US Department of State 

Dispatch, Vol 2, No 35, September 2, 1991


US To Establish Diplomatic Relations With Baltic States

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Opening statement at news conference, Kennebunkport, Maine Date: Sep 2, 19919/2/91 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: E/C Europe Country: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania Subject: State Department, Democratization [TEXT] Nearly 2 weeks ago, the world watched with fascination the courage of the Soviet people in foiling a cynical coup--a coup that, thank God, failed. We've marveled since at their efforts to build a new and democratic future. Major changes are now taking place in the Soviet Union, not the least of which is the establishment of new arrangements between the republics and the central government. While we await the final outcome, I welcome President Gorbachev's support for the concept that the republics will be free to determine their own future. This new Ten-Plus-One agreement speaks eloquently to that. This is a watershed in Soviet political thinking, equal to the dramatic movements toward democracy and market economies that we are witnessing in the republics themselves. The United States strongly supports these efforts. The Baltic peoples of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania and their democratically elected governments have declared their independence and are moving now to control their own national territories and their own destinies. The United States has always supported the independence of the Baltic states and is now prepared immediately to establish diplomatic relations with their governments. The United States is also prepared to do whatever it can to assist in the completion of the current process of making Baltic independence a factual reality. To facilitate this, I will be sending the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State [for European and Canadian Affairs], Mr. Kamman, to the Baltics. We also understand the enormous challenges that lie ahead for the Soviet people in meeting their own food and energy needs, particularly, and beginning true economic reform. Therefore, I'm sending Under Secretary of Agriculture Crowder with an experts mission to survey with Soviet and republic officials their critical food requirements for the coming winter, particularly in those republics that are likely to be in the greatest need. And in a month, a presidential mission led by Secretary of Agriculture Ed Madigan will bring a delegation of senior private sector and government officials to the USSR to seek solutions to a winter food problem if we determine that one exists and to continue our long-term efforts to help the Soviet Union and the Soviet people resolve problems in food distribution. I've also asked Secretary of State Jim Baker and our Agency for International Development Administrator, Mr. Roskens, to work with Project HOPE to augment and extend my presidential initiative on medical assistance to the USSR through the end of 1992. We intend to work closely with Soviet and republic officials in both of these efforts. This morning I talked to the Presidents of Estonia and of Latvia, as I did to Mr. Landsbergis of Lithuania a couple of days ago, to tell him of this official position now being taken by the United States of America. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 35, September 2, 1991 Title:

Statement at Moscow Funeral

Strauss Source: Ambassador Robert Strauss, US Embassy, Moscow, USSR Description: Text of a statement released by the Office of the White House Press Secretary. It is a presidential message read by Ambassador Strauss at the August 24 funeral of those killed defending against the attempted coup in Moscow, USSR Date: Aug 24, 19918/24/91 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Eurasia Country: USSR (former) Subject: Regional/Civil Unrest, Human Rights [TEXT] A great American, Patrick Henry, more than 200 years ago said: "Give me liberty or give me death." In the years since then, many Americans have faced that choice and have made the supreme sacrifice in defense of freedom and democracy. The justice of the cause does not make the loss of brave men and women any easier to bear. The American people during this past week shared the shock of the Russian people at the attack on their liberties, watched with admiration their defense of their "White House" and all it symbolized, and shared their joy at the collapse of the effort to reimpose tyranny. Today, we share your sorrow at the price these brave souls paid in the just cause for which they and you fought. They did not die in vain. May the memory of them remain bright and the democracy for which they gave their lives flourish among you.(###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 35, September 2, 1991 Title:

US and UK Committed To Help Soviet Reform

Bush, Major Source: President Bush, UK Prime Minister Major Description: Excerpts from a news conference, Kennebunkport, Maine Date: Aug 29, 19918/29/91 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Eurasia, Europe, North America Country: USSR (former), United States, United Kingdom Subject: Regional/Civil Unrest, Democratization, Trade/Economics [TEXT]
President Bush.
I'm very pleased that Prime Minister [John] Major and his family have been able to join us. For over the past few months, ever since he's been Prime Minister, he and I have exchanged views, we've stayed in very close contact regarding a number of fast-moving events on the international scene. I appreciate his counsel and his wise judgment. And in like manner, we've had extremely useful talks on the current situation inside the Soviet Union. These exchanges are particularly important since he is off on Sunday to Moscow and will be able to share with the Soviet leadership our views and hopes for the Soviet peoples in a direct manner. We stand united, as do other Western partners, in our commitment to help Soviet reform. The industrial democracies have already undertaken steps to aid the economic process. The program that we established at the G-7 meeting under John Major's chairmanship in London was a flexible program--adaptable program--and, as a matter of fact, today the G-7 sherpas [working- level economic officials] are meeting in London to review the situation and exchange views on any further steps that can be undertaken. But we must remember that the Soviet Union is undergoing a major political change. The Prime Minister and I also had a discussion about the Baltics. The United States is a strong supporter of Baltic independence; we've so notified the Soviet Union. And we've urged the Soviet leadership not to stand against the will of the inevitable--the winds of this inevitable change. The Baltics want freedom. Clearly, the United States and the UK want them to have freedom, and, clearly, the Baltics will have freedom. So let the Soviet leadership on this one act accordingly. That's our message. And, again, Mr. Prime Minister, I really enjoyed our conversation today, and we're just delighted you and your charming wife, Norma, are with us.
Prime Minister Major
. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I'd like, firstly, to thank the President and Mrs. Bush for their invitation to join them here today. Norma, Elizabeth, and I have had a great time, and we're very grateful to you for making us feel as much at home in New England as we do in our England, and we are grateful to you for that. I've discovered, over the last few months, that the President is not only a man I can do business with; I've discovered he's a man I can go fishing with. We've done more successful business than we had fishing this morning--I must tell you that--but we have managed to reach an agreement on a number of things on dry land in our discussions thus far, both on shore and out there fishing this morning. We certainly agree, absolutely, on our objectives in responding to the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union. We need to support democracy, we need to encourage the economic reform that they so badly need in the Soviet Union, and we need also to respond compassionately to the urgent needs that the Soviet people have at the present time. We will go on talking to the Soviet authorities, the central authorities, and also building on the existing relationships and the developing relationships with the new leaders in the republics. We're already in touch with the leaders of the Baltic states, and I hope when I visit Moscow on Sunday that I will be able to meet some, if not all, of them as well as Presidents Gorbachev and Yeltsin and some of the other key figures out there at the moment. We agreed this morning on the principles governing aid to the Soviet Union. There is a window of opportunity at present for the speeding up of the economic reform process, and that is absolutely vital for the Soviet Union. The need to speed that is urgent, and we agreed this morning that we need to support the effort. Our judgment is that what the Soviet Union and the republics most need is emergency humanitarian assistance [and] practical help in converting their economy into one that works. That means that that aid must be linked to a clear and comprehensive and practical reform plan, that it must go to those people who are in need--including directly to the individual republics--and that it needs to be linked to the Soviet commitment to further reduce defense spending. And we were able to identify in our discussions this morning a number of points--six particular points worthy of action. The first is to implement existing food credits. The second is to assess the need for food aid during this winter. The third is to produce some lifeline teams--teams to travel to the Soviet Union to help achieve efficient food production and food distribution. That may well be a public-private partnership, and it's an area where we and the United States will be moving ahead in the days and weeks immediately in front of us. We agreed also we needed to implement the "know-how' programs and the technical assistance that we discussed at the G-7 and the bilateral agreements we already have to assist the Soviets on that front. We also felt that the time was right to get the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank involved urgently in helping to work out practical structural reform plans and technical assistance for the Soviet Union. And, sixthly, we agreed that it would be right to accelerate implementation of special association for the Soviet Union with the IMF with a view to full membership in due course for those who qualify; and by "qualify' I mean as well in terms of effective reform plans. Now, that help with food aid and food distribution and technical assistance will require a good deal of international collaboration if the effort is going to be as targeted as it deserves to be to avoid duplication and as successful as we would want it to be. And that does necessarily mean that we need some mechanism involving the principal countries and the principal groupings involved. I will take the opportunity as current chairman of the G-7 to keep closely in touch with the other G-7 members to help ensure we coordinate our activities. All the members of the G-7 have been providing some very useful and constructive input for my meetings in Moscow this weekend. And when I have had that meeting, I'll be writing to them to discuss what needs to be done and to report to them on the judgments I reach there and the discussions that I had. I think it is worthwhile making the point that we do have a very urgent need for better information about what's happening there than we have. All the members of the G-7 have agreed to pool their findings by the end of September, to pool their findings of what needs to be done to meet the most urgent food and medical needs in the Soviet Union. So that is the basis of the discussions we have had this morning, and they've been very useful and very constructive. And I'd like to thank the President again for the very timely opportunity we've had to share our thoughts on the remarkable events that are taking place at the present time. We can't dictate the ending of what is happening in the Soviet Union, but neither are we mere spectators. And I think what has happened in the West in the last few days and the discussions we've had this morning indicated the way in which we can contribute to assist the Soviets. And I believe this morning we've reached a new and better understanding on the supporting role the West can play. So I am very grateful for the opportunity to have those discussions.
President Bush.
What we thought we'd do is alternate questions for me and for the Prime Minister. We're not going to take many, but we will endeavor to do our best here. Q. Mr. President, the Supreme Soviet's been meeting most of this week. You said that you were hoping to see a clearer picture of the Soviet Union's political future emerge from those sessions; yet, things seem about as confused today as they did 48 or 72 hours ago. Are things moving a little bit too slowly on that front for you, or do you see things falling into place? President Bush. No, I think the changes are so monumental that it is going to take time to sort it all out with finality. Every day there are new announcements of some new dramatic step taking place, and so that's for them to sort out. We can't affect it, particularly. I think the Prime Minister was right on target when he says we want to help--we're not just bystanders. We have a tremendous stake in what's taking place. But, no, these changes have moved with such rapidity that--well, put it this way: If 2 weeks ago somebody had predicted this, everybody would have said he was-- had lost it. And so changes are going on. But, again, all the cards are not on the table when it comes to what the US role should be or the UK role in further assistance of one kind or another. But I don't worry about that. I mean, they've got enormous problems in the republic, in the center, and in the other republics as well, not just the Russian Republic. So it's moving fast. We are watching. We are learning. And we stand ready to be assistants, because what's at stake here is democracy and freedom. And our countries are clearly committed to that. . . .(###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 35, September 2, 1991 Title:

Change in the Soviet Union

Bush, Mulroney Source: President Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney Description: Excerpts from news conference, Kennebunkport, Maine Date: Aug 26, 19918/26/91 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Eurasia, North America Country: United States, Canada, USSR (former) Subject: Regional/Civil Unrest, Democratization, Trade/Economics [TEXT]
President Bush
. Let me just make a couple of opening comments. First, to say what a pleasure it was for the Bush family to have the Mulroneys here. Particularly at this time, it was important that I have an opportunity to consult with Canada's Prime Minister [Brian Mulroney]. It seems coincidental that it was a year ago that we were consulting, and I value his judgment now as I did then. A year ago, we were talking about how to repel aggression, and today we're talking about exciting changes in the Soviet Union that will benefit everybody, in my view. So, once again, I have at my side here today a man that I trust, a man whose judgment I value, and these consultations were in the best tradition of diplomacy. We talked about a number of issues, in particular the status of the Baltics. And we also talked about economic aid. We're having a sherpa meeting--we're having deputy and finance ministers meetings taking place in the next couple of days, and they'll be very interesting. We'll get a little more information from them. I wouldn't look for major decisions-- from the US side, anyway--coming out of those meetings. I talked this morning, as did the Prime Minister, with Chancellor Kohl, Prime Minister Kaifu, [and Prime Minister] Antall of Hungary. We're in close agreement on most issues regarding the change. During the week, I'm going to have more discussions with other world leaders. And the Baltic situation has been very important. I think everybody knows the US position about wanting full and total independence. There are still some matters that they themselves have to hammer out. I'll let the Canadian Prime Minister, obviously, speak for himself, but we're moving very, very close to recognition. There are some questions about what do you recognize. There are some border questions that are important, and, of course, I'm anxious to hear--as I said, I think, yesterday--the outcome of the meetings in the Supreme Soviet. On the economic side, we had a far-reaching discussion. We agreed that this is an issue that the industrial democracies need to review carefully. For the US side, I can tell you that I've seen nothing to make me change my mind about the agreement we collectively took at London in the G-7: there, a determination to help the Soviet Union, but a recognition that reform had to take place. And there's a little bit of uncertainty now, and they themselves need to sort that out, so that when you have a contract you know who it's with; when you have a deal, you know that it's going to be fulfilled. But the change has been so traumatic, we can't expect all that to be ironed out overnight. But, nevertheless, again, moving in the right direction, we'll stand ready to assist when we can. But speaking for the United States, there will be nothing out of the sherpa meeting that will commit us to the writing of checks, as I've referred to it. I am making available today--announcing the availability of this $315 million of the second tranche of the agricultural credits to the Soviet Union. I believe the Prime Minister will have more to say on that subject. So events are moving rapidly; they're going in the direction of freedom and democracy. I remain optimistic that they can--these enormous changes can be handled without disorder, without the anarchy that we hear some on the television talking about. But it's traumatic change, and sometimes it's better to let your views be known to the Soviet leaders as to how we want things to resolve and then let them sort out some of the details. As far as I'm concerned, that can apply to the Baltics; it can apply to other things as well. But anyway, Brian, we're most--you're so welcome. And I once again thank you for your advice and counsel, which I do value.
Prime Minister Mulroney
. Thank you, Mr. President. I was glad of the opportunity for another full review of pretty extraordinary and welcome events. As a result of some of these developments, Canada moved this morning to begin the process of establishing full diplomatic relations with the Baltic states and all of the agreements that would necessarily follow from that decision. I have instructed the Minister for International Trade and the Minister for Industry, Science, and Technology, who was formerly the Minister of Finance for Canada, Michael Wilson, to meet in the very near future with the representatives of the Baltic republics and then to go on to Kiev where, in the near future, we hope to open a consulate general that has already been announced. There are fundamental and economic challenges that remain, and these are matters first and foremost for the new leadership of the Soviet Union. The accelerated pace of reform will--as the President and I and others have indicated in London--the accelerated pace of reform will be met by accelerated commitments of various kinds by the G-7 leaders, including the Government of Canada. In fact, earlier today on the specific problem of what a difficult autumn or a winter might bring in the Soviet Union, and given the extraordinary productive capacities in the agricultural sector of both the United States and Canada, the President and I agreed today to support very actively initiatives for food aid to ensure that basic needs are met in the Soviet Union throughout what is clearly a difficult and challenging period. And I thanked the President for his hospitality. The Mulroneys always have a great time here--not always successful with the fish, but we enjoy it a great deal. And I thank the President and Mrs. Bush.
Questions from the Press
Q. Canada is only the latest in the growing list of countries that have extended full diplomatic recognition to the Baltics. Why is it that they're able to do this but the United States continues to lag back? President Bush. I think we have certain special responsibilities. We've made very clear our conviction that the Baltics will be independent, and I feel more confident of that than ever. From the US standpoint, I'd like to know a little bit more about what's coming out of the European Community tomorrow, what's coming out of the Soviet parliament meeting. But also, I want to know a little more about controlling one's own territory and what you're recognizing. I mean, there are some difficulties there. Lithuania, today, for example, is different than the Lithuania that had its freedom and that was recognized by us. So we need a little more information, but we're moving very fast. And I feel very comfortable with what other countries are doing. I think we've already stated our conviction that not only will they be free but they'll be independent, and I'd just like to see a little bit more--a few more cards on the table before we take another step. I may have more to say about this after the Prime Minister's visit. They may do something in the EC tomorrow, but I'm anxious to talk to him. And I do think that others recognize that we have perhaps different responsibilities than other countries around the world in a matter of this gravity and in a matter of dealing with the Soviet Union generally. I hope we've handled it properly, and I'm confident that we will be there when needed on this question. . . . Q. Mr. President, the President of the Soviet Union, Mr. Gorbachev, was in front of his parliament today, still talking about the union treaty, which by all accounts seems to be obsolete given especially what the Ukraine did. I wonder if you and your advisers still have any concerns that Mr. Gorbachev might not be getting the message? President Bush. Well, I don't know about getting the message. I haven't heard the results of what went on at that meeting. We heard a little bit of it. But my view is, let's see. I mean, they've got a democratic process going on there now. We've heard from the Russian Supreme--Russian parliament, if you want; I'd prefer now to call it a parliament. Same thing for the Soviets. So let's see how it sorts out. Some want to stay affiliated with the center. To do that, if they're going to get aid from the West, they're going to have to have some agreement, a treaty, some understanding so people know who they're dealing with. One of the things that they need is a deal on energy--Canadian interests, US interests stand ready to help. But you can't have it if you have 25 different guys going off in different directions when it comes to making a contract. There would be a benefit to them to hammer out these details in a treaty, so an entrepreneur from Canada or from the United States could go in and say, okay, now we know who to deal with. So there are some very practical reasons why agreement between the center and the republics is very important to their economic recovery. Now, for those entities that say they want total independence--and they've got to sort out how they're going to handle their economic relationships with Russia, with the Soviet Union, and with the West. There are some very complicated formulas that have to be evolved here. There's very complicated situations because of the dependence at this moment in history of some of the Baltic states, for example, on the center. Steel goes one way, energy comes another, and they've got to sort some of this out. But none of that should, as I cite that, none of that should be interpreted as a lack of interest on our part--of the United States-- in seeing independence and freedom just as quickly as possible. You mentioned--the Ukraine is a good one. Eighty percent of the people at one point said, hey, we approve of the union treaty. Now they've declared independence, but does that mean that they don't want a union treaty at all? I don't know the answer to that. To have answers to all these complex questions at the end of a week that's moved this fast is expecting too much. I, for one, am going to say, hey, we've got a few days here. Let's know what we're doing. Let's be sure we understand what's happening. Let's do nothing to interfere or hold back independence or freedom or a right to be independent. But let's--I owe the American people the answer to some of these questions that I don't yet have, and I'm not going to move precipitously. Yet, I am going to continue to move in a way to encourage independence and self-determination. . . . (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 35, September 2, 1991 Title:

Call for a Cease-fire in Yugoslavia

Boucher Source: State Department Deputy Spokesman Richard Boucher Description: Washington, DC Date: Aug 29, 19918/29/91 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: E/C Europe Country: Yugoslavia (former), Serbia-Montenegro, Croatia Subject: Regional/Civil Unrest, Military Affairs, CSCE [TEXT] The US strongly endorses the positions taken and the steps proposed by the EC [European Community] foreign ministers in their August 27 declaration on Yugoslavia, including their call for agreement by all parties in Yugoslavia on a cease-fire to be observed by CSCE [Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe]-mandated monitors and on the convening of a peace conference. We also support the EC's determination, in the absence of such agreement by September 1, to convene a meeting which would include representatives of those Yugoslav republics which support these steps as well as the Yugoslav Prime Minister and foreign minister. We are seriously concerned by the level of violence in Croatia. We see grave risks that violence will escalate in Croatia and spread to Bosnia-Herzegovina and to Kosovo Province in southern Serbia. Although many parties have contributed to Yugoslavia's instability, the leadership of the Serbian Republic and the Yugoslav military bear a particular and growing responsibility for the country's tragic descent toward civil war. Actions which seek to redraw by force the external or internal borders of Yugoslavia represent a dramatic affront to the values and principles which underlie the CSCE. It is clear that federal Yugoslav military units in Croatia have not been serving as an impartial guarantor of a cease-fire. Instead, they have been actively supporting local Serbian forces violating the cease-fire and causing loss of life to the citizens they are constitutionally bound to protect. It is equally clear that the Serbian Republic leadership is actively supporting and encouraging the use of force in Croatia by Serbian militants and the Yugoslav military. Serbian Republic leaders and Yugoslav military leaders have also blocked thus far the European Community's offer, mandated by the CSCE, to monitor a cease-fire in Croatia. We call upon Serbian and military leaders to renounce the illegitimate use of force and to embrace the principles which underlie the CSCE, including the non-use of force and the peaceful settlement of disputes. We call upon non-Serbian leaders to remain committed to the process of peaceful dialogue. We call on the government of Croatia to refrain from any acts in the context of its ultimatum to the federal presidency and the military that would contribute to the present spiral of violence, and to maintain its offer of dialogue and compromise with Serbian citizens of Croatia. We call on all parties to implement immediately an unconditional cease-fire in Croatia and to cooperate fully with the steps proposed in the EC foreign minister's August 27 declaration. The US, the EC, and the entire CSCE community have sent a clear message to the peoples of Yugoslavia over recent months: -- The use of force to solve political differences or to change external or internal borders is simply not acceptable. -- Those who resort to force in Yugoslavia will achieve nothing but tragedy for Yugoslavia and themselves, and their own isolation from the international community. By these means the Serbian leadership will only condemn itself and its own people to exile from the new Europe. -- There is another path open to the peoples of Yugoslavia. The international community stands ready to help them address and reconcile their legitimate aspirations and concerns, including the interests of all national groups in each republic, through a process of peaceful dialogue. The US appreciates the anxieties of all of the peoples of Yugoslavia, including the concerns of Serbs inside and outside Serbia about their future in the event of Yugoslav disintegration. However, the US cannot and will not accept repression and use of force in the name of those concerns. Recalling the tragic civil war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives in Yugoslavia a half century ago, we urge the peoples of Yugoslavia to pull back from the brink of another such catastrophe. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 35, September 2, 1991 Title:

Debt Reduction for Bolivia

Fitzwater Description: The following is a White House Fact Sheet released by the Office of the Press Secretary, Washington, DC Date: Aug 22, 19918/22/91 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: South America Country: Bolivia Subject: International Law, Development/Relief Aid [TEXT] Today, President Bush endorsed a major agreement between the Government of Bolivia and the US Government to reduce Bolivia's official bilateral debt owed to the US Government on PL 480 [Food for Peace program] food assistance loans. Deputy Secretary of the Treasury John Robson signed for the US and Minister of Planning and Coordination Samuel Doria-Medina signed for Bolivia. This agreement is the second bilateral debt reduction under the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative (EAI). The debt reduction element of the initiative is intended to reduce debt owed by countries in Latin America and the Caribbean which have undertaken broad macroeconomic and structural reforms, liberalized their investment regimes, and reached agreement on their commercial bank debt where appropriate. Bolivia's sound macroeconomic policies, stable and receptive foreign investment regime, and substantial progress in reducing its commercial bank debt meet the standards set under the initiative. Implementation of the agreement is contingent on approval of an investment sector loan by the Inter-American Development Bank board of directors, which is expected on September 11. The agreement signed today provides for the reduction of Bolivia's food assistance debt to the United States by 80%, from approximately $38 million to $7.7 million. In addition to this reduction in the stock of debt, we expect to enter into an Environmental Framework Agreement with the Government of Bolivia, which would allow all interest payments on the new reduced obligation to be paid in local currency and channeled into an environmental fund established by Bolivia. The United States and Bolivia also signed an agreement today to eliminate Bolivia's official bilateral debt owed to the US Government on loans made by the US Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID Assistant Administrator James Michel signed for the United States and Minister Doria-Medina signed for Bolivia. The agreement signed today provides for the full forgiveness of Bolivia's USAID debt to the United States, which is approximately $341 million. Congress provided authority (in Section 572 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 1989) to reduce the USAID debt to relatively least developed countries implementing strong economic reforms. Bolivia is the first country outside Sub-Saharan Africa to receive such debt reduction. In addition, Bolivia has made a voluntary commitment to provide a bond which will produce $20 million in local currency over 10 years to support environmental activities consistent with the EAI. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 35, September 2, 1991 Title:

Debt Reduction for Jamaica

Fitzwater Description: Text of a White House Fact Sheet released by the Office of the Press Secretary, Washington, DC Date: Aug 23, 19918/23/91 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Caribbean Country: Jamaica Subject: Development/Relief Aid, International Law [TEXT] Today, the Governments of Jamaica and the US entered into a major agreement to reduce Jamaica's official bilateral debt owed to the US Government on PL 480 [Food for Peace program] food assistance loans. Deputy Secretary of the Treasury John Robson signed for the US; Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade David Coore signed for Jamaica. This agreement is the third bilateral debt reduction under the Enterprise for the America's Initiative (EAI). The debt reduction element of the initiative is intended to reduce debt owed by countries in Latin America and the Caribbean which have undertaken broad macroeconomic and structural reforms, liberalized their investment regimes, and reached agreement on their commercial bank debt, where appropriate. Jamaica is implementing a wide range of reforms aimed at building a strong, market-oriented economy. These initiatives, including measures to make its economy more attractive to investors, qualify Jamaica for debt reduction under the EAI. Implementation of the agreement is contingent on approval of the trade, finance, and investment sector loan's by the Inter- American Development Bank Board of Directors, which is expected on September 18. The agreement signed today provides for the reduction of Jamaica's food assistance debt to the US by 80%, from approximately $271 million to $54.2 million. In addition to this reduction in the stock of debt, the US expects to enter into an Environmental Framework Agreement with Jamaica, which would allow all interest payments on the new reduced obligation to be paid in local currency and channeled into an environmental fund established by Jamaica. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 35, September 2, 1991 Title:

Enterprise for the Americas Initiative

Date: Sep 2, 19919/2/91 Category: Policy Briefs (Gist) Region: North America, South America, Central America, Caribbean Country: Chile Subject: Trade/Economics [TEXT]
On June 27, 1990, President Bush announced the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative--a major new initiative to help forge a genuine partnership of free market reform to promote economic growth and political stability in Latin America and the Caribbean. At that time he noted that "prosperity in our hemisphere depends on trade, not aid' and that "the future of Latin America lies with free government and free markets.' Over the past decade, countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have confronted an economic crisis which also has affected the United States. As many of these countries have cut imports, postponed investment, and struggled to service foreign debt, the United States has lost trade, markets, and opportunities for investment. A new generation of democratically elected leaders in the region has made progress in coping with this crisis. Their countries are beginning to move away from excessive government control and toward greater reliance on free market forces. The Enterprise for the Americas Initiative would support the efforts of these leaders, increasing the prospects for prosperity throughout the hemisphere. The foreign ministers of the hemisphere endorsed the EAI at the meeting of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States in Santiago, Chile, June 3-8, 1991. They approved a resolution declaring it a positive new approach to trade, investment, and external debt.
The Initiative's Three Pillars
The initiative rests on three pillars through which the United States can support economic reform and sustained growth: -- Expanding trade by working with the countries of the region through the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and by entering into free trade agreements with the ultimate goal of a hemisphere-wide free trade system; -- Promoting investment in the region and helping countries compete for capital by reforming policies that have discouraged private investment; -- Building on successful US efforts to ease debt burdens and to increase incentives for reform by offering additional debt measures. As part of this approach, the United States would support natural resources management as a key element of protecting the environment and building a strong future for the hemisphere.
The Enterprise for the Americas Initiative envisions a hemisphere- wide free trade system. To achieve this long- range goal, the United States works to develop more productive partnerships with its neighbors in the hemisphere. First, it remains committed to the multilateral trading system and to the success of the Uruguay Round. The EAI and the Uruguay Round complement each other; a successful round could facilitate trade negotiations in the hemisphere. Second, the United States, Canada, and Mexico have begun free trade negotiations, made possible by congressional action on May 23-24, 1991, granting the executive branch "fast track authority' to negotiate trade agreements. Third, the United States has negotiated framework agreements on trade and investment with those countries and groups of countries that wish to work toward freer trade in the hemisphere. Trade and investment framework agreements have been signed with most democracies in the hemisphere.
Legislative Proposal
On September 14, 1990, President Bush sent to Congress a legislative proposal to implement the investment, debt, and environmental elements of the initiative. Congress approved some elements in October 1990 with passage of the EAI portion of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act, which authorized reduction of PL 480 (food aid) concessional debt.
. The proposal provides for US contributions to a multilateral fund to be established at the Inter- American Development Bank (IDB). The President will seek authorization for $100 million per year over 5 years for the fund, and the Secretary of the Treasury will seek contributions from other countries. Disbursement from the fund would encourage market-oriented investment policy initiatives and reforms and finance technical assistance for privatization efforts, business infrastructure, and worker training and education programs. The fund would complement country reforms undertaken as part of a new IDB lending program for nations that take significant steps to remove barriers to investment.
Debt and Environment
. The legislation establishes a facility to administer debt reduction for countries meeting investment reform and other policy conditions. Latin American and Caribbean countries can qualify if they, as appropriate, have: -- An International Monetary Fund program or the equivalent; -- World Bank structural or sectoral adjustment loans; -- Undertaken major investment reforms in conjunction with an IDB loan or are implementing more liberal investment rules; -- Negotiated satisfactory financing programs with commercial banks. The Secretary of the Treasury leads a US Government interagency process that determines country eligibility based on these criteria. This group makes decisions on the extent of debt reduction on eligible concessional obligations of qualifying countries, currently limited to PL 480 debt. If authorized by Congress, it also would determine reductions of other concessional debt (USAID), as well as Export-Import Bank and Commodity Credit Corporation obligations. These would be made to facilitate debt- for-equity, debt-for-nature, or debt-for-development swaps. On June 27, 1991, the United States and Chile signed the first debt reduction agreement under the EAI. The United States subsequently reached agreements with Bolivia and Jamaica. The United States will seek an environmental agreement with each eligible country that will allow it to make interest payments in local currency on new obligations resulting from debt reduction. These interest payments will be deposited in an Environmental Fund to support environmental projects. The Fund would be managed by an environmental commission made up of members from the US Government, the debtor government, and non-governmental groups from that country.
Key Components of Trade Vision
Progress in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the North American Free Trade Agreement negotiations. Cooperation on trade liberalization issues through trade and investment councils. Active liberalization of trade and investment policies in Latin America and the Caribbean. As markets in Latin America and the Caribbean grow and liberalize, gradual incorporation into a growing hemispheric system of free trade. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 35, September 2, 1991 Title:

US-Philippine Treaty

Tutwiler Description: Statement released by the Office of the Assistant Secretary/Spokesman, Washington, DC Date: Aug 27, 19918/27/91 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: East Asia Country: Philippines Subject: International Law, Military Affairs [TEXT] Representatives of the United States of America and the Republic of the Philippines today signed a Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Security at Malacanang Palace in the Philippines. US Ambassador Frank G. Wisner and the Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs Raul S. Manglapus signed the agreement in the presence of President Corazon Aquino. The signing of the new agreement brought to a successful close a negotiating process which began in May 1990 under the direction of Special Negotiator Richard L. Armitage and Foreign Secretary Manglapus. Among its provisions are arrangements which would permit US forces to continue operating at Subic Naval Base for a term of 10 more years and to continue defense cooperation into the 21st century. The agreement also includes provisions for continued bilateral cooperation in the areas of economics, culture and education, science and technology, and veterans affairs. Also signed today were supplementary agreements on Status of Forces, Installations and Military Operating Procedures, and Cultural and Educational Cooperation. This is a solemn undertaking under international law. The two sides agreed that the manner in which the parties will bring this agreement into legal force under their respective domestic systems is a matter of sovereign prerogative for each. The Philippine side, in accordance with its Constitution, will submit the document to the Senate of the Philippines for ratification. The American side, in accordance with its customary practice regarding similar arrangements around the world, will bring the document into legal force through the process of an executive agreement. In this manner, the constitutional requirements and customary practices of both sides have been fully respected and preserved. The US Congress will be notified by the executive branch in accordance with the Case-Zablocki Act, and this agreement will be registered with the United Nations and published in both the United States Treaties and Other International Acts Series (TIAS) and the United Stated Department of State's annual Treaties in Force. The new agreement will now be submitted by President Aquino to the Senate of the Philippines for its constitutionally mandated ratification process. In order for it to be approved by the Philippine Senate, no less than 16 affirmative votes are required. It is expected that the Senate will act on this matter on or before September 16, 1991. The United States is gratified that the Government of the Philippines has taken a positive step toward reaffirming the historic friendship which has characterized this unique relationship and looks forward to the confirmation of President Aquino's decision by the Senate of the Philippines. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 35, September 2, 1991 Title:

African Refugees

Date: Sep 2, 19919/2/91 Category: Policy Briefs (Gist) Region: Subsaharan Africa Subject: Refugees, United Nations [TEXT] In Africa today there are about 5 million "true' refugees. The term "refugee' should not be applied to people who are not actually refugees, such as economic migrants, migratory peoples who do not necessarily respect international borders, and persons displaced within their own countries by natural disasters and civil strife. In Africa, true refugees are defined as people who are outside their country of origin because of persecution (Geneva convention definition) or who have fled generalized conditions of violence (Organization of African Unity convention definition) and are unable to return home for the same reasons. There are also at least 10 million displaced persons/conflict victims on the continent, who are people who have been forced to move within their country or are affected in some other way by conflict. Many African countries are concurrently generators of and receivers of refugees; refugees may be returning to some countries at the same time as their compatriots are fleeing into refuge. In 1990-91, the number of African refugees requiring assistance grew despite some offsets from repatriations in Southern and Central Africa and the Horn of Africa. African countries have demonstrated extraordinary hospitality to refugees, although growing numbers cause strained conditions.
Role of International Organizations
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has worldwide responsibility for protection of refugees. To provide material aid, UNHCR works with other UN agencies and non-governmental bodies including the League of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent Societies. In conflict settings the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC ) also may play a role. In the longer term, UNHCR seeks durable solutions to problems arising from the fact that many African refugees remain in their host countries for years with little hope of return. There still is a need to coordinate refugee assistance with development planning to increase refugees' self- sufficiency and reduce the burdens they impose on their host country. There also is a critical need to improve the UN's overall capacity to respond to refugee emergencies.
Southern Africa
Civil war in Mozambique has forced more than 1.5 million refugees into six neighboring countries and displaced some 2 million others. Malawi now hosts more than 900,000 Mozambicans, equal to more than 10% of its population. Zambia, Namibia, and Zaire host 425,000 Angolan refugees. The end of 15 years of civil war in Angola should allow for the return of these refugees in the near future. Changes in South Africa have led to the return of a small number of the estimated 35,000-40,000 South African refugees. UNHCR and the South African Government have just agreed on the modalities of a large-scale UNHCR-led repatriation exercise.
West Africa
The latest generator of refugees in Africa is Liberia. Throughout 1990 and into 1991, more than 750,000 Liberian refugees fled civil conflict, seeking safehaven primarily in Guinea, Cote d'Ivoire, Sierra Leone, and Ghana. Liberian rebels invaded Sierra Leone in April 1991, forcing Liberian refugees to flee again and displacing thousands of Sierra Leoneans. Almost 100,000 Sierra Leoneans are now refugees in Guinea; an estimated 12,000 fled to Liberia. Also in West Africa, an estimated 68,000 Mauritanians remained in refuge in Senegal and Mali following 1989 government expulsions. About 3,800 Senegalese fled to Guinea-Bissau and The Gambia in 1990 to escape violence in the Casamance region. By summer 1991, some 15,000 Malians were in Mauritania escaping government/Tuareg violence.
The Horn
Nearly 40% of Africa's refugees (about 2 million people) are in Somalia, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Sudan, and Kenya. The January 1991 collapse of the Barre regime in Somalia forced 200,000 new Somali refugees into Ethiopia (for a total of 600,000) and 60,000 more to Kenya and Djibouti. It also induced the precipitous return of some 350,000 Ethiopians who had been longtime refugees in Somalia. The May 1991 collapse of the Mengistu regime in Ethiopia brought further disruption. Some 70,000 Ethiopians fled to Sudan, Djibouti, and Kenya. Most of the 400,000 Sudanese refugees there were pushed back into Sudan by insecure conditions and/or pressure from Sudanese rebels who were forced to leave their safehaven in Ethiopia and flee back into Sudan. Some 250,000 former Ethiopian soldiers inside the country put down arms or were released from rebel prisoner-of-war camps. They are receiving assistance from the ICRC. Many of the 700,000 Ethiopian refugees in Sudan and most Somalis in Ethiopia, who have been in asylum for years, may be able to return to their homes in the coming months. C
entral Africa
Renewed efforts are underway to resolve the decades-old Rwandan and Burundi refugee problems. The October 1990 invasion of Rwanda by a rebel group of Rwandan exiles has rekindled regional interest in finding a "durable solution' for an estimated 400,000- 500,000 Rwandan refugees. Ideally, refugees will be allowed to return home or obtain citizenship or legal resident alien status in their asylum country in the near future. Burundi initiated its own repatriation program and reports that 4,000 of its estimated 250,000 refugees have returned home in 1991. In Chad, the December 1990 fall of the Habre regime allowed the return of longtime Chadian refugees in Cameroon and elsewhere, while generating initially a new refugee population of about 10,000; some of them have returned home. The Central African Republic, Zaire, and Uganda host 5,000, 110,000, and 60,000 Sudanese refugees, respectively.
US Policy
In keeping with the view that refugees are an international responsibility, US policy promotes multilateralism and burden- sharing. It is international practice and US policy first to promote safe, voluntary repatriation of refugees to their homelands. The next preferred alternative is settlement in countries of asylum within the region. If neither option works, resettlement in third countries, including the US, is considered. In FY 1991, some 4,000 African refugees will have been settled in the US. US policy translates into a continued US leadership role as the single largest financier of international assistance to African refugees. The US Government, through the Department of State's Bureau for Refugee Programs, normally provides for some 25% of UNHCR's Africa program and some 20% of ICRC's efforts. Contributions for African refugee assistance will reach $129.6 million in FY 1991. The US Government has also made available for African refugees food commodities valued at roughly $123.5 million in FY 1991. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 35, September 2, 1991 Title:

The New Global System and Its Implications for Peace and Security in Africa

Stremlau Source: John Stremlau, Deputy Director, Policy Planning Staff Description: Address before a UN workshop on conflict resolution, Yaounde, Cameroon Date: Jun 18, 19916/18/91 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Subsaharan Africa Country: USSR (former) Subject: Security Assistance and Sales, Democratization, Development/Relief Aid [TEXT] Thank you for inviting me to address such an important and far- reaching subject. While we have arrived at what President Bush has called "a defining moment of history," we are still a long way from a popular consensus on a "new international system' or "world order." The stunning changes, both within and among nations, that we are all experiencing will focus the minds of historians for generations to come. But we, who are living through these momentous times, do not have the historian's advantage in predicting events after they have happened. Together we must tackle the immediate challenge of shaping the transition to a more cooperative world community, despite many uncertainties, in the hope of achieving peace and security in all regions. Defining the new international system is beyond the wisdom and authority of any one leader or nation. First, there needs to be a much broader understanding and agreement about the changing nature of relations among states, developments within states, and the rapidly blurring lines of their domestic and foreign affairs. Traditional definitions of national and international security are also in great flux.
Regional and World Order
Before rushing headlong into the future, let us reflect for a moment on what history has taught us about previous attempts to establish regimes of regional and world order. Until now, mankind really has experienced only two basic alternatives. -- The first, and most prevalent, has been domination: a state or group overpowers and rules others. This model has engendered demands for liberty, whether the stakes were material (such as land, resources, and other forms of wealth) or intangible (religious or cultural freedom). I need not dwell on the painful lessons of such regimes, particularly in a region less than two generations free of colonial rule. -- The second model, balance of power, was based on the concept of equilibrium rather than dominance. It currently is enjoying a burst of renewed interest among scholars and some statesmen, notably former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Variations of the balance-of-power system prevailed in Europe from roughly 1648 to 1914. Three conditions sustained it: recognition of the rights of sovereignty, the creation of modern diplomatic institutions appropriate for serious bargaining among states, and the restrained use of warfare as an instrument of national policy rather than as a means of establishing domination. For balance of power to work, a clash over basic values, which by their very nature were non-negotiable, and the unrestrained accumulation of power by one state had to be avoided. A disastrous combustion of industrialization, political mass mobilization, and the unchecked concentration of state power and territorial ambitions finally shattered the system and produced the two most devastating wars in history. Even when it functioned well in Europe, the balance-of-power regime sanctioned cruel imperial conquests of vast areas, including Central Africa. The bipolar regime, that followed the Second World War and has prevailed throughout all of our professional lives, has been an uneasy hybrid of the balance-of-power and domination models, with the United States and the Soviet Union leading blocs committed to interests that conflicted and values that were irreconcilable. The advent of nuclear weapons, fueled in the first instance by uranium mined in Central Africa, transformed the utility of war between the major powers. An unprecedented Cold War followed, marked by tense stability in US-Soviet relations and on the Central European front. Meanwhile, in much of the Third World, some 125 wars (claiming upward of 40 million lives and untold loss of property) affected--and were affected by--the US-Soviet rivalry. As you know better than I, Central and Southern Africa were key testing grounds of the two competing visions of world order, from the Congo crisis in the early 1960s--which signaled a dramatic rise in East-West competition in the Third World--well into the 1980s. By welcome contrast, US-Soviet cooperation in the late 1980s to help free Namibia was a dramatic harbinger of the start of the end of the Cold War. Developments in this region continue to have a profound influence on the tenor and direction of this highly unusual chapter in world politics. One wonders today whether and how the voices of this region will resonate in what may be a lengthy transition to a new world order.
A New Partnership Transcending the Cold War
As we reflect on the differences between this "defining moment of history' and previous watershed events, such as the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 or the Congress of Vienna in 1815, one attribute is especially striking. Never before has there been such a sudden substantial redistribution of power without a major war. This time the outcome was decided not on the field of battle but in the hearts and minds of ordinary people. Furthermore, decisions to end the Cold War were driven primarily by domestic, political, economic, and social results rather than any significant change in the military balance. The devastating failure of communism in Central and Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union was only half the story. The undeniable achievements of democracy and market-based economies in North America, Western Europe (including the European Community's recent historic steps toward integration), Japan, and in growing numbers of Third World nations were at least as important. Governments everywhere must now reassess their foreign and domestic policies. The end of the Cold War has not produced a greater concentration of power but rather has accelerated its diffusion among and within countries. President Bush succinctly captured this trend and the opportunities it offers when, in his speech before the UN General Assembly last fall, he called for a new "partnership of nations that transcends the Cold War. A partnership based on consultation, cooperation, and collective action, especially through international and regional organizations. . . a partnership whose goals are to increase democracy, increase prosperity, increase the peace, and reduce arms.' The cumulative effects of building such a partnership would eventually define the new international system. While the pathways to that system--perhaps "world community' is a better term--have yet to be mapped, some initial signposts, particularly in the realm of regional and international security, are coming into view. The most important potential partnership affecting world peace and security remains the US-Soviet relationship. The centerpiece of this budding partnership has been progress on the dual political/military tracks of arms control and cooperation to resolve regional conflicts. Both tracks have been relevant to regional peace and security, including Africa and its central subregion. The most dramatic and far-reaching example of US-Soviet cooperation occurred last August when, barely 24 hours after Iraq invaded Kuwait, Secretary Baker and Foreign Minister Shevardnadze issued their historic communique denouncing Iraqi aggression. This helped set the stage for the tremendous revitalization of the Security Council and the unprecedented solidarity shown by its members. Vital to this success, of course, was the solid support for Council action given by the other members, with notable help from the four African members throughout the crisis. If there was one silver lining in that terrible conflict, it is that the Council's active role in the Gulf crisis should serve to deter other potential aggressors in the future and generally strengthen its peace-making and peace-keeping authority. Judging from the tenor and substance of recent US-Soviet bilateral meetings on regional issues, no issue seems likely to rekindle their old rivalry or prompt either side to frustrate genuine peace-making efforts by regional and international institutions. But while US-Soviet cooperation may sometimes be a necessary condition, it is never a sufficient condition for resolving regional conflicts. Recent breakthroughs in Southern Africa, Central America, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere obviously required the active support of local actors and the engagement by the United Nations and/or regional organizations. Regional solutions for regional problems, at long last, really has become the preferred option in both Washington and Moscow. Expanding and sustaining multilateral efforts to promote and consolidate regional peace and security in the 1990s will test traditional notions about the limits of sovereignty. Among the world's current 30-35 "hotspots,' nearly all are in the developing world, and the vast majority are essentially internal conflicts. Recent civil wars in West Africa and on the Horn are raising fundamental issues of territorial integrity and sovereign equality. African voices on these matters, and the processes by which they are resolved, will have effects on the thinking of statesmen far beyond the particular subregion or the African continent. Against this background, the courageous ongoing effort by the Economic Community for West African States (ECOWAS) to bring peace to war-torn Liberia is a notable example of renewed regional self-determination that has won the appreciation and respect of the rest of the international community. Given the regrettable proliferation of intrastate communal violence throughout much of the world, Africans could play a leading role in devising and implementing creative new security arrangements, such as ECOWAS/ECOMOG [cease-fire monitoring group for Liberia], that might be lessons for others to emulate. UN Resolution 688, designed to restrain Iraq, shows that the international consensus for collective action to stop aggression now extends to domestic repression as well. In the 1990s, regional and international organizations are likely to be pressed more and more to deal with issues of human rights and civil strife. Even in the absence of actual conflict, these organizations will be called upon to deal with a host of transnational issues that will further blur traditional distinctions between domestic and foreign affairs and between security, economic, and social issues. Environmental degradation, terrorism, narcotics-trafficking, and other criminal behavior are examples of this new security agenda that will necessarily require the attention and policy response of all governments, including those of the Central African region. Efforts to promote regional peace and security should be further encouraged by progress in ending the US-Soviet arms race. Supporters of increasing military expenditures in the Third World no longer can claim to be acting in accordance with the major powers. Calls by Moscow and Washington for greater restraint by others are gaining new credibility and authority. Moreover, the end of the Cold War and increasing talk of the need for defense budget- cutting and conversion in the North throw excessive military expenditures into sharper question. Finally, the current reorientation of the US-Soviet relationship away from military to economic issues implies much more than "doing business.' As Gorbachev's advisers have publicly noted, the Soviet Union's most pressing national security concern is the success of perestroika. The terms of economic cooperation with the West, although still to be decided, will have important implications for long-term international security and for sustained global growth.
North-South Relations
Western support for the transformation of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union will unavoidably affect relations between industrial democracies and developing countries. African and other leaders from poverty-stricken regions have already expressed concern that events in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union would divert attention and resources that would otherwise be available for development. Thus far, beyond the Soviet Union's own cutbacks in grants of military assistance, this has not occurred. The $800 million of US development assistance to Africa, provided on an all- grant basis, is up 40% in this fiscal year, and, despite sharp overall budget reductions, our development aid for Africa is expected to grow further in 1992. This is in addition to the recently forgiven $800 million on old development assistance loan debts. What is changing in North-South relations, as a result of the West's response to Eastern Europe, is the nature of conditionality. Following the collapse of communist domination in the East, the European Community took the lead in forging a new aid consortium of 24 industrial democracies, now called the Group of 24. Conditions for assistance went far beyond traditional economic criteria. To qualify, recipient countries are required to meet standards of: effective rule of law, respect for human rights, free and fair multiparty elections, as well as open market reforms. In so doing, the United States, Western Europe, and Japan signaled their growing willingness to act in concert to advance shared political and moral values internationally. In G-24 relations with other regions, including Central Africa, encouraging the growth of democracy is becoming increasingly pronounced in aid strategies. For the United States, President Bush and Secretary of State James Baker have repeatedly and publicly stated that promoting and consolidating democratic values is the preeminent challenge of America's post-Cold War foreign policy, affecting long-term US national security, economic prosperity, and social well-being.
Promoting Peace and Democracy
Promoting world peace and the protection of US national interests in a world order of shared democratic values is not a new idea. Many leaders, at least since the time of Woodrow Wilson, have held this dream only to see it shattered by powerful authoritarian forces. The failures of communism and surging political pluralism, however, are creating unprecedented opportunities and imperatives to vaunt the real strengths of democracy. As Secretary Baker noted in a speech marking the end of the Cold War: "Around the world, the old dictatorships of left and right have been swept away, and the people have been heard. Their wants are basic: freedom to think, freedom to speak, freedom to worship, freedom to work. And all of their freedoms are bound up in the call for democracy--the freedom to choose one's own government. . . . " Our desire to respond positively to these developments stems from these realities: -- History shows that democracies have not gone to war against each other and have demonstrated a remarkable ability to collaborate in a manner that has helped preserve world peace while promoting domestic harmony and prosperity; -- Democracies are conducive to capitalism, that unrivaled engine of economic growth and development; -- Truly democratic governments have shown unmatched political flexibility, stability, and legitimacy, particularly in accommodating class and ethnic diversity; -- Over the long term, effective democracy remains the best insurance against guerrilla movements, terrorism, extremism, or violence. Finally, the most powerful arguments for supporting democracy come from the countless men and women around the world who--for whatever reasons--have voluntarily embraced democratic values, have drawn inspiration from the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, and seek American endorsement and support. These concerns are not unique to Washington. They are increasingly being felt and expressed by our fellow democracies in Europe, Japan, and elsewhere. This is creating a greater sense of the importance of our shared values than ever before. And there appears to be a growing consensus among the democracies that partnerships rooted in shared values are likely to be far more resilient and productive than alliances based only on the shifting sands of transitory interests. For the community of democracies, maintaining close ties has become their permanent interest. While their relations, like the democracies that support them, are never perfect, they can always be perfected. Such relations create greater confidence and trust in the face of the uncertainty that is likely to prevail under a balance-of-power regime. Broadening and deepening cooperation among the community of democracies would establish a solid base for the new international system. Membership in the community can only be through voluntary association and must be open to all who adhere to democracy's core values. Democracy's basic values--respect for human rights, the rule of law, free and fair elections, and economic opportunity--have no frontiers and are indivisible. They also rapidly are gaining acceptance as the essential building blocks of the new international system. The rising chorus of indigenous voices across Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, Asia, Latin America, and Africa is confirming daily that basic democratic rights and freedom from tyranny are not "culture bound'; they connote far more than mere yearnings for "Western values.' Furthermore, democratic institutions cannot be exported or imposed from above, much less from abroad. Where they spring from local circumstances, they could and should be encouraged to take root and grow. Responding to such opportunities, particularly when they arise in protest of local oppression, may raise sensitive political and diplomatic issues for those who wish to help. Pretending the problems are not there, however, would be a far worse option for all concerned. In this spirit, we applaud and respect the many efforts to promote and consolidate democratic values and market reforms now underway throughout Africa. Quoting a report by the American research institute, Freedom House, US Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Cohen recently told our Congress: "Africa is experiencing 'a sweep of multipartyism that presents the most significant phenomenon since decolonization three decades ago.' ' "In country after country,' Assistant Secretary Cohen noted on another occasion, "the African people have made it clear that they want the political options which the one-party model has so singularly failed to provide.' Recent trends in Central Africa are especially heartening. The many significant gains in human rights observance--greater freedom of press and expression, more independence for trade unions, freeing of political prisoners, legalization of opposition political parties, a flowering of indigenous human rights groups-- deserve the support and admiration of the entire international community. Such progress greatly strengthens the case of those in Washington and in other donor nations who argue that Africa deserves greater help at a time when so much public attention is focused on the democratic changes occurring in East and Central Europe. As President Bush told the International Monetary Fund- World Bank meetings in Washington last fall, the United States is strongly committed to promoting development in the newly emerging democracies throughout the world: in Africa, Eastern Europe, Asia, and Latin America.
Central Africa
For reasons of economic poverty and cultural pluralism, Central Africa will remain one of democracy's most difficult proving grounds. Ethnic and regional tensions in many countries have been heightened by the greater sense of popular empowerment. Political protests and strikes have been sparked and made more difficult by badly needed economic reform programs supported by the International Monetary Fund. Political liberalization can be a risk to any government's security and economic policies; history shows the long-term benefits to a nation's development justify the risks. In the modern age of information and communication, there may actually be no alternative. In contemplating the future of regional peace and security in Central Africa, it is difficult to imagine a better foundation than a shared commitment to democratic values among its members. Creating such a community--a stronger partnership based on consultation, cooperation, and collective action--obviously will take time and will not be an easy or a straight-line process. To the extent that nations of a region can learn from each other's unique experiences, the momentum of liberalization may be easier to sustain and the risks of miscalculation and intra-regional conflict during these difficult transitions thereby reduced. The process of political reform now underway in and among Central African countries could have important implications, not only for future generations here but for democratic communities elsewhere in the world. History also shows that there are countless ways to structure the balance between the governing and the governed to elicit the necessary consent of the majority while protecting the rights of individuals. Democratic values have strong and deep roots in many traditional African societies that are today reasserting themselves in important phenomena such as "National Conferences." There are also highly promising and original constitutional arrangements under consideration that could turn out to be major contributions to universal democratic political theory. In any event, at both the broad level of human thought and at the most local level of political action, the real business of building a new international system for the long-term peace and security of people must proceed. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 35, September 2, 1991 Title:

Generalized System of Preferences

Date: Sep 2, 19919/2/91 Category: Policy Briefs (Gist) Subject: Trade/Economics [TEXT]
The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) eliminates duties on a wide range of products imported into the United States from designated beneficiary countries. It assists economic development by promoting trade rather than aid. By eliminating US import duties on about 4,230 product categories, the GSP makes products more competitive in the US market. In 1990, imports of $11 billion entered the United States duty free under the GSP. This represents about 4% of total US imports. Several product groups are excluded by law from the US GSP. These include textiles and apparel, certain footwear, leather goods, and certain electronic, steel, and glass products. Discussion about a system of tariff preferences began in 1964 at the first UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Authority was obtained in 1971 to establish preferences under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). In 1976, the United States became the 19th developed market-economy country to implement a GSP program. In 1984, Congress extended the US program until July 4, 1993. The other major trade preference givers--the European Community and Japan--also have renewed their programs into a second decade.
Importance to the United States
The GSP benefits the developing countries and the United States. By increasing developing country export opportunities, it helps stimulate industrialization, employment, and economic growth. The United States benefits because the additional foreign exchange earnings allow these countries to buy more US exports and to repay international debts. In addition, US consumers and firms pay less for goods and inputs. The GSP symbolizes the US commitment to economic development and demonstrates that the United States shares with other developed countries the costs of promoting development.
President Bush has designated 108 countries and 26 dependent territories as eligible. The law requires that the President determine that a country has satisfied seven criteria before it can become a beneficiary. Disqualifying criteria involve such issues as expropriation, terrorism, inadequacies in worker rights, and membership in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The existence of fair market access for US products and adequacy of protection of intellectual property rights also affect eligibility. Additional criteria apply if a communist country is to receive GSP. Based on worker rights considerations, Nicaragua and Romania have lost GSP status in the past; Chile, Paraguay, Burma, the Central African Republic, Liberia, and Sudan were suspended. In 1990, Paraguay, Chile, and the Central African Republic were reinstated to GSP status because of substantial improvements in their worker rights records.
Competitive Needs Limits
The law places two automatic "competitive need' limits on GSP eligibility so that some competitive advantage goes to countries that are relatively new and small suppliers of a product. During the preceding year, if any beneficiary has supplied more than 50% of the total US imports of a product or more than a certain dollar figure ($93 million in 1990) of that product, the President must withdraw its eligibility. In addition, as required under the 1984 legislation renewing the GSP program, the President completed a 2-year general review in January 1987. More than $3 billion of GSP imports were found sufficiently competitive. They were thus subject to lower competitive needs limits of 25% of total US imports of a product or more than a certain dollar figure ($36 million in 1990) of that product. The President has since waived these lower limits on several occasions, and the law exempts least developed countries from them.
If a country's per capita GNP exceeded $8,500 in 1985 or subsequent years, its benefits are automatically terminated after a 2-year phaseout. (The ceiling is indexed to growth in US GNP.) By this criterion, in July 1988, Bahrain, Bermuda, Nauru, and Brunei Darussalam "graduated' from the program. (Bahrain regained GSP status in 1990.) In addition, the President has the authority to graduate beneficiaries that have reached such a level of economic development and competitiveness that they no longer need preferences to compete in the US market. On this basis, in January 1989, Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan left the program.
Annual Review
The US government reviews the program each year beginning June 1 to assess modifications in the product and country eligibility. Interested parties, including beneficiaries, can ask that products be removed from or added to the list of eligible items. They also can request a review of the beneficiary status of any designated country on the basis of the statute's trade, investment, and worker rights criteria. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 35, September 2, 1991 Title:

Focus on Central and Eastern Europe

Date: Sep 2, 19919/2/91 Category: Focus on Emerging Democracies Region: E/C Europe Country: Czechoslovakia (former), Albania, Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia (former) Subject: Development/Relief Aid, Trade/Economics, Environment, Democratization, Media/Telecommunications [TEXT] A Periodic Update of US Assistance to Central and Eastern Europe
Support for Media
The International Media Fund, dedicated to promoting free media in the newly liberated countries of Eastern Europe, in August released a finding that Hungary and Poland are well on their way to establishing a diverse and independent press. Support for the statement included evidence that Hungarian radio and television have a high degree of autonomy and that all of Hungary's major newspapers are now privatized. Remaining obstacles are the government's refusal to issue permits for private broadcasters, the difficulty of obtaining printing presses, ink and paper, and the lack of private distribution services. The Government of Poland is beginning to privatize publishing by selling 59 of 162 publications to bidders. However, its journalists have not been trained to be objective and neutral in their news reporting. After so many years of state control, media executives lack business skills as well as funds to buy the technology that would facilitate gathering and disseminating information.
Progress in Democratization
Among congressional initiatives to support the development of political pluralism, the House of Representatives formed a Special Task Force on the Development of Parliamentary Institutions in Eastern Europe. With Congressman Martin Frost (D, Texas) as its chairperson, the task force conducted an in-depth needs assessment for the parliaments of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and of Hungary. It is now performing the same service for Bulgaria, with the result that these three parliaments receive assistance from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Library of Congress to purchase equipment, books, and library materials and to provide training and technical assistance.
Conferences for Contractors In September 1991
The US Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency will sponsor a conference on "New Technologies and New Markets' to explore the challenge of environmental concerns in Eastern Europe. On September 5-6 at the Sheraton Reston Hotel in Virginia, exhibits will feature export promotion materials and East European environmental market information. Federal laboratory personnel will present information about selling environmental technology in Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia and commercializing environmental research underway in federal laboratories. Representatives from financial institutions will discuss methods of financing environmental technology sales in Eastern Europe. The US Department of Commerce and Executive Directors representing the United States at the World Bank will sponsor a conference in Washington, DC, September 10-11. The agenda will be practical, hands-on information on how to track, bid, and win contracts with the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. These multilateral development banks plan to loan more than $11 billion during the next 3 years for a wide variety of infrastructure and private sector investment projects in Eastern Europe. They offer excellent opportunities for US companies to provide needed goods and equipment, technical assistance, and consulting services. The Department of Commerce also offers assistance to exporters of used equipment to East European and developing countries. Contact: John Bodson, Marketing Manager, Used/Remanufactured Equipment, Office of Capital Goods, Room H2100, US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, tel. (202) 377-0681.
Business Expertise Comes to Eastern Europe
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the United States Information Agency (USIA) announced an $18- million program involving 32 US colleges, universities, and other organizations and counterparts in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Bulgaria. It focuses on training East European faculty and improving university curricula in management training and market economics. Recipients will be managers, policy-makers, journalists, and educators. Rationale for the program was stated by US Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, John Robson, who said: Although outsiders can help, successful transitions to free markets will be accomplished primarily through the skills and the fortitude of the people who have chosen the path toward market economies.
USIA Educational Grant
The USIA Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs has granted $322,000 to the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS)/Council for International Exchange of Scholars (CIES). It will provide program and administrative support to award 10 grants to US scholars selected to lecture on educational reform and media in Central and Eastern Europe.
Country Information
-- The Central and Eastern Europe Law Initiative (CEELI) of the American Bar Association plans to send a delegation to assist in constitutional reform, as it did in Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria. -- The USAID Strategic Assistance Mission team has completed a needs assessment that led to the following deliveries: 8 planeloads of "Meals Ready To Eat', 60 metric tons of cooking oil, 9 metric tons of beef stew, $6 million worth of medical equipment/medicines, and 200 sea containers of assorted food. -- USIA will conduct a poll to assess Albanians' awareness of the European Community. -- Communists won two-thirds of the seats in parliament in the March 1991 elections. But they were required to agree to a coalition "government of experts' that contains several reform- minded members.
-- A Bulgarian-American Agriculture/Agribusiness Enterprise Fund has been established with an initial capitalization of $5 million. Vice President Quayle and Bulgaria's Deputy Prime Minister signed a $10-million agricultural sector grant to help implement its privatization law. -- Elections will take place in October under a new law drafted with the assistance of American consultants provided by USIA. Deputy Secretary Lawrence Eagleburger urges Bulgarians to use these elections to demonstrate their commitment to democratic and fair electoral process, tolerance, and respect for civil peace. -- Visitors from the Center for the Study of Democracy who produce Voice of America Europe in Sofia came to Washington, DC, during the summer for training in media management. -- Thirty Bulgarians, alumni of the Salzburg Seminar, an American studies program, have organized an idea exchange. -- USAID will sponsor a project funded at $1.5 million to train managers, policy-makers, and journalists at Sofia University in cooperation with the University of Delaware. -- Drew Lewis of Citizens Democracy Corps is proposing a series of model farms as demonstration teaching projects for privatized farm land. -- The World Bank policy for Bulgaria includes tight income controls and higher interest rates in order to stabilize the economy. The government has adopted a unified and market-based foreign exchange system and a budget that is being praised as realistic for its stated targets. The International Monetary Fund, on the basis of a review held in Sofia April 29-May 10, noted achievements in price liberalization, movement toward realistic energy prices, and curbing governmental expenditures.
-- The mayor and representatives of Dallas, Texas, attended opening ceremonies at the American-Moravian Cultural Center in Brno, following the recent establishment of a Sister City relationship. -- Czechoslovakian officials have requested help from the Citizens Democracy Corps in modernizing health care delivery and reducing industrial pollution. A CDC volunteer, David Skully, will be teaching Agricultural Economics at the University of Nitra in a program organized by the Civic Education Program and sponsored by Yale University. Sixteen others will teach English in Czechoslovakia under the sponsorship of Education for Democracy of Mobile, Alabama. -- Prague Spring Foundation has received a USIA grant of $15,000 to distribute 40,000 books donated by American publishers, libraries, and school districts to individuals and institutions throughout Czechoslovakia. -- USAID will sponsor a $2-million project for the University of Pittsburgh, the Czechoslovak Management Center in Prague, and the Center for Economics, Research and Graduate Education at Charles University in Czechoslovakia to establish programs to train educators, government officials, and managers.
-- From California, the Mayo team, an academic specialist group of five senior legal experts, presented two demonstration jury trials to jurists, legal scholars, and bar association officials in a program timed to coincide with a major judicial reform initiative. -- A Citizens Democracy Corps meeting with the Minister of Health and Welfare led to a memorandum of understanding about partnerships between hospitals in Hungary and Voluntary Hospitals of America (VHA), the largest US hospital alliance. -- Washington-based International Foundation for Electoral Systems sponsored a symposium in Budapest on establishing electoral systems, determining voter eligibility, and conducting elections. -- The Central and East European Law Initiative has scheduled a workshop on administrative law reform in October.
-- Ted Michon, an executive "on loan' from Union Pacific, has assisted Poland's national railroad with privatization of 62 subsidiary corporations, development of a new logistics system for obtaining coal, and a marketing and sales organization for the railroad. Still to come are plans for a Baltic grain port, a passenger marketing program, and a management information system. -- Poland's Finance Minister has requested advisers from Citizens Democracy Corps for industries and institutions slated for privatization. CARESBAC-Polska and Company Assistance Ltd. of Warsaw will work with CDC to advise Polish businesses on management, marketing, manufacturing, and financial systems. At least one project will assist in a plan for getting farm products to market. -- The New York Foreign Press Center will assist Okay America, published in New York for distribution in Poland. -- The Tellurian Group organized a business assessment team that sent Jacqueline Bilek and two others to determine how volunteers could contribute to privatization. -- Radio Gdansk and Radio Wroclaw are new daily broadcasters of Voice of America 10-minute news and features. Wroclaw's airtime is during late afternoon prime time and Gdansk's is early afternoon. -- USIA is co-producing with Polish companies television programs about credit unions, credit cards, and mutual funds. USIA education grants have been made as follows: --$148,000 to Oregon State University for assistance and training of educators at International School of business at Krakow Industrial Society; --$60,000 to Indiana University for an administrator for the American Studies Center at Warsaw University. Additional faculty members will exchange with counterparts sent to the Polish Studies Center at Indiana University; --$25,000 to Catholic University's exchange program for scholarly research with its sister institutions in Poland, the Catholic University of Lublin and the Pontifical Theological Academy in Krakow; --$180,000 to University of Hartford, University of Massachusetts, and Columbia University to create a business school curriculum for Jagiellonian University in Krakow; --$85,000 to St. Louis University for the production of a five-volume series on US history for publication in Poland.
-- Six American judges participate with sixty Romanian judges in a training seminar in August. Areas of emphasis include the role of the prosecution and the relationship between judge and prosecutor; judicial conduct and discipline of judges; due process; criminal procedure and protection of the accused; rules of evidence; and judicial review. -- Alan Green, Ambassador to Romania, presented several boxes of baseball equipment donated by the International Baseball Association and People-to-People Sports to the Romanian Federation for Baseball and Softball. -- The Citizens Democracy Corps forwarded 35,000 lbs. of donated medical and dental equipment, clothing, and shoes in July. One hundred cases of Schering-Plough Corp. cod liver oil went to Romanian orphanages. -- USIA will conduct a poll to test Romanians' awareness of the European Community and the relevance of its programs.
-- Although Yugoslavian Fulbright participants are expected to arrive in the United States as scheduled, US Fulbright participants will not be sent to Yugoslavia during the coming academic year. (###)
US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 35, September 2, 1991 Title:

CSCE Report on Helsinki Final Act Released

Date: Sep 2, 19919/2/91 Category: Features Region: Europe Subject: CSCE [TEXT] The US Government Printing Office has available for sale the President's 29th CSCE Report, "Implementation of the Helsinki Final Act, April 1, 1990-March 31, 1991' (Dispatch Supplement No. 3). This State Department report on the commitment of certain member countries to principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe is the first (since Public Law 94-304 mandating the report was passed in 1976) to appear on an annual, rather than a semiannual, basis. It reflects the changing realities of Europe and, for the first time, extensively focuses on economic and environmental issues in the countries examined. The number of countries covered in the report also has changed. During the reporting period the CSCE lost a member with the unification of Germany, and thus there is no discussion of the German Democratic Republic. Also, Albania now is included in the report. Although it was not a CSCE member during the rating period, it had been granted observer status and had requested full membership. (Albania became a full CSCE member on June 19, 1991.) Copies of this publication (Dispatch Supplement No. 3, GPO Stock No. 044-000-02324-5) may be purchased for $2.75 from the Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Checks or money orders should be made payable to the Superintendent of Documents.(###)