US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 2, No 35, September 2, 1991
Title: 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]
Background
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.
Trade
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.
Investment
. 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.
Central 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]
Background
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.
Eligibility
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.
Graduation
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
Albania
-- 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.
Bulgaria
-- 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.
Czechoslovakia
-- 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.
Hungary
-- 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.
Poland
-- 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.
Romania
-- 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.
Yugoslavia
-- 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.(###)