Dispatch, Vol 3, No 2, January 13, 1992

Title:         

US-Australian Friendship Remains Firm and Deep

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Excerpts from address to the Australian Parliament, Canberra, Australia Date: Jan, 2 19921/2/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Pacific Country: Australia Subject: Trade/Economics [TEXT] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And Mr. President; Mr. Prime Minister; and the leader of the opposition, Mr. Hewson; members; and senators. It is a deep and wonderful honor for me to be here, and I am very, very grateful for the honor of appearing before this house of the Australian Parliament. I know that the members have gone to extraordinary lengths to arrange this special session. And I think the people in our country will appreciate this very, very much. I want to offer special greetings and thanks to the members of the Australian-USA Parliamentary Group who have done so much to deepen the friendship between our countries. I feel very fortunate to have known several of your members from both sides of the aisle over the years. And amid all the intensity and emotion brought forth in these chambers, I've always been impressed by the united message that your leaders have sent to my country. Even when out of office or in the opposition, they have always placed Australia's interests ahead of personal interests. That says something very positive, very important about your great country. That's certainly one reason that any visitor from the United States cannot help but feel a warm kinship with Australia. Both of our young nations were seen by explorers and pioneers and immigrants as destinations of freedom and opportunity. Our cultures reflect an extraordinary diversity--from British and Irish, to Italian and Polish, to Vietnamese and Cambodian. This parliament building displays an original copy of the Magna Carta, I'm told, one of only four such manuscripts to have survived to this day. The US National Archives is home to another of those original manuscripts. I can think of no more powerful symbol of our shared commitments to the rights of the individual, to the rule of law, and to the government of consent--by consent of the people. With our common ancestries and shared ideals, Americans and Australians also find other similarities: Each of our countries spans a continent rich in agricultural and mineral resources; spectacular natural beauty abounds in fantastic variety in both our nations, as well. To be frank, our people think big. And their biggest ideas are the ones we share: the belief in the indivisibility of human freedom, and the willingness to struggle and sacrifice for the peace and security of other nations. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the fateful Battle of the Coral Sea. We remember the courage and fighting skill of the Australian and American naval forces. Their valor spared Australia from invasion and stemmed the tide of totalitarianism. In Korea and Vietnam, Australians and Americans again joined forces. Their sacrifices were not in vain. Korea is a democracy--setting a standard for free market development worldwide. Long-suffering Cambodia now has the hope of a durable peace and free elections. Even Vietnam is opening to the world, seeking reintegration with the dynamic market economies of the region. In the Persian Gulf, we stood together against Saddam Hussein's aggression. Indeed, the first two coalition partners in a joint boarding exercise to enforce the UN resolutions were Australians from the HMAS Darwin and Americans from the USS Brewerton. During the war, the joint defense facilities here in Australia played an invaluable role in detecting launches of Iraqi Scud missiles. And today, two of the three navies represented in operations enforcing the embargo against Iraq are those of Australia and of the United States. But even as we recall our struggles and successes, we must now look forward to the opportunity to shape our shared destiny. First, we face together the challenge of economic opportunity and growth-- creating jobs for our people and for their families. Second, we face new but no less exacting challenges to our security--the threats of regional conflicts and proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction. Third, we face the exciting task of fostering the remarkable momentum for democracy and freedom that swept the world these past few years. A strong America has been central to the triumph of free markets and free people. I am confident that the United States will continue to have the conviction and the capacity to be a force for good and that a new era of economic opportunity will unfold with enhanced opportunities for peace. The coming era promises unparalleled potential for economic growth in the nations of the Pacific. In 1990, the Asia-Pacific region accounted for a total of $300 billion in two-way commerce with the United States--a total nearly one-third larger than America's volume of trade across the Atlantic. This region is the fastest growing market in the world. And still, there are voices on both sides of the Pacific calling for economic isolationism. And while for some nations, including Australia and the United States, these are tough, hard economic times, we both know protectionism is a fundamentally bankrupt notion. Make no mistake, America will continue to stand for open trade and open markets. And trade means jobs--it means good jobs--at home and abroad. And I'm sure it comes as no surprise that my highest priority as President of the United States is to promote economic growth and jobs for our people. That goal is fully consistent with economic growth and jobs for Australians. You and I know that open markets generate growth, that international trade is not simply a zero-sum game. And, you also know that the nations who share the rewards of a vibrant and growing international trading system must also share the responsibilities. Australia has stood as a true leader in efforts to achieve success in the Uruguay Round of the GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] negotiations. And, you brought great skill and energy in seeking deep cuts in trade-distorting agricultural subsidies. Progress on agriculture is the key to the success of the GATT talks. Your farmers are not alone in feeling the pain caused by the heavy subsidies of the European Community (EC)--our wheat production dropped by almost 30% last year. But I'm also aware of the concern such US trade programs as this Export Enhancement Program (EEP) can cause Australian farmers. Our EEP program has one and only one objective, and that is to force the EC to stop its avalanche of subsidized exports. And the fact is that the EC subsidizes over 10 times the amount of farm exports that we do. Moreover, our program seeks to minimize effects on Australian and other non- subsidizing nations. While I don't like having to use these remedies, I will safeguard the interests of American farmers. And without EEP, the European Community would absorb additional markets, forcing out those who can compete fairly--farmers in countries like Australia and the United States. We both know--all of us know--that the real answer is what our two governments are doing--working hard for a historic new GATT agreement that cuts back subsidies, especially for exports. That's why the United States is committed to working with GATT Director [General Arthur] Dunkel's new text. We believe his draft moves us closer to finally concluding an agreement. While not perfect, it makes an important contribution--and the international trading system is too important to pass up this opportunity. I trust and hope that Australia and other Pacific nations will join us to instill additional momentum in the Uruguay Round negotiations when they resume later this month. This is the best comprehensive approach that we can offer to our hard-working farmers and ranchers. We also see the potential for using regional organizations to expand and liberalize trade around the globe. We are especially encouraged by Austra- lia's leadership in the APEC--in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation process. The success of the November APEC ministerial in Seoul was proof that APEC is emerging as the economic forum in the Pacific and is increasingly fostering a sense of community around the Pacific Rim. North America--Mexico, the United States, and Canada--is part of this community. And so, let me just assure you--every one of you on both sides of this aisle- -that the North American Free Trade Agreement will not become an exclusive trading bloc. It will lower internal barriers without raising external barriers. Our growth will help stimulate yours, just as growth in Asia will spur our exports. We also can do more bilaterally to expand trade. That's why I am proposing a US-Australia trade and investment framework agreement--one way to enhance our already strong economic engagement. That's our agenda to expand exports and growth through reducing trade barriers--whether globally, regionally, or bilaterally. Clearly, with the dramatic changes in the world we must adapt to new security realities as well. But, let me simply pledge to you, our friends: No matter what changes may come about in the defense expenditures in the United States or in the nature of the threats to international peace, the US- Australian alliance is fundamental to the stability of the Asia-Pacific region. I understand that there is some concern in Asia about America's commitment given our imminent departure from Subic Bay in the Philippines. Let me put it plainly: I've served in Asia, personally, in time of war and in time of peace. And with changing times, our posture is going to change to suit different needs. But our role and our purpose as a Pacific power will remain constant. It is important that the people of Australia understand this: We intend to remain engaged no matter whatever the changing security arrangements of our times. And, yes, we've talked about it here today with the Prime Minister, with the leader of the opposition, with others--the Cold War is over. But the threat of communism, which for so many decades occupied our energies, is now replaced by the instabilities of ethnic rivalries and regional conflicts. And, yes, the Soviet Union, as we have known it, is history. It's a new era. But like Australia, the United States has fought three wars in Asia over the past 50 years. We know that our security is inextricably linked to stability across the Pacific, and we will not put that security and stability at risk. I can assure you that the United States intends to retain the appropriate military presence to protect its allies and to counter threats to peace. Just recently in the Persian Gulf, we witnessed that the dangerous combination of volatile regional conflicts and weapons of mass destruction requires our constant attention. And so, I salute Australia's leadership in stemming the threat of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. It's your children and the children of the entire world who will grow up in a safer world thanks to such efforts. Australia and the United States are also working to end another long- standing and tragic regional conflict. Our combined initiatives in the United Nations have been major factors in the progress toward peace and free elections in Cambodia. Both of us have now re-established official representation in Phnom Penh in order to move the peace process forward. Australia is making an additional contribution by sending a senior military officer to head the UN peace-keeping force in Cambodia. And, I am proud of our collective efforts to end the nightmare in Cambodia and usher in a new era of hope and rebuilding. And finally, American and Australian aspirations for the future are evident in our increasing cooperation on such matters as environmental protection [and] educational and social issues. We can take pride in our governments' joint actions toward conservation of the tropical forests, protecting endangered species, and promoting technologies for clean-burning coal. Australia also plays a leading role in the international fight against illicit drugs. And, I know I speak for millions of American parents in expressing thanks for your efforts to fight drug abuse, to fight drug trafficking. I believe the next generations of Australians and Americans will grow even closer. I see no threat to that at all. And, I foresee a steady expansion of travel and cultural exchanges in years to come. Australia's natural beauty, of which I've seen regrettably little this trip, is really sensational, a powerful magnet for American tourists. But more than this, it is the spirit of your country that earns Australia so much admiration in our country--in America--and, indeed, around the world. Your artists' contributions to film and dance and music have whetted our appetites for more and more things Australian. US television carries Australian-rules football, and many Americans enjoy the rough and tumble of hard hitting with reckless abandon. . . . I credit the clear air of Australia for its effect on one of the freshest minds now working in Washington--I'm speaking about our Secretary of Education, Lamar Alexander. In 1987, after completing 8 years as Governor of Tennessee, Lamar took his wife and children to spend half a year in this beautiful country. And now that he's joined my cabinet as Secretary of Education, Lamar Alexander is working for revolutionary changes to improve our schools. And this, too, is part of our program to make America competitive and strong and to help it grow. Secretary Alexander is promoting innovative ideas that he saw in practice right here in Australia. For instance, the large measure of freedom that Australians have in choosing among private and religious or state-operated schools. And when we succeed with some of these reforms, we'll thank pathfinders such as Australians for their example. Of course, we've always shared fraternal ties and a spirit of freedom ever since an American vessel named Philadelphia became the first trading ship to call at Sydney's Port Jackson in 1792. Almost a century later, Mark Twain visited Australia and spoke for all Americans when he said, "You have a spirit of independence here which cannot be overpraised." And 50 years ago in the Coral Sea, Australians and Americans paid a high price for freedom, but they proved to the world that the future belongs to the brave and the bold. For the half century since, we have deepened our friendship, our economic interdependence, and our collaboration on mutual defense. And now, more clearly than ever, we can see a hopeful future for the far-flung kinsmen of Australia and America and for all who share those fundamental ideals that we hold dear. We're prepared to work as partners in the next century to break new ground for freedom, cooperation, and economic progress. For me, this has been a great honor. For Barbara and me, it has been a sheer pleasure to be with you all here for these short 2 1/2 days. But this hospitality of the Australian people is indescribable. I couldn't possibly tell you how emotional I feel about it. So let me simply say thank you again for the extraordinary honor of allowing me to address this distinguished parliament. May your debates be lively and full of friendship and affection, as they, once in a while, are. And, may God bless you all. And, may the Lord smile on the kinship and friendship of Australia and the United States of America. Thank you very, very much. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 2, January 13, 1992 Title:

Spurring Economic Growth In the Pacific Rim Nations

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Address before US and Australian business leaders, World Congress Center, Melbourne,Australia Date: Jan, 3 19921/3/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Pacific Country: Australia Subject: Trade/Economics [TEXT] (introductory remarks deleted) Ten years ago this May, I first visited Australia to mark the 40th anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea. Since then, we have toiled together to advance what I call the hard work of freedom. I'm here to talk of how Australia and America can use that work to help build a better world. We will build it through liberty and opportunity and through trade that is both free and fair. We will build it by using our common culture and principles to promote prosperity at home and democracy abroad--especially the jobs and economic growth that are my highest priority. This morning, Barbara and I visited the Australian War Memorial, where our alliance reminded me of General Patton's words: "Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men." The memorial stirs the memory of heroes who stood with our troops in combat, heroes who fought together to defend our common ideals. Our task now is to join together to create a world where the force of law outlasts the use of force. The successful end of the Cold War brings the promise of a world of peace and dignity. Its triumph is inevitable but only if democracies are resolute. Globally, you--Australia--have encouraged this concept by supporting a more engaged United Nations. Regionally, you helped shape the framework for the Cambodia peace settlement agreed to by warring factions. I assure you, here, too, we--America--are your partners. We will not abandon the special responsibility we have to help further stability in this region. More than 150 years ago, President Andrew Jackson appointed J. H. Williams as the first American consul here. Arriving from Boston, Williams was greeted by a newspaper article. "We welcome his arrival," read the Australian paper, "as a pledge of increasing intimacy between the two countries from which mutual advantages may be expected to flow"--150 years ago. In the Persian Gulf conflict, those advantages served the cause of peace. You were quick to condemn the Iraqi invasion, to endorse economic sanctions, [and] to send ships to participate in the multinational coalition. I thank you also for sending medical teams and humanitarian relief to Kurds and Iraqis fleeing Saddam's oppression. On Iraq, it is my hope that the Iraqi people now will rid themselves of that brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein, so that our countries can start over with Iraq. You see, we have no argument with the people of Iraq or even with the military in Iraq. Our difference is with the bully, Saddam Hussein. Australia has stood fast for principles of decency and peace. In 1984, you helped create the Australia Group, which today includes 22 member nations, each dedicated to preventing the use and spread of chemical and biological weapons. Australia believes that multilateral solutions can solve global problems. So do I. Through two world wars and other international conflicts, Americans have learned that they cannot divorce their destinies from the destinies of Europe and Asia. History teaches that peace is indivisible; political isolationism doesn't work. As a new century beckons, we will use that lesson in support of peace and in hopes of preventing future wars. The Australian statesman, Alfred Deakin, once said, "Next to our own nation we place our kindred in America." He knew that we are all members of the world community. So we need to strengthen our already steadfast commitment to Asia and to the Pacific region, increasing democracy, free expression, and, yes, free markets. In 1990, the two-way trade between this region and the United States totaled $300 billion. I say that we can, we must, and we will expand our ties of trade. In America, one-third of our growth between 1986 and 1990 flowed from merchandise exports. To increase that growth--which means more jobs-- Australia and America need the cooperation that must be a cornerstone of the post-Cold War world. That cooperation will increase trade, open markets, and ensure jobs. On the other hand, economic isolationism is a bankrupt notion. Protectionism--it closes markets, it ensures poverty, and it costs jobs. America cannot and must not go down that dead-end street--and we won't as long as I am President of the United States. You know that America is enduring tough economic times, and I know that Australia is facing hard times as well. American companies exported $8.5 billion in merchandise to Australia in 1990--$200 million more than in 1989. We both need the new jobs that increased exports provide. Competition has compelled American companies to produce better goods and services than ever before. I have full confidence that on a level playing field our workers can compete with anybody, anywhere. Speaking of success in a free and fair trade environment, I have with me a delegation of American business leaders, including some that do business very successfully right here in Australia. Their success is a tribute not only to their commitment to quality but also to the basic openness and fairness of Australia's markets. I had an outstanding chance to visit today with businesses doing business right here in Victoria--some American, some others--but all doing business and pleading for more open and fair access to markets. The business delegation is with me to help our efforts to open markets and spur economic growth all around the Pacific Rim. We ask no more and no less than you do: a playing field where partners treat each other fairly. Like us, you understand that free trade must be fair trade. I applaud your policies to foster greater openness and competitiveness in the economy, especially erasing most import quotas and cutting domestic subsidies and tariffs. I commend your efforts to strengthen the international economic system--spurring a regional effort to promote freer trade by erasing trade barriers. None of this has come easily, but, thanks to you, we have made steady progress. I am grateful that, several years ago, Australia led the way to create Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation--APEC--the premier economic forum in the Pacific. Since APEC's first ministerial meeting in Canberra 2 years ago, it has mobilized the support of all 15 participants to push for progress in the GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] Uruguay Round. Like the United States, other APEC members want to find ways to achieve sustainable growth, increase employment, and preserve the environment. So do we. We want the jobs that stem from economic cooperation among Pacific Rim market economies, including the United States. Just as we need your help, I want to pledge you our help. It is true that with so much in common, our two nations generally agree on goals. And let's face it, it is also true that occasionally we differ on means. I've heard a good deal about one. One difference is our use of this Export Enhancement Program--the EEP, it is known as--to counter the agriculture subsidies of the European Community [EC]. Let me be clear: Australia is not the target of the program. As I said before the Parliament yesterday, the EEP has one and only one objective: to force the EC to stop its avalanche of subsidized exports. The EC subsidizes 10 times the exports as do we in the United States of America. I know discussions on this issue are difficult and that Australia's position is based on the fact that Australian farmers are enduring hardship. I've learned that firsthand on this trip. I know--I met with representatives of Australia's farmers just yesterday. I heard firsthand their deep concerns, and I shared with them the depth of sentiment among America's farmers. Our farmers are hurting too. I told them we weren't looking for sympathy, but I pointed out that our wheat production dropped by 30% last year. Both of us want progress. Back in Washington, an Australian delegation recently visited our Department of Agriculture. We heard your perspective on the current world market situation and your appeal for sensitivity to Australian trade. Australian officials have expressed interest in holding follow-up talks early this year. That, too, is very encouraging. Both our governments are working hard on the real solution to this difficult problem. We can regain the momentum for progress by using what's called the Dunkel draft as a basis for achieving a successful conclusion to the GATT [Uruguay] Round of trade talks. It is essential--believe me, it is absolutely essential not just for agriculture but for world trade--that those talks succeed and that we make real progress in a wide array of areas but particularly on agriculture. I have agreed to greater bilateral dialogue on this and other economic issues. Let us show how the "Waltzing Matilda" can meet the "Texas Two- Step." It can be done. We will seek understanding in the future as in the past. We can be proud of working together over the last 5 decades. Together, let's build upon that record. We must expand our bilateral relationship in new ways that help our people. We both breathe the same air. Last April, we agreed to pursue energy policies that will increase exports while preserving our environment. We both believe in the importance of education. So we launched the Australian Center for American Studies. This new center will expand bilateral links by developing programs of value to business and education and the universities. We hope this center will cause future generations to say of America and Australia, in the words of a great hymn: "Blest be the ties that bind." These ties are economic, military, social, and cultural. This trip I'm on is about broad principles that draw our two nations together. It's about the security of the Pacific. It's about our global partnership. It's about our prospects for economic growth. Our relationship rests upon the shared values of our people--love of family, faith in God, pride in country, desire to conquer the unknown. The first pictures of Neil Armstrong's adventure on the moon were beamed from Australia's radio telescope at Parkes to a waiting world. Later, Apollo XV was named Endeavor after Captain Cook's ship in the hope of many future endeavors between our two nations. This new year, 1992, let's look forward to our next century together. Let's do the hard work of freedom for ourselves and especially for our children. Let's help them meet the challenges of their time as we've met ours-- building the peace, creating opportunity, increasing the benefit of God's bounty for all. Thank you all very much, and may God bless the people of this great land, Australia. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 2, January 13, 1992 Title:

US Supports IMF Membership For New Independent States

Brady Source: Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady Description: Released in Washington, DC Date: Jan, 3 19921/3/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Eurasia Country: Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Georgia, Moldova Subject: International Organizations [TEXT] The dramatic developments in the former Soviet Union have created new opportunities and challenges for international financial cooperation. The United States supports early consideration by the IMF [International Monetary Fund] and World Bank of membership for new states of the former Soviet Union with whom we are establishing diplomatic relations (Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Byelarus, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia). Membership in the IMF and World Bank will further market-oriented economic reform in these newly independent nations. We will work with them to ensure that their applications are considered as quickly as possible. We are also prepared to consider the membership of the other new states of the former Soviet Union once diplomatic relations are established with them (Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Georgia, and Moldova). The benefits of technical assistance and expertise provided by the IMF and World Bank, pending full membership, should continue to be available to all 12 states of the former Soviet Union. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 2, January 13, 1992 Title:

US-Singapore Leaders Meet

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Excerpts from a news conference by President Bush, Istana Palace, Singapore Date: Jan, 4 19921/4/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: East Asia Country: Japan Subject: Trade/Economics [TEXT] Let me just say that it is an honor and a privilege to be the first American President to visit Singapore. I've been moved by your hospitality, the openness of our conversations, and, indeed, by the welcome that Barbara and I have received here. Today, I met with President Wes and had two very positive sessions--make that three--with Prime Minister Goh, because we just met with the business group that was here: his ministers, our businessmen, the Prime Minister, and myself. We focused on three areas: expanded growth and opportunity, security engagement, and the development of democracy and freedom in the region. On trade, I'm pleased to announce that we have agreed in principle to a bilateral investment agreement. This will build on the work we've begun under the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement--or the TIFA--that we concluded last October. In the security area, the Prime Minister and I discussed America's continuing role in the area. Our security arrangements in this region will take a new form. The access agreement that we have with Singapore is an excellent example of the types of arrangements we would hope to develop to meet the challenges of the post-Cold War world. We've agreed in principle to look at headquartering an element of the Seventh Fleet in Singapore, OTF-73. It's a logistics command for surface ships. And it's symbolic of our commitment to the region in the fact that we intend to stay as long as we are welcome. Singapore increasingly illustrates the characteristics of a truly successful nation in the modern era and a well-educated electorate, increasingly free to make its political choices felt with access to information to make informed choices. I recognize that democracy underlies prosperity, and I also recognize that no nation has a monopoly on defining how to put it into effect. But there are universal values of civil, political, [and] human rights that we all can share. And I'm proud of the progress Singapore and the US have made together, proud of the friendship its people and leaders have shown over the past many years, and proud to know that we have a very bright and prosperous future together. . . . (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 2, January 13, 1992 Title:

The US and Singapore: Opportunities for a New Era

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Address before the Singapore Lecture Group, Singapore Date: Jan, 4 19921/4/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: East Asia Country: Japan Subject: Trade/Economics [TEXT] (introductory remarks deleted) The addresses in this series reflect the changes in our world. Your first lecturers focused on the ideological and military struggle between socialism and democratic capitalism--and especially between the United States and what we used to call the Soviet Union. Think of that phrase for just a moment--"what we used to call the Soviet Union." When citizens pulled down the hammer and sickle 10 days ago and hauled up a new tricolor of freedom over the Kremlin, the Soviet Union ceased to exist, and the prospect of a new world opened before us. That act culminated a decade of liberation--a time in which we witnessed the death throes of totalitarianism, and the triumph of systems of government devoted to individual liberty, democratic pluralism, free markets, and international engagement. As this struggle has drawn to a close, these lectures have shifted their focus from military confrontation to matters of economic cooperation. Our new world has little use for old ways of thinking about the roles and relations of nation states. The Cold War categories--North-South, East- West, capitalist-communist--no longer apply. The future simply belongs to nations that can remain on the cutting edge of innovation and information; nations that can develop the genius and harness the aspirations [of] their own people. Individuals wield power as never before. An innovator, equipped with ideas and the freedom to turn them into inventions, can change the way we live and think. Governments that strive only to maintain a monopoly of power, rather than to strengthen the freedom of the individual, will fall by the wayside, swept away by the tides of innovation and entrepreneurship. Liberating technologies--telephones, computers, facsimile machines, satellite dishes and other devices that transmit news, and information and culture in ever greater volumes and at ever greater speeds--have disabled the weapons of tyranny. The old world of splintered regions and ideologies has begun to give way to a global village universally committed to the values of individual liberty, democracy, and free trade--and universally opposed, I might add, to tyranny and aggression. If we are to realize the opportunities of this new era, we must address three intertwined challenges: -- The new requirements of peace and security; -- The challenge of promoting democracy; and -- The challenge of generating greater economic growth and prosperity around the world.
Peace and Security
The world has learned--through two world wars, and most recently, as Senior Minister Lee talked about, through Saddam Hussein's naked aggression--that the dogs of war can be unleashed any time [that] would-be aggressors doubt the commitment of the powerful to the security of the powerless. As a nation that straddles two great oceans--a nation tempered by painful wartime experience--the United States remains committed to engagement in the Atlantic community and the Asia-Pacific region, and we are unalterably opposed to isolationism. That's my vow to you, as long as I am President of the United States of America. A quarter century ago, many feared that free nations would fall like dominoes--remember the domino theory--fall like dominoes to the subversion of communism. Now, we can say with pride and a robust sense of irony that the totalitarian powers--the powers that fomented conflict the world over --have, indeed, become the dominoes of the 1990s. This end to the Cold War gives the United States an opportunity to restructure its military. Having said that, I want to assure you and all of our many friends in this part of the world, that the closing of bases in the Philippines will not spell an end to American engagement. We will maintain a visible, credible presence in the Asia-Pacific region with our forward deployed forces and through bilateral defense arrangements with nations of the region. That is why I'm pleased to announce that this morning we've reached agreement with the Government of Singapore to explore in detail how we can transfer a naval logistics facility from Subic Bay in the Philippines to Singapore in the next year. We appreciate Singapore's far-sighted approach to the security requirements of a new era. The United States does not maintain our security presence as some act of charity. Your security and your prosperity serve our interests because you can better help build a more stable, more prosperous world. An unstable Asia burdened with repression does not serve our interests. Nor does an Asia mired in poverty and despair. We need you as free and productive as you can be, and we understand that our security presence can provide a foundation for our mutual prosperity and shared defense. But we also need your support in addressing the new threats of this new era--regional conflicts, weapons proliferation. I'm pleased that the ASEAN nations are working with us to craft new and flexible arrangements to ensure the common defense. Access agreements and increased ASEAN-US dialogue can help us work cooperatively to promote stability in the whole region. By working cooperatively, we better share the security responsibilities of the post-Cold War era.
The Challenge of Democracy
Strong, credible security arrangements enabled us to meet the second challenge, the challenge of democracy--a challenge of shared interests and shared ideals. Again, ASEAN is helping to spread positive political change, in ways that reflect the values, aspirations, and cultures of the nations in this region. ASEAN is trying to help the former communist states in Indochina reintegrate themselves in a world that respects free markets and free people. Those efforts are starting to produce very hopeful results. Just a few weeks ago, American diplomats arrived in Phnom Penh for the first time in 16 years. We owe that breakthrough to years of effort by many nations. But the Cambodian Peace Accord, signed by Secretary Baker in Paris last October, could not have existed without the help and the cooperation of ASEAN. This historic agreement offers the very real hope of national reconciliation to the long-suffering people of Cambodia. And additionally, when the Paris conference agreed on a peace settlement for Cambodia, my government offered to remove our trade embargo as the UN Advance Mission began to implement the settlement. Today, I am pleased to announce the lifting of that embargo. Working with others, we need to turn attention to the economic reconstruction of that deeply wounded land so its new political reconciliation has a home from which to grow. We are now normalizing our ties with Laos and have begun to move with Vietnam along a path marked by implementation of the Paris accords and for the sake of many, many American families, the satisfactory resolution of our concerns, our deep concerns about POWs and MIAs [prisoners of war/missing in action]. The key point is this: After being strong, determined, and patient, we finally can entertain realistic hopes of building lasting ties of interest and affection with Indochina. Organizations such as ASEAN, which promote security, more open political systems, and open markets, form the building blocks for what I've called the new world order. This movement toward democracy leads us to the third challenge for the future, the challenge of economic growth and building a world of open and fair trade.
Economic Growth
Everyone agrees that political rivalry and military adventurism threaten international stability. But no one should doubt that economic isolationism- -protectionism--can be at least as threatening to world order. The protectionist wars of the 1920s and 1930s deepened the Great Depression and set in motion conflicts that hastened the Second World War. On the other hand, during the past half century, engagement and trade have produced unprecedented peace and prosperity--here in Singapore, throughout free Asia, in Europe, and in the United States. This prosperity also has led naturally to democracy, a fact that illustrates the indivisible relationship between security and democracy and individual liberty. The United States will remain engaged economically, especially in this part of the world. The Asia-Pacific region has become the world's economic dynamo. Our trade with Singapore--it's increased tenfold during the past 16 years. We now export more to Singapore than to Italy or Spain; more to Indonesia than to the whole of Eastern Europe. The economies here continue to grow at an astonishing rate, while enjoying impressive income equality and general prosperity. The ASEAN countries, along with other nations in the region, helped initiate the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation process 2 years ago, APEC. APEC offers a powerful vehicle for sustaining free market-based trade, for advancing the cause of regional and global trade liberalization, and for strengthening the cohesion and interdependence of the Asia-Pacific region. Now this is important to us. Most of America's recent economic growth has come from export industries. Each billion dollars' worth of US exports support many thousands of good American jobs. A delegation of executives from major American businesses--from the automobile industry to computer and electronics firms to food and energy companies--has joined me in order to express our national commitment to free and fair trade. Our executives will learn more about opportunities here, and they will also work to help other firms compete fairly throughout the world. With us today also are the American ambassadors to the ASEAN countries. They will be returning to the United States soon to tell American businesses there about the opportunities that exist in ASEAN. The United States is trying to establish an economic operating framework to facilitate and to encourage these ties. This past October, we agreed to a new Trade and Investment Framework Agreement with Singapore. And I propose that we complement that agreement by negotiating a bilateral investment treaty. When combined with our global efforts through GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] and our regional initiatives through APEC, this comprehensive approach can enable us to meet the economic challenges of the post-Cold War era. Americans believe in free and open trade. Nations can achieve astonishing levels of prosperity when they embrace the challenge of the marketplace. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade can play an especially crucial role in expanding freedom's economic frontiers. That's why on each stop of this important trip I'm calling for urgent action on behalf of the international trading system. I am urging the world's trading nations to join with us in making GATT Director [General Arthur] Dunkel's proposed draft agreement the basis for the successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round. While all of us have problems with portions of that draft, none of us can afford to let the progress it represents slip away into the past. Now is the moment for a strong collective response. And I particularly urge the dynamic trading nations of this region to help us to convince all GATT participants to build the momentum to achieve this agreement. A successful conclusion to this Uruguay Round can prepare the way for even greater trade liberalization in years to come and greater prosperity for everyone. GATT ensures that the world will continue moving toward broad economic integration and not toward trade blocs. I don't have to point out to an audience in Singapore, especially an informed audience like this, that there's a huge difference between a free trade zone--an oasis of free trade- -and a trade bloc that attempts to hold the rest of the world at bay. We resolutely oppose efforts to create economic fortresses anywhere. On the other hand, we wholeheartedly endorse free trade agreements. Let me be clear on something. Our North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) will beckon all nations to make the best of the resources and opportunities that the United States, Canada, and Mexico have to offer. NAFTA is not a threat to Asia. It would not encourage the division of the world into trading blocs. Instead, our increased growth can stimulate more trade with Asia. And we support efforts to build free trade agreements elsewhere, including among the ASEAN nations. Consider your own experience. A regime of free trade has enabled Singapore to become one of the Four Tigers of Asia and one of the fastest developing nations on earth. When other nations' economies falter, you suffer. The worldwide economic slowdown has slowed your rate of economic growth this year--although most nations would be overjoyed to settle for 6% growth. And I can speak for one. Singapore has one of the most open economies on earth, and I appreciate Singapore's leadership in pressing for even greater market freedom around the world. But we also need to consider the full import of economic development. An economy is the aggregate work, ingenuity, and optimism of a nation. The term "economy" encompasses what millions of people do with their lives. And therefore, when we talk about strengthening economies, about growth, about opportunity, we mean much more than signing trade pacts. We mean building better lives for our people.
Education.
Americans understand that no nation will prosper long without a first-rate educational system. And I've encouraged Americans to mount a revolution in education, which we call the "America 2000" education strategy. "America 2000" challenges our citizens to set high standards for their schools; it encourages all Americans to join forces in creating world- class schools. Meanwhile, we will continue to strengthen our university system--we think the world's finest--and the host today to over 200,000 students from Asia. Perhaps one may be a future prime minister. I am certain she'll be a good one. And our APEC educational partnership initiative is seeking to link these educational ties to our mutual economic interests. Once we have given students basic skills, we must give them the freedom to make the most of the knowledge they have acquired. Tax cuts and deregulation in the 1980s helped unleash the greatest peacetime economic recovery in American history. And while in my country, reducing the tax on capital gains is somewhat controversial politically, most of our competitors impose very low taxes on capital gains. Some, like Singapore, don't tax capital gains at all. We can learn from you--we can create a climate even more conducive to risk, to innovation, to the bold exploration of new technologies and ideas--and I'm confident that we will.
Environment.
Beyond that, the nations of the world want to enjoy the blessings of growth without destroying the environment. We need to achieve environmental protection without denying developing nations the opportunity to develop. The United States has environmental expertise and state-of-the-art environmental technology. The Asian nations have environmental challenges. I am pleased to announce today that USAID [US Agency for International Development], the US Trade Development Program, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation--OPIC, and our Eximbank [Export-Import Bank] have developed a creative approach in partnership with this region to better address the challenge of balancing the environmental protection with development. We hope we can coordinate our effort with those of other developed nations through various types of support, including US equipment and technology. This will be good--it will be good for Asia's environment, good for American jobs.
Conclusion
The nations committed to democracy and free markets have brought the world to a new era, one that promises unprecedented freedom from violence and deprivation. But this world will not simply happen. It will require hard work, tough negotiation, sacrifice, and the courage of our convictions. If we cast our lot with the forces of enlightenment and freedom over the counsels of defeatism and ignorance, we will build a better world--a world bound by common interests and goals. Like you, Americans desperately want a world at peace, one in which no blood must be shed for the ideals we all share. So we will maintain a vigorous security presence in order to prevent despots and tyrants from undermining the triumphs of freedom and democracy. Like you, Americans want to live in a world enriched and enlivened by international trade--in goods, in ideas, in cultures, and in dreams for the future. We want the opportunity to compete aggressively in the international marketplace. At the same time, our consumers want access to the best goods and services that your economies have to offer. We want to live in a world made better by the genius and achievement of every culture. So we will advance the prospects for more open trade. And like you, Americans want a world united and enlightened by freedom and justice, by political pluralism, by the universal commitment to individual liberty and prosperity. So we will stand fast by our principles and remain confident, strong, and vigilant. Since 1784, when an American trading ship, the Empress of China, sailed for Canton from New York, the United States has tried to build strong ties of commerce with Asia. We remain committed to that vision. Together, the United States and its Asia-Pacific allies can, indeed, build a world filled with economic tigers--nations growing rapidly; pioneering new intellectual, commercial, and cultural terrain; spreading the blessings of free markets, democracy, and peace. My trip through Asia this week marks a new start. The next step is up to all of us. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 2, January 13, 1992 Title:

US-Asia Environmental Partnership

Source: White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Singapore Date: Jan, 4 19921/4/92 Category: Fact Sheets Region: East Asia Subject: Environment [TEXT] The United States-Asia Environmental Partnership (US-AEP) is intended to bring together the business communities, government agencies, and non- governmental organizations in both America and Asia to collaboratively address the serious environmental problems that constrain growth and to bring about a measurably cleaner and more protected environment in the Asia-Pacific region. US-AEP is envisaged as a long-term effort which will mobilize private sector resources to complement US Government resources allocated to new and ongoing environmental programs in Asia. Although it is planned that the specific activities of the US-AEP will be developed collaboratively, four broad program components are likely to be offered to Asian countries. They are: An Environmental Fellowship and Training Program, to provide competitive grants for two-way exchanges of scholars and senior level managers for 1 month to 1 year to develop solutions to, and appropriate technologies for, the pressing environmental problems of Asia. A Technology Cooperation Program to foster technology transfer opportunities through trade and investment activities and Asian and US business exchanges. A US Environmental Business Center will be established in the region which will support US and Asian trade and investment linkages. Also planned are a technology innovation seed fund, small business demonstration projects, and US-Asian business-to-business trade-related exchanges. An Environmental Infrastructure Program to provide feasibility studies and loan guarantees for environmental infrastructure such as water supply and waste water treatment, solid and toxic waste treatment, clean and efficient power plants, and production of lead-free fuels. A Regional Biodiversity Conservation Network to enable local communities, with the help of US and Asian scientists, to preserve, analyze and sustainably use Asia's unique and valuable forest and marine plant and animal resources. In addition to the numerous American businesses, business groups, and non- governmental environmental organizations which will be invited to participate in the US-AEP, the following list of US Government agencies will initially form the partnership: the Departments of State, Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Interior, and Treasury; the Agencies for International Development, Environmental Protection, and United States Information; the Office of Science and Technology Policy and of the US Trade Representative; the Council of Environmental Quality; the Export-Import Bank; the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; the Trade and Development Program; the Small Business Administration; the Peace Corps; the National Science Foundation; the Smithsonian Institution; and the US Corps of Engineers. For further information on the US-AEP, please contact Thomas Nicastro at 202-663-2288. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 2, January 13, 1992 Title:

The US and Korea: Entering a New World

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Address before the Korean National Assembly, Seoul, South Korea Date: Jan, 6 19921/6/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: East Asia Country: South Korea, North Korea Subject: Trade/Economics, Democratization [TEXT] It is a great honor to return once more to this house, the symbolic center of Korean democracy. I first came to this chamber in February of 1989, just 1 month after taking office, and Barbara and I still recall the warm welcome we received then from the people of Korea. That was nearly 3 years ago. In the short time since then, we have seen our world transformed. The epic Cold War struggle between the forces of freedom and the communist world came to an abrupt end; with God's mercy, a peaceful end. Gone is the Berlin Wall; the Warsaw Pact; not simply the Soviet empire but even the Soviet Union itself. Everywhere, we see the new birth of democratic nations--a new world of freedom, bright with the promise of peace and prosperity. During my visits these last few days to Australia, Singapore, and Korea, I have stressed that this new world of freedom presents us with fresh and demanding challenges--meeting new requirements for global security and stability, promoting democracy, and enhancing world economic growth and prosperity. Korea, too, is a part of this changing world. Indeed, you are at the center of these challenges. At home your country is developing its own democratic and free market traditions. And in the world, Korea is helping to shape a changing security and geopolitical landscape. Your influence in world affairs is enhanced by the fact that at long last Korea is assuming its place as a full member of the United Nations. As president of a nation that fought under the UN flag to keep Korea free and to establish the conditions for growth and prosperity, we share your pride in what you have achieved. A revolution of freedom is reshaping our world. And yet, the Cold War continues to cast its shadow over Korea. Just 25 miles north of this capital city, the Korean Peninsula is still cleaved by the DMZ [demilitarized zone]: the ribbon of land that sunders one people yearning to live in peace. Who can calculate the human cost: 10 million Koreans separated now from family members for 4 decades. For 40 years, the people of Korea have prayed for an end to this unnatural division. For 40 years, you have kept alive the dream of one Korea. The winds of change are with us now. My friends, the day will come when this last wound of the Cold War struggle will heal. Korea will be whole again. For our part, I will repeat what I said here 3 years ago: The American people share your goal of peaceful reunification on terms acceptable to the Korean people. This is clear. This is simple. This is American policy. Recently, North and South made progress in easing tensions, in exploring opportunities for peace and understanding through direct talks at the prime ministerial level. This search has produced positive results: first, December's historic non-aggression agreement--and then, on the eve of this new year, an agreement to forever ban nuclear weapons from the Korean Peninsula. These positive developments come at a critical moment of rising concern, at a time when North Korea's pursuit of nuclear arms stands as the single greatest source of danger to peace in Northeast Asia. This progress is a tribute to the policies of President Roh and the government of this republic. South Korea has systematically eliminated any possible action that could justify the North's pursuit of such deadly weapons. This republic has rejected all weapons of mass destruction, and to give further meaning to this pledge, South Korea renounced all nuclear reprocessing and enrichment activities. On December 18, President Roh announced that there were no nuclear weapons on South Korean soil. To anyone who doubted that declaration, South Korea, with the full support of the United States, has offered to open to inspection all of its civilian and military installations, including US facilities. At every point, South Korea's approach was open, sincere, and fair. Each good-faith action increased the call for the North to make a positive response. Today, the prospects for real peace on this peninsula are brighter than at any point in the past 4 decades. And yet, paper promises won't keep the peace. I call on North Korea to demonstrate its sincerity to meet the obligations it undertook when it signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty 6 years ago. North Korea must implement in full all IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] safeguards for its nuclear facilities without exception, without delay. Moreover, North Korea, together with the Republic of Korea, should proceed to implement the inspection and verification portions of their unprecedented Joint Declaration on Non-Nuclearization, signed 1 week ago. Prompt action by the North will mark a new milestone on the path toward peace. But let this be clear: The United States has and will support the security aspirations of its ally in the South in the cause of peace. We are pleased that our September announcement about nuclear weapons helped lend momentum to the effort to make Korea safe from nuclear proliferation. We've worked with others in the region to send a multilateral message to North Korea. We've been willing to open our facilities to Korea to challenge North Korea to do the same. We've also left no doubt that we'll back these overtures for peace with a demonstration of our military resolve. As you know, we've postponed our plan to reduce the number of American troops stationed here in Korea. Let there be no doubt: The people of this republic should know that the US commitment to Korea's security remains steady and strong. I renew that pledge as an ally, as President of a nation that shares your devotion to democracy and self-determination. Down through the decades, from Korea to Kuwait, from the American soldiers who gave their lives at Inchon and Pork Chop Hill, to the Korean forces who stood with us in Desert Storm, our two nations have upheld the international ideal that between nations, and not just within them, common interests call for common action. Today, in many quarters, that ideal is being questioned, even criticized. There are those who see the many changes in our world and say our work is done. They urge us to declare victory, celebrate the collapse of our common enemy, and "come home." They fail to recognize a fundamental fact: The Cold War era changed our world forever. We did far more than hold a common enemy at bay. Together, we built a new world: a system of collective security to keep the peace; a system of free trade that fueled a generation of prosperity the likes of which the world has never seen; and a common commitment to political openness and liberty that now sustains a worldwide movement toward democracy. The passing of the Cold War must not mark the beginning of a new age of isolationism. The nations of the free world share more than a common history; they share a common destiny. There is no going back, only forward. The developments of the past 40 years--the dramatic expansion of democracy, the geometric increase in global trade--has created a system of common interests. To turn our backs now, to walk away after this great victory for freedom, or to retreat behind high trade walls into regional blocs would turn triumph to tragedy. America is a Pacific nation. We will remain engaged in Asia, as we are in other regions of the world. But just as the world itself stands on the threshold of a new era, so, too, we now enter a new era in US-Korean relations. What began in the heat of war as a military alliance has grown into a broader relationship, a partnership anchored in shared economic interest and common political ideals. Korea's new role will mean new responsibilities: a new partnership based upon Korea's growing capabilities and increased ability to contribute to peace and prosperity in the Pacific and beyond. The world recognizes Korea as an economic powerhouse. We are pleased that over the past few years, we've narrowed our current account imbalance from about $9 billion to about $1 billion and that US exports to Korea have increased at a pace of more than 7% over the last 2 years. We must acknowledge the equally important strides that you have made in strengthening the institutions of democracy. Even in the 3 years since my last visit, the change is clear for all to see. With the encouragement of President Roh, this National Assembly now plays a greater role in Korean politics. In 1992 alone, South Korea will hold at least three elections at the local and national levels. Across the country, democracy is giving voice to new ideas and opinions: since 1990 alone, 10 new daily newspapers and nearly 1,000 other new publications. Free speech, free elections, private property: These are the cornerstones of the new world order--fundamental freedoms that secure peace and prosperity. Consider your own history, a case study in contrasts between North and South. More than 4 decades ago, the South--with less land, fewer resources, and more people than in the North--set its course for free enterprise and free government. North Korea traveled a different path. Blessed with rich resources and a stronger industrial base, the regime that ruled the North marched its people down the dead-end path of totalitarianism and international isolation. Its economy stalled; its society suffocated; its cohorts went their own way. Today, the South is a dynamic participant in the community of democratic and market-oriented societies. The South is at peace, free and prosperous, with an average annual income four times higher than in the North and a history of double-digit growth that has propelled it into the front rank of the world's economies. Now you must build on your success; you must sustain the conditions that fueled your phenomenal growth. Korea did not raise the living standard of its people by closing itself off from the outside world. Today, Korea stands as America's seventh largest trading partner. With me on my trip are executives from some of America's leading companies, many with interests in expanding business with Korean companies and Korean consumers. America is not only Korea's largest market but a leading source of the technology and capital that helps fuel your economic growth. This nation owes much of its economic miracle to open markets abroad. Korea must see clearly that prosperity in the new century ahead lies in open markets. Trade is one activity where the interests of all nations intersect. Let me repeat here what I've said in Australia and in Singapore: At home, especially during tough economic times, my highest priority must be jobs and economic growth. But my allegiance to the American worker is not at odds with the interests of the Korean consumer. Trade is not a zero-sum game enriching some nations at the expense of others. Growing trade provides the people of both our nations with higher standards of living and better lives. Pressures for protectionism are building. We see it in my country, with the new breed of economic isolationists who urge us to build barriers to expanding trade and opportunity. We see it here in Korea, in a "frugality campaign" that's been used by too many to discourage imports. But wherever this impulse shows itself, we must fight back for trade that is free, fair, and open. We must heed the lessons of history. For the first half of this century, great nations sought refuge in isolationism and in its economic accomplice, protectionism, and the world succumbed to the ravages of war and depression. Since the Second World War, free nations, large and small, pursued a common course, forging alliances and fostering trade, and the world has enjoyed an era of unprecedented peace and prosperity. The history of this century is not lost on Korea. As a founding member of APEC--the forum for Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation--you have worked with your economic partners in the region to bring down barriers to trade. But the key test now is before us in this Uruguay Round. As an emerging economic power, Korea has shared greatly in the bounty of an open and growing world trading system. That reward carries with it profound responsibilities as well. Korea must now shoulder with other trading nations the burden of leadership on behalf of the multilateral trade regime. As I mentioned before the business leaders of our two nations earlier today, I am urging, at each stop of my trip, that we use the Dunkel draft text as the basis for successfully concluding the GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Uruguay] Round of trade talks. Korea has the opportunity to help fight the forces of protectionism, to help tip the balance in favor of free and fair trade policies that remain the world's one path to pros-perity. Our two nations share a history written in the blood of our people. The bonds forged in the Cold War, at the brink of Korea's mortal danger, have grown stronger through the years. Forty years ago, the free world made your struggle their own. Our forces fought here for a future free from tyranny. You did far more than survive. In the shadow of the Cold War, you showed what we can achieve so long as we are free. For 4 long decades, Korea has stood at the frontier of freedom--vigilant, determined, never wavering in its commitment to the great cause of independence and liberty. Today, as we enter a new world--the world we fought for 40 years ago--Korea stands with us, a steadfast friend, ally, and partner: proud, prosperous, and free. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 2, January 13, 1992 Title:

US-South Korean Relations

Bush Roh Tae Woo Source: Presidents Bush and Roh Tae Woo Description: Excerpts from a news conference, Seoul,South Korea Date: Jan, 6 19921/6/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: East Asia Country: South Korea Subject: Trade/Economics, Democratization [TEXT] President Roh: Today I have had very useful talks with President Bush for more than 1 1/2 hours. We have exchanged wide-ranging views about the ongoing changes in the world and the shifting situation in the Asia-Pacific region. President Bush and I have earnestly discussed the roles of our two countries in promoting durable peace and security on the Korean Peninsula, as well as ways to advance our bilateral cooperation. We have also exchanged frank and candid views on how to strengthen the free international trade system and how to expand economic and trade ties between our two countries. At the outset I expressed my deep appreciation for the outstanding leadership of President Bush in dismantling the Cold War structure and in freeing all mankind from nuclear terror. I emphasized that the roles of our two countries in promoting lasting peace and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region and the bilateral cooperation are growing even more important. In the quest for those common goals, all nations in this region, including Korea, ought to fulfill their responsibilities commensurate with their capabilities. President Bush made clear that, as a Pacific power, the United States will continue to play a constructive role in promoting peace and common prosperity in this region. I explained to him the initiatives and endeavors that we have put forth to ease tensions and secure peace on the Korean Peninsula and the consequent progress in relations between South and North Korea. President Bush reaffirmed the principle that the problems of the Korean Peninsula should be settled directly by the South and North themselves and fully supported the accords that have recently been reached between the two areas of Korea. President Bush and I jointly reaffirmed the unshakeable position that North Korea must sign and ratify a nuclear safeguard agreement and that the recently initiated joint declaration for a non-nuclear peninsula must be put into force at the earliest possible date. We discussed ways for the United States to regular[ly] expand contacts with North Korea in close consultation between our two countries, in tune with progress on the North Korean nuclear issue and in inter-Korean relations. President Bush once again stressed that the US security commitment to Korea remains unchanged and will continue to be honored. We agreed that our two nations should further strengthen bilateral ties in the diplomatic, security, economic, scientific, technological, and all other fields, and further develop an enduring partnership so that both will be able to prosper together in the Pacific era anticipated in the 21st century. Once again affirming that common prosperity must be sought through free trade, we pledged our two nations to closely cooperate to that end. I emphasized that my government is taking positive approaches to all areas for helping to bring the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations to a successful conclusion. As for negotiations in the agricultural sector, I ex-plained that because of our peculiar situation, it will be exceedingly difficult to fully open our markets in the immediate future and asked for America's understanding and cooperation in resolving the issue. I also stressed that our trade balance with the United States dipped into the red in the last year and explained our current economic realities, emphasizing that a healthier development of the Korean economy will be beneficial to America also. President Bush and I agreed to have the governments of both countries mutually support proposed Korean business activities in the United States and US business activities in Korea. Through that end, we agreed to initiate Korea-US sub-cabinet economic consultations to develop ways to promote economic partnership between our two countries. We also agreed on the need to further expand bilateral cooperation in the fields of science and technology, and thus a new science and technology agreement and a patent secrecy agreement were signed between our two countries this morning. Ladies and gentlemen, let me ask you now to give President Bush, our guest of honor, an opportunity to speak. President Bush: First, Mr. President, may I thank you for your hospitality. And, of course, Barbara and I are very pleased to be in Korea again at this historic time. We have had good, productive discussions with the President, with members of his cabinet on security, economic, and political issues. I re-affirmed the commitment of the United States to the security of Korea. Let there be no misunderstanding: The United States will remain in Korea as long as there is a need and that we are welcome. I told President Roh that he deserves tremendous credit for the progress that has been made toward reunification on the peninsula. His November 8 announcement sets a standard for a non-nuclear peninsula, which I fully endorse. While rapid progress is being made between the North and the South, I expressed my concern that the North fully implement its IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] obligations under the nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. And, moreover, the North and South should implement the historic bilateral inspection arrangements under the joint non-nuclear declaration of December 31, 1991. If North Korea fulfills its obligation and takes steps to implement the inspection agreements, then President Roh and I are prepared to forego the Team Spirit exercise for this year. On economic and trade issues, I stressed the need for Korean support to bring the Uruguay Round to a successful conclusion--a subject he just addressed himself to. I congratulated the president on Korea's superb job of hosting the last APEC [Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation] ministerial meeting, and we agreed to support and strengthen APEC, which I believe is one of the keys to continued regional growth. Bilaterally, I am pleased to announce that we have agreed to an economic action plan which will establish a framework to resolve bilateral trade and economic issues between us. And on one final note, I think that the science and technology agreement that we signed today is a serious framework for concrete cooperation. So thank you again, Mr. President. I'm delighted to be here. Note: Addresses and related material from the Japan portion of President Bush's Asia trip will appear in Dispatch Volume 3, No. 3 (January 20, 1992). (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 2, January 13, 1992 Title:

US-Korea Science and Technology Agreement

Fitzwater Source: White House Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater Description: Fact sheet released by the White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Seoul Date: Jan, 6 19921/6/92 Category: Fact Sheets Region: East Asia Country: South Korea Subject: Resource Management [TEXT] The US-Korean science and technology agreement represents a renewal of our close cooperative relationship that has spanned over 2 decades. To enhance our collaboration, the new agreement provides for the establishment of a joint committee for the coordination and facilitation of cooperative activities that will serve to accelerate and broaden our ties in the science and technology community. To provide for the adequate and effective protection of intellectual property for both parties to the agreement--created or furnished in the course of the cooperative activities--this new agreement provides for a level playing field for research and development cooperation between the two governments [and] offers protection of intellectual property on both sides, including copyrights, inventions, business confidential information, and patents held in secrecy. Often forgotten is the fact that technology is a product of which the Koreans have been significant purchasers in terms of royalty payments and scientific equipment over the years. For example, according to the Koreans' own figures, payment for the imports of technology from the US since 1962 has been $1.8 billion through 1989 (or 45% of total), and imports of US analytical and scientific instruments in 1989 alone was $142 million (or 38.4% of total). The purchase of equipment in 1990 is estimated at $181.3 million. These products maintain a good reputation throughout the country for performance and precision, and prospects are excellent for the future. In large part, these numbers were influenced by the thousands of Korean scientists, engineers, medical students, etc., the vast majority of which received their advanced degrees from the United States. The signing of the science and technology agreement and the associated event will be an illustration and an important reminder of the long history of scientific and other cooper-ation between the US and Korea. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 2, January 13, 1992 Title:

Humanitarian Assistance in Iraq

Tutwiler Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler Description: Released by the Office of the Assistant Secretary/Spokesman, Washington, DC Date: Jan, 3 19921/3/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: MidEast/North Africa Country: Iraq Subject: Development/Relief Aid, Regional/Civil Unrest, United Nations [TEXT] Following the swift defeat of his military forces in Kuwait last February, Saddam Hussein was confronted by sudden and massive uprisings by disaffected Shi'a in southern Iraq and Kurds in the north. Although these uprisings caught the Government of Iraq, as well as much of the international community, by surprise, Iraq's military was able to regroup to confront and savagely quell the uprisings. These events have triggered a large humanitarian emergency in Iraq and neighboring Turkey and Iran involving more than 1.8 million Iraqis. The international community has responded to this emergency with both generosity and determination. The United Nations and its affiliated agencies have provided nearly $300 million in humanitarian assistance to the Gulf region since early March [1991]. The International Committee of the Red Cross has mounted its own program, providing more than $100 million in assistance. In addition, several private and voluntary agencies are operating programs to assist Iraq's vulnerable civilian population. The United States has contributed $6.9 million to these agencies and nearly $600 million in total contributions for humanitarian assistance to Iraq, including over 63,000 metric tons of food, valued at $35.9 million. Operation Provide Comfort involved allied military forces from the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada, Belgium, Luxembourg, Australia, Spain, Netherlands, and Germany. During the initial phase of the operation, 425,500 refugees who had fled from their homes in northern Iraq to the border with Turkey were assisted. The allied forces provided 17,000 tons of humanitarian supplies, including food, medical supplies, and material for shelter. Eventually, in order to assist the refugees in returning to their home towns and villages, Operation Provide Comfort personnel helped reconstruct local power grids and sanitation systems and provided security so that the refugees would feel safe and be encouraged to stay in their home areas. Three temporary tent villages were set up around Zakhu in northeastern Iraq. The allied forces turned over the assistance program they had established to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on June 7, 1991. A military task force, comprised primarily of an air component with approximately 1,800 personnel, remains based in Turkey. The Government of Turkey recently agreed to extend the agreement allowing the task force to utilize its Turkish base of operations for an additional 6 months, through June 1992.
UN Security Council Resolutions
On April 5, 1991, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 688, which, for the first time, established that a humanitarian emergency such as the mass exodus of Kurds and the other groups which fled Iraq could trigger the involvement of the Security Council as a threat to international peace and stability. Resolution 688 requires Iraq to admit UN humanitarian personnel into the country and to permit the United Nations and other agencies providing assistance to have access to all people in need. Following adoption of the resolution, the United Nations signed a memorandum of understanding with Iraqi authorities which specified modalities of the UN's operation in Iraq. Resolution 688 provides complete authority for its humanitarian operations in Iraq. The memorandum of understanding provides operational details on how the United Nations plans to carry out its mandate under Resolution 688. There have been numerous Iraqi violations of both the letter and spirit of Resolution 688 as well as the terms of the memorandum of understanding. Approximately 375 UN humanitarian personnel are based throughout Iraq. An additional 500 UN guards also are in Iraq to protect UN personnel, assets, and operations linked with the UN humanitarian program. There are 300 Red Cross employees and 192 workers from private agencies in Baghdad and dozens of other cities in Iraq. In northeastern Iraq, the United Nations is operating six humanitarian centers which provide relief to displaced persons and the needy and an additional four UN sub-offices from which relief supplies also are distributed. On August 15, the Security Council adopted Resolution 706 in response to repeated Iraqi requests to be allowed to resume sales of oil for the purchase of urgently needed food and other humanitarian items and to fund other Iraqi obligations. The Security Council approved the sale of $1.6 billion of oil in order to meet the needs of Iraqi civilians before winter and other Iraqi obligations. The resolution requires the Secretary General to establish a strict system of monitoring and control that would prevent any revenues from this one-time sale of oil from reaching the coffers of the Iraqi Government and to ensure that humanitarian supplies are distributed throughout Iraq to population groups who are most in need. It should be noted that since March 22, 1991, when the Sanctions Committee lifted the embargo on food, intended shipments of some 4.2 million tons of food have been notified to the committee. This is approximately three-fourths of Iraq's annual pre-war food imports. Medicines have never been included in the sanctions. On September 28, 1991, the Security Council adopted Resolution 712 which approved the Secretary General's proposals for implementing Resolution 706. More than 3 months after passage of Resolution 706 and 2 months after passage of 712, Iraq has still neither accepted nor rejected the terms of these resolutions, although various Iraqi officials have made highly critical comments concerning their provisions. A number of international teams have visited Iraq to assess humanitarian requirements. It is clear that certain groups in the Iraqi civilian population face serious food shortages and lack adequate medical care. These groups include, in particular, the Shi'a in southern Iraq, Kurds in the north, and poor Sunnis living in central Iraq. There is evidence that some of these groups have experienced malnutrition and inadequate medical care for an extended time, predating the invasion of Kuwait. While Saddam Hussein cynically calculated that the misery he has inflicted on his own people might serve to sway the international community on the lifting of sanctions, Resolutions 706 and 712 have disappointed him. However, if Iraq wants to obtain food and other humanitarian items, these resolutions provide the mechanism for that to be done, and it is now up to the Iraqi Government to permit these resolutions to be implemented. We continue to receive reports from knowledgeable sources that the Iraqi Government is blocking the distribution of needed food and medicine to vulnerable populations in the north and denying private voluntary organizations use of mosques, health clinics, and other facilities for the purpose of carrying out their work. Previously, despite Iraq's non- acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 706 and 712, many private voluntary organizations were able to use these facilities as food distribution sites. Recently, people sent by the Iraqi Government have traveled door-to-door warning residents that they will be arrested if they accept foreign food assistance. Residents who have previously accepted food have been interrogated. The Deputy Prime Minister has accused international aid workers of gathering intelligence. These events add to the evidence that Saddam's Government is not complying with Resolution 688. The reports of the suffering of the Iraqi people are extensive, well- documented, and compelling. But there is a limit to what the international community can do in the absence of Iraqi cooperation. Only Iraq stands in the way of implementing an internationally approved mechanism to deal with its humanitarian crisis. The sanctions regime does provide for the possibility of using Iraqi official assets frozen when economic sanctions were imposed upon Iraq in August 1990, under certain circumstances. The chairman of the UN Sanctions Committee has informed all governments holding such assets that they may unfreeze them for the purposes specified in paragraph 20 of Resolution 687, i.e., for permissible humanitarian exports to Iraq. We understand that some countries have chosen to do so in limited amounts. Countries choosing this course of action face two broad alternatives: either they can release the frozen assets with the permission of--and in a manner prescribed by--the Iraqi Government or they can vest the assets and use them as they see fit, for example, by channeling the funds into UN humanitarian operations. One obvious problem in releasing the assets according to the wishes of the Iraqi Government is that the Iraqis are unlikely to agree to any international control mechanism--such as that provided under Resolutions 706 and 712-- to ensure that humanitarian supplies purchased with the assets are equitably distributed within Iraq. Instead, countries releasing the assets would have to trust the Iraqi Government to distribute the supplies equitably. Based on the Iraqi track record, to date, most countries are reluctant to do so.
Shi'a in the South
In July, we received credible reports that a number of Shi'a, who had fled their homes following the brutal putdown of their rebellion by Iraqi forces, were trapped in the vast marsh areas separating southern Iraq and Iran. What made these reports most ominous were eyewitness accounts by UN personnel that the Iraqi army had surrounded part of these marshes and appeared intent upon keeping the Shi'a pinned down in an area totally unfit for human habitation. [UN High Commissioner] Sadruddin Aga Khan, in the course of his assessment mission to Iraq in July, requested permission to visit the marshlands and to establish a base for the United Nations to monitor the situation and provide assistance to the people in that area. Following several days of stalling, the Iraqi authorities finally allowed Sadruddin to travel to the area. It was clear to Sadruddin and his team that Iraqi military had been hastily withdrawn just prior to his visit. The UN staff which Sadruddin left to keep an eye on the situation were subsequently ordered out of the area by Iraq on the grounds that they were no longer needed and, as of now, have not been permitted to return. We are very concerned with reports that indicate that there are still numbers of people, including women and children trapped in the marshes with little food, only swamp water to drink, and unable to return to their homes because of the continuing large military presence in the area.
Kurds in the North
In October, fighting again flared up between Iraqi forces and the Kurds in northern Iraq. This renewed fighting came despite Saddam's promise to work out a plan for increased Kurdish autonomy and some degree of democracy throughout Iraq. The fighting resulted in the dislocation from their villages once again of thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children. In November, ominous indications of renewed military pressure upon the Kurds have led many to flee their homes just as winter is approaching. These threats and renewed military actions are only the latest in a series. It is clear that failure to work out arrangements that would provide for a degree of autonomy for the Kurds, as well as allow them to participate in the government, will create further instability in northern Iraq and fuel the deplorable cycle of violence in that region. Saddam's continuing repression of the Kurds--including artillery bombardment of urban and residential areas and deliberate eviction of people from their homes--vastly complicates the UN's efforts to provide adequate shelter in the north before the onset of winter and to "settle" returning refugees into their homes. Nevertheless, the United Nations has successfully completed arrangements to provide adequate protection against the harsh winter climate for 350,000 people for whom plans had been made last summer and autumn. But there remain serious problems for recently displaced persons in northern Iraq. The United Nations has proposed that it open humanitarian centers in Kirkuk and Nasiriyah, but the Government of Iraq has refused to concur. It bases its refusal on a deliberate misinterpretation of the memorandum of understanding it signed with the United Nations last April 18 which provides for both the Iraqis and the United Nations to agree on locations for UN humanitarian centers. The Iraqis now claim the unilateral right to designate the location of these centers, and they have refused UN requests despite the 250,000 refugees located near these towns who have returned from Iran but are prevented from getting to their homes by the Iraqi authorities. There also are an estimated 30,000 people who have returned to their former villages or to their homes but who are still living in tents or other temporary shelter because their homes have either been destroyed or are unsafe because of fighting. Resolution 688 requires that Iraqi authorities provide access for the United Nations to provide assistance to all in Iraq that require it. Resolution 687, arguably the most far-reaching of any measure passed by the Security Council, places several stringent, but necessary, requirements upon the Iraqi Government. Among other things, Resolution 687 requires Iraq to: -- Declare and destroy or render harmless its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction, as well as ballistic missiles with ranges in excess of 150 kilometers; -- Observe the demilitarized zone established between Iraq and Kuwait, by withdrawing all military forces; -- Return all stolen Kuwaiti property, financial and cultural assets, and military equipment; -- Return all captured or detained Kuwaiti citizens; -- Pay reparations to Kuwait and others who have suffered losses as a result of Iraq's invasion and the ensuing war; and -- Cooperate in the demarcation of a permanent boundary between Iraq and Kuwait. Under the resolution, the Security Council is to consider, every 60 days, whether Iraq is in compliance so that the economic sanctions can either be modified or terminated. There have been four such reviews to date. Saddam Hussein's regime has done its utmost to evade requirements to disclose all details of its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. It has repeatedly violated the demilitarized zone by sending Iraqi "civilians" into Kuwait to forage for weapons and munitions and by establishing border posts beyond Iraq's part of the zone. It has failed to return stolen Kuwaiti military equipment. And, most serious, Iraq has failed to provide an accounting for missing Kuwaitis believed to have been taken to Iraq or to permit the Red Cross access to places where they may be detained. It continues to make war upon Iraqi citizens who reject it. In the light of this obvious pattern of non-compliance, Security Council members have agreed that is would be completely inappropriate to consider lifting sanctions or modifying them in any way for the benefit of Iraq. Saddam Hussein's continued brutality against his own people has driven many hitherto reluctant countries to concede that there may, indeed, arise circumstances in which extraordinary humanitarian needs compel the international community's intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. This concern lies behind the substance of Resolution 688 and also indicates why Resolutions 706 and 712 are so strict in their requirements for UN control over Iraq's future oil revenues. It is not the international sanctions which starve Iraq's innocent civilian populations. It is the policies of Saddam Hussein's regime. The international community has decided that sanctions need to remain in order to secure Iraq's full compliance with the terms of the cease-fire contained in Resolution 687; most important--the destruction of all of Saddam Hussein's arsenal of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles capable of delivering them against Iraq's neighbors in the Middle East. The international community witnessed and withstood earlier attempts by Saddam Hussein to use innocent nationals of other countries as human shields to protect Iraq from attack. He is now using his own population in the same manner to secure release from the constraints on his power that the continuation of sanctions have produced.(###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 2, January 13, 1992 Title:

Department Releases Kennedy-Khrushchev Correspondence on Cuban Missile Crisis

Tutwiler Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler Description: Statement, Washington, DC Date: Jan, 6 19921/6/92 Region: Caribbean Country: Cuba, Russia, United States Subject: Arms Control, History [TEXT] The Department is today declassifying and releasing the remaining pieces of correspondence between President Kennedy and Soviet General Secretary Khrushchev relating to the Cuban missile crisis. The Russian Government is taking the same action, and a similar announcement is being made in Moscow. The United States and Russia have also agreed to publish jointly all Kennedy-Khrushchev correspondence related to the Cuban missile crisis. We are discussing details of the joint publication, which we expect to be accomplished this year. For the United States, the correspondence will be published by the United States Information Agency as a special issue of its publication Problems of Communism. This will include both English and Russian texts, plus scholarly commentary. Release by the United States and the Russian federation of these letters comes at a time of dramatic change, when fundamentally new relations are developing between the United States and Russia. These documents, which involve critical high-level exchanges at the height of the Cold War, which is now behind us, will be of interest to historians and scholars as well as to the general public. The Department is pleased to be able to work with the Russian federation to make the complete historical record of this correspondence available publicly. The correspondence declassified and released today is: -- Letter from General Secretary Khrushchev to President Kennedy dated October 30, 1962 (unofficial translation); -- Letter from President Kennedy to General Secretary Khrushchev dated November 3, 1962 (US original text); -- Letter from General Secretary Khrushchev to President Kennedy dated November 4, 1962 (unofficial translation). -- Letter from General Secretary Khrushchev to President Kennedy dated November 12, 1962 (unofficial translation); -- Oral message from President Kennedy to General Secretary Khrush-chev dated November 12, 1962 (unofficial English translation provided by the Russians); -- Letter from General Secretary Khrushchev to President Kennedy dated November 14, 1962 (unofficial translation); -- Letter from President Kennedy to General Secretary Khrushchev dated November 15, 1962 (US original text); -- Oral message from President Kennedy to General Secretary Khrush-chev dated November 20, 1962 (unofficial English translation provided by the Russians); -- Letter from General Secretary Khrushchev to President Kennedy dated November 20, 1962 (unofficial translation); -- Letter from General Secretary Khrushchev to President Kennedy dated November 22, 1962 (unofficial translation); -- Letter from General Secretary Khrushchev to President Kennedy dated December 10, 1962 (unofficial translation); and -- Letter from President Kennedy to General Secretary Khrushchev dated December 14, 1962 (US original text). (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 2, January 13, 1992 Title:

Treaty Actions: Multilateral

PA Source: Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public Affairs Date: Oct, 30 199110/30/91 Category: Treaties/Agreements Country: United States, Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, Canada, China, France, India, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, USSR (Former), United Kingdom, Vietnam, Yugoslavia (Former), Mexico, Guinea, Estonia, Mongolia, Lithuania, Albania, Marshall Islands, Israel, Cote d'Ivoire, Malta, Jamaica, Greece, Czechoslovakia (Former) Subject: International Law, Environment, Resource Management, Human Rights, Narcotics, Refugees, Media/Telecommunications, Arms Control, Science/Technology [TEXT] Agriculture--Diseases (Plant) Cooperative agreement among the United States, Canada and Mexico supplementary to the North American plant protection agreement of Oct. 13, 1976 (TIAS 8680; 28 UST 6223). Signed at Alexandria, Va., Oct. 20, 1991. Entered into force Oct. 20, 1991. Cambodia Agreement concerning the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and inviolability, neutrality and national unity of Cambodia. Done at Paris Oct. 31, 1991. Entered into force Oct. 31, 1991. Signatories: United States, Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, Canada, China, France, India, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, USSR, United Kingdom, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia. Agreement on a comprehensive political settlement of the Cambodia conflict, with annexes. Done at Paris Oct. 23, 1991. Entered into force Oct. 23, 1991. Signatories: United States, Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, Canada, China, France, India, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, USSR, United Kingdom, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia. Cotton Article of agreement of the International Institute for Cotton, as amended. Done at Washington January 17, 1966. Entered into force Feb. 23, 1966. TIAS 5964, 6184, 9549, 10857. Notifications of withdrawal: Mexico, Sept. 4, 1991; US, Dec. 27, 1991. Customs Convention establishing a Customs Cooperation Council, with annex. Done at Brussels Dec. 15, 1950. Entered into force Nov. 4, 1952; for the US Nov. 5, 1970. TIAS 7063. Accessions deposited: Guinea, Oct. 30, 1991; Mongolia, Sept. 17, 1991; USSR, July 8, 1991. Finance Convention establishing the multilateral investment guarantee agency (MIGA), with annexes and schedules. Done at Seoul Oct. 11, 1985. Entered into force Apr. 12, 1988. Ratifications deposited: Malaysia, Aug. 2, 1991; Peru, June 5, 1991; Sudan, Aug. 21, 1991. Genocide Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. Done at Paris Dec. 9, 1948. Entered into force Jan. 12, 1951; for the US Feb. 23, 1989. Accession deposited: Estonia, Oct. 21, 1991. Health Constitution of the World Health Organization. Done at New York July 22, 1946. Entered into force Apr. 7, 1948. TIAS 1808. Amendment of Articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the World Health Organization of July 22, 1946, as amended. Done at Geneva May 23, 1967. Entered into force May 21, 1975. TIAS 8086. Amendments to Articles 34 and 55 of the Constitution of the World Health Organization of July 22, 1946, as amended. Done at Geneva May 22, 1973. Entered into force Feb. 3, 1977. TIAS 8534. Amendments to Articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the World Health Organization of July 22, 1946, as amended. Done at Geneva May 17, 1976. Entered into force Jan. 20, 1984. TIAS 10930. Acceptances deposited: Latvia, Dec. 4, 1991; Lithuania, Nov. 25, 1991. Human Rights International covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. Done at New York Dec. 16, 1966. Entered into force Jan. 3, 1976.1 Accessions deposited: Albania, Oct. 4, 1991; Estonia, Oct. 21, 1991; Grenada, Sept. 6, 1991; Lithuania, Nov. 20, 1991. Ratification deposited: Israel, Oct. 3, 1991. International covenant on civil and political rights. Done at New York Dec. 16, 1966. Entered into force Mar. 23, 1976.1 Accessions deposited: Albania, Oct. 4, 1991; Estonia Oct. 21, 1991; Grenada, Sept. 6. 1991; Lithuania, Nov. 20, 1991. Ratification deposited: Israel, Oct. 3, 1991. Judicial Procedure Convention abolishing the requirement of legalization for foreign public documents, with annex. Done at The Hague Oct. 5, 1961. Entered into force Jan. 24, 1965; for the US Oct. 15, 1981. TIAS 10072. Accession deposited: Marshall Islands, Nov. 18, 1991. Convention on the law applicable to trusts and on their recognition. Done at The Hague July 1, 1985.2 Signatures: Australia, Oct. 17, 1991; France, Nov. 26, 1991. Ratification deposited: Australia, Oct. 17, 1991. Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction. Done at The Hague Oct. 25, 1980. Entered into force Dec. 1, 1983; for the US July 1, 1988. [Senate] Treaty Doc. 99-11. Signature: Yugoslavia, Sept. 27, 1991. Ratification deposited: Yugoslavia, Sept. 27, 1991. Narcotics United Nations convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, with annex and final act. Done at Vienna Dec. 20, 1988; entered into force Nov. 11, 1990. Ratifications deposited: Cote d'Ivoire, Nov. 25, 1991; Honduras, Dec. 11, 1991. Nuclear Test Ban Treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water. Done at Moscow Aug. 5, 1963. Entered into force Oct. 10, 1963. TIAS 5433. Ratification deposited: Jamaica, Nov. 22, 1991. Patents--Plant Varieties International convention for the protection of new varieties of plants of Dec. 2, 1961, as revised. Done at Geneva Mar. 19, 1991. Enters into force one month after five States have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, provided that at least three States are party to the Act of 1961/1972 or the Act of 1978. Prisoner Transfer Convention on the transfer of sentenced persons. Done at Strasbourg Mar. 21, 1983. Entered into force July 1, 1985. TIAS 10824. Ratification deposited: Malta, Mar. 26, 1991. Racial Discrimination International convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. Done at New York Dec. 21, 1965. Entered into force Jan. 4, 1969.1 Accession deposited: Estonia, Oct. 21, 1991. Red Cross Geneva convention for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in armed forces in the field. Done at Geneva Aug. 12, 1949. Entered into force Oct. 21, 1950; for the US Feb. 2, 1956. TIAS 3362. Geneva convention for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea. Done at Geneva Aug. 12, 1949. Entered into force Oct. 21, 1950; for the US Feb. 2, 1956. TIAS 3363. Geneva convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war. Done at Geneva Aug. 12, 1949. Entered into force Oct. 21, 1950; for the US Feb. 2, 1956. TIAS 3364. Geneva convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war. Done at Geneva Aug. 12, 1949. Entered into force Oct. 21, 1950; for the US Feb. 2, 1956. TIAS 3365. Accession deposited: Brunei, Oct. 14, 1991. Protocol additional to the Geneva conventions of Aug. 12, 1949 (TIAS 3362, 3363, 3364, 3365), and relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts (Protocol I), with annexes. Done at Geneva June 8, 1977. Entered into force Dec. 7, 1978.1 Protocol additional to the Geneva conventions of Aug. 12, 1949 (TIAS 3362, 3363, 3364, 3365), and relating to the protection of victims of non- international armed conflicts (Protocol II). Done at Geneva June 8, 1977. Entered into force Dec. 7, 1978.1 Accessions deposited: Brunei, Oct. 14, 1991; Malawi, Oct. 7, 1991; Maldives, Sept. 3, 1991. Refugees Protocol relating to the status of refugees. Done at New York Jan. 31, 1967. Entered into force Oct. 4, 1967; for the US Nov. 1, 1968. TIAS 6577. Accessions deposited: Czechoslovakia, Nov. 26, 1991; Romania, Aug. 7, 1991. Satellite Communications Systems Agreement relating to the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT), with annexes. Done at Washington Aug. 20, 1971. Entered into force Feb. 12, 1973. TIAS 7532. Accession deposited: USSR, May 16, 1991. Operating agreement relating to the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT), with annexes. Done at Washington Aug. 20, 1971. Entered into force Feb. 12, 1973. TIAS 7532. Signature: USSR, July 18, 1991. Convention relating to distribution of programme-carrying signals transmitted by satellite. Done at Brussels May 21, 1974. Entered into force Aug. 25, 1979; for the US Mar. 7, 1985. TIAS 11078. Accession deposited: Greece, July 22, 1991. Treaties Vienna convention on the law of treaties, with annex. Done at Vienna May 23, 1969. Entered into force Jan. 27, 1980.1 Accession deposited: Estonia, Oct. 21, 1991. Torture Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Done at New York Dec. 10, 1984. Entered into force June 26, 1987.1 Accessions deposited: Estonia, Oct. 21, 1991; Jordan, Nov. 13, 1991; Monaco, Dec. 6, 1991. Women Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. Done at New York Dec. 18, 1979. Entered into force Sept. 3, 1981.1 Accession deposited: Estonia, Oct. 21, 1991.
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 2, January 13, 1992 Title:

Treaty Actions: Bilateral

PA Source: Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public Affairs Date: Oct, 30 199110/30/91 Category: Treaties/Agreements Region: Whole World Country: Argentina, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia (former), Poland, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Jamaica, Peru, China, South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Fiji, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Finland, Iceland, Israel, Malta, Mongolia, Senegal, South Africa [TEXT] Argentina Treaty concerning the reciprocal encouragement and protection of investment, with protocol. Signed at Washington Nov. 14, 1991. Enters into force 30 days after the exchange of instruments of ratification. Agreement regarding the consolidation and rescheduling or refinancing of certain debts owed to, guaranteed by or insured by the United States Government and its agencies, with annexes. Signed at Washington Dec. 6, 1991. Enters into force following signature and receipt by Argentina of written notice from the US that all necessary domestic legal requirements have been fulfilled. Bolivia Agreement amending and extending the memorandum of understanding of Apr. 24 and May 29, 1985, for scientific and technical cooperation in the earth sciences. Signed at Reston, Va., Nov. 20, 1991; entered into force Nov. 20, 1991; effective May 29, 1990. Agreement concerning the establishment of an Enterprise for the Americas Environmental Account at the National Fund for the Environment. Signed at Washington Nov. 26, 1991. Entered into force Nov. 26, 1991. Bulgaria Agreement on trade relations, with exchanges of letters. Signed at Washington Apr. 22, 1991. 56 Fed. Reg. 29789. Entered into force: Nov. 22, 1991. Agreement relating to the employment of dependents of official government employees. Exchange of notes at Sofia Oct. 8 and 29, 1991; entered into force Oct. 29, 1991. China Agreement concerning the airworthiness certification of imported civil aeronautical products. Effected by exchange of notes at Beijing Oct. 8 and 14, 1991. Entered into force Oct. 14, 1991. Czechoslovakia Treaty concerning the reciprocal encouragement and protection of investment, with annex, protocol and exchanges of letters. Signed at Washington Oct. 22, 1991. Enters into force 30 days after the exchange of instruments of ratification. Dominican Republic Agreement amending the agreement of Jan. 20, 1989, as amended, relating to trade in cotton, wool and man-made fiber textiles and textile products. Effected by exchange of notes at Santo Domingo Aug. 23 and Oct. 1, 1991. Entered into force Oct. 1, 1991. European Communities Agreement regarding the application of competition laws. Signed at Washington Sept. 23, 1991. Entered into force Sept. 23, 1991. European Space Agency Memorandum of understanding concerning Space Shuttle flight activities in the launch and retrieval of the European Retrieval Carrier Spacecraft. Signed at Paris Oct. 3, 1991. Entered into force Oct. 3, 1991. Fiji Agreement concerning trade in cotton and man-made fiber textiles and textile products, with annexes. Effected by exchange of notes at Suva May 24 and Aug. 20, 1991. Entered into force Aug. 20, 1991; effective Jan. 1, 1990. Finland General security of military information agreement. Effected by exchange of notes at Helsinki Oct. 11, 1991. Entered into force Oct. 11, 1991. Honduras Agreement regarding the discharge of certain debts owed to the Government of the United States, with annex. Signed at Washington Sept. 26, 1991. Entered into force Sept. 26, 1991. Iceland Agreement amending and extending the agreement of Sept. 21, 1984 (TIAS 11032), as amended and extended, concerning fisheries off the coasts of the United States. Effected by exchange of notes at Washington Feb. 11 and Apr. 5, 1991. Entered into force Oct. 21, 1991; effective July 1, 1991. Israel Agreement amending the mutual logistic support agreement of May 10 and 24, 1988. Signed at Stuttgart-Vaihingen ∧ Tel Aviv June 22, 1990 and Oct. 9, 1991. Entered into force Oct. 9, 1991. Jamaica Agreement concerning the establishment of an Enterprise for the Americas Environmental Foundation. Signed at Washington Nov. 26, 1991. Entered into force Nov. 26, 1991. Japan Agreement concerning trade in semiconductor products, with arrangement. Effected by exchange of letters at Washington June 11, 1991. Entered into force June 11, 1991; effective Aug. 1, 1991. Korea Agreement amending and extending the agreement of July 26, 1982 (TIAS 10571), as amended and extended, concerning fisheries off the coasts of the United States. Effected by exchange of notes at Washington May 29 and June 19, 1991. Entered into force Nov. 26, 1991, effective July 1, 1991. Malta Agreement relating to employment of dependents of official government employees. Exchange of notes at Floriana Sept. 25 and Oct. 3, 1991. Entered into force Oct. 3, 1991. Mexico Agreement concerning the provisional application of the agreement of Nov. 21, 1991, amending the air transport agreement of Aug. 15, 1960, as amended and extended (TIAS 4675, 7167). Effected by exchange of notes at Washington Nov. 21, 1991. Entered into force Nov. 21, 1991. Agreement amending the air transport agreement of Aug. 15, 1960, as amended and extended (TIAS 4675, 7167), with attachments. Signed at Washington Nov. 21, 1991. Enters into force on the date on which the Parties notify one another through the diplomatic channel of completion of national legislation requirements. Agreement amending and extending the agreement of Feb. 13, 1988, as amended, concerning trade in cotton, wool and man-made fiber textiles and textile products. Effected by exchange of notes at Mexico Oct. 31, Nov. 13, 19 and 21, 1991. Entered into force Nov. 21, 1991. Memorandum of understanding relating to the recognition and validity of commercial driver's licenses and licencias federales de conductor, with annex. Signed at Washington Nov. 21, 1991. Entered into force Nov. 21, 1991. Mongolia Agreement on trade relations, with exchange of letters. Signed at Washington Jan. 23, 1991. 56 Fed. Reg. 29836.Entered into force: Nov. 27, 1991. Peru Agreement regarding cooperation in the prevention and control of money laundering arising from illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, with attachment. Signed at Lima Oct. 14, 1991. Entered into force Oct. 14, 1991. Philippines Agreement regarding the consolidation and rescheduling or refinancing of certain debts owed to, guaranteed by, or insured by the United States Government and its agencies, with annexes. Signed at Washington Dec. 11, 1991. Enters into force following signature and receipt by the Philippines of written notice from the US that all necessary domestic legal requirements have been fulfilled. Poland Agreement amending and extending the agreement of Aug. 1, 1985, concerning fisheries off the coasts of the United States. Effected by exchange of notes at Washington Jan. 24 and June 12, 1991. Entered into force Nov. 21, 1991; effective July 1, 1991. Senegal Agreement regarding the consolidation and rescheduling of certain debts owed to, guaranteed by, or insured by the United States Government and its agencies, with annexes. Signed at Dakar Nov. 26, 1991. Enters into force following signature and receipt by Senegal of written notice from the US that all necessary domestic legal requirements have been fulfilled. South Africa Agreement on aviation security. Effected by exchange of notes at Pretoria Aug. 19, Oct. 3, 11 and 30, 1991. Entered into force Oct. 30, 1991. Sri Lanka Treaty concerning the encouragement and reciprocal protection of investment, with annex, protocol and exchange of letters. Signed at Colombo Sept. 20, 1991. Enters into force 30 days after the exchange of instruments of ratification. Switzerland Agreement amending and extending the agreement of Apr. 19, 1985, as extended, in the field of radioactive waste management. Signed at Wettingen Sept. 23, 1991. Entered into force Sept. 23, 1991; effective Mar. 19, 1991. United Kingdom Agreement for mutual assistance in administration of justice in connection with the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. Signed at London and Washington Nov. 15 and Dec. 4, 1991. Entered into force Dec. 4, 1991. 1 Not in force for the US. 2 Not in force. (###)