be taken in last year of 5-year
re-payment plan to ensure all arrears are paid as planned.
**$261 million reflects the "full funding" level for the calendar
1991 US assessment (25%) of $271.6 million LESS $10.6 million for
legislative/policy withholdings.(###)