US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 3, No 7, February 17, 1992
Title: CSCE: Our Community Of Democratic Values
Baker
Source: Secretary Baker
Description: Address at the CSCE Council of Ministers Meeting,
Prague, Czechoslovakia
Date: Jan, 30 19921/30/92
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: E/C Europe
Country: Czechoslovakia (former), Czech Republic, Slovak Republic
Subject: Trade/Economics, Democratization, CSCE
[TEXT]
It is a pleasure for me to return to the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic
and to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe [CSCE]. I very
much regret the brevity of my stay, for the future of both Czechoslovakia
and the CSCE is of the highest importance to America, and to the new Europe
and the new Atlanticism that we seek to build.
When Thomas Masaryk, Czechoslovakia's founding father, departed from New
York in 1918 to lead his newly independent country, he offered this farewell
to the American people: "May the friendship and community of interest of
[our] two democracies, in cooperation with the other democracies of the
world, furnish a firm basis for the establishment of a new order in a
transformed world."
My government shared that sentiment back in 1918. And, we share it today.
For the democratic commitment of today's generation is being tested in a
new way--by the challenge of erecting open, civil societies with market
economies, based on the rule of law.
Paradoxically, just as Europe's new states grapple with the challenges of
political and economic recovery and new nationalist forces unleashed by
communism's collapse, Europe's established democracies move toward
greater integration through new forms of sovereignty beyond the nation
state.
Our common experience since 1975 has demonstrated that CSCE's broad
framework and democratic principles can reinforce this progress toward
greater democracy, prosperity, and stability. CSCE can unite our entire
Euro-Atlantic community and help guide us safely through the transition
period that lies ahead. It can serve to unite all of Europe on the solid
foundation of universal democratic values.
CSCE has demonstrated a unique ability both to adapt to and shape change in
a positive direction. First of all, CSCE has served as the conscience of the
continent. Throughout the years of Cold War repression, CSCE sent a clear
message of hope to the silenced and the suffering of Eastern Europe and the
Soviet Union.
CSCE's call of conscience pierced the prisons and the silence of fear,
overcoming armies and legions of secret police with the compelling force of
ideas. Now those ideas no longer are hidden in the shadows of the lands of
Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union; those ideas now
power the new democrats as they strengthen freedom across these lands.
CSCE has also set basic standards for all of us. In the aftermath of the
people-power revolutions of 1989-90, CSCE has helped to forge a common
understanding of how we can consolidate our new community of pluralistic,
peaceful, market-based societies. Today, these norms are not only guides to
action but also represent standards of accountability. We must ensure by
our actions that the rigorous standards we have set are maintained.
Now, we face the challenge of extending CSCE's values to the new
independent states of the former Soviet Union. These new governments and
their peoples want to build enduring democracies and vibrant free markets,
and CSCE can serve as a compass to guide them in this task.
Therefore, we support the view of this council that all of the new
independent states are in principle eligible for CSCE membership. But
membership should be only the first of many steps that will bring these
states firmly into the Euro-Atlantic community. We need to help them turn
their democratic desires into enduring institutions. We need to support
CSCE rapporteur missions that help them with implementation so rhetoric
can become reality.
Finally, CSCE has become a central forum for solving problems and managing
crises. Our enhanced political consultative process with its emergency
meeting mechanism, our strengthened human dimension mechanism, our
conflict prevention efforts, the transformation of CSCE's office for free
elections into an office of democratic institutions and human rights, and the
ties CSCE is establishing with other key Euro-Atlantic institutions all
increase CSCE's ability to engage directly in finding solutions to current
problems.
Obviously, in light of the tragic events in Yugoslavia, we need to look
closely at ways to strengthen CSCE's crisis management and conflict
prevention capabilities.
We believe CSCE can play a key role in reinforcing the values that bring us
together and overcome the differences that pull us apart. CSCE's flexible
framework enables us to accommodate the rich diversity of the Euro-
Atlantic community. Our common interest is served by reinforcing that
framework through a strong network of cooperative ties with other key
institutions and organizations.
We are pleased that the Helsinki follow-up meeting will be exploring ways
of improving CSCE's dialogue with non-CSCE countries that have an interest
in Europe's future. For we all know the democratic values behind CSCE
transcended geographic boundaries.
By working within CSCE and in conjunction with others, we can promote
compliance with CSCE commitments in all three Helsinki baskets--the
human dimension, the economic area, and the security field. Let me discuss
each in turn.
With regard to the human dimension, respect for the equal and inalienable
rights of every citizen rests at the heart of every true democracy.
Protection of individual rights is best reinforced by the consolidation of
democratic processes and institutions at all levels of society. Free and fair
elections are the first step, and through the Warsaw Office for Free
Elections, CSCE has contributed to this effort. Now the new, expanded
mandate for the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights will
enhance CSCE's efforts at democratic institution-building across the
Eurasian landmass.
The Warsaw office's capacity to host seminars will help CSCE focus
attention on issues that can promote or retard progress toward viable civil
societies. In this regard, I would recommend that the Warsaw office hold
short, focused seminars on independent media, for the free media are the
first line of defense in all democratic societies. The office should also hold
a seminar on migration. This issue holds critical implications for all
democratic societies across Europe and cuts across the full range of CSCE
interests--humanitarian, political, security, and economic.
In the economic basket, we can work effectively at Helsinki to support the
development of free market economies, the growth of trade, the protection
of the environment, and scientific and technical cooperation with the new
democratic states of Europe. We can create cooperation networks among
CSCE and the major trans-Atlantic and European economic institutions. This
will ensure that CSCE reinforces, but does not duplicate, the important work
being done by others.
We can also energize the work of CSCE through creation of an economic
forum. We have in mind a flexible framework for discussion, not the
establishment of a new institution with a large bureaucracy. We look
forward at Helsinki to developing an agenda and a schedule of focused
meetings for the forum. These should address practical issues, such as
creating a better understanding of market mechanisms and the conditions
which foster entrepreneurial spirit.
At Helsinki, we should also promote compliance with commitments in the
military security arena. My delegation will work to ensure that the goals
for CSCE and other aspects of European security set forth in NATO's Rome
declaration become lasting achievements.
Already, the North Atlantic Cooperation Council, launched by the NATO
alliance in Rome, is helping to heal the old division in Europe and to further
the overall goals of the CSCE process. Its appearance on the European
security scene can also help us build a strong consensus for future progress
in CSCE's military security dimension.
And, as of the opening of the Helsinki meeting, we fully expect significant
progress toward ratification of the CFE [Conventional Armed Forces in
Europe] Treaty by all its original signatories and by the new states with
territory in the CFE area of application.
The creation of a comprehensive post-Helsinki forum for security in Europe,
open to all CSCE members, is a significant step toward ensuring a strong
and steady focus on military security. The forum can advance CSCE's broad
approach to this subject and promote a deepened dialogue on all of its
aspects, develop new contacts at all levels to improve understanding among
our military establishments, facilitate the process of defense conversion,
reduce the danger of military confrontation in Europe through conflict
prevention mechanisms, and foster cooperation on the growing problem of
arms proliferation that has an impact beyond the CSCE area.
Another major objective at Helsinki will be to enhance CSCE's capacity to
respond to the new dangers to security that arise from societal
instabilities and aggressive nationalism. More frequent meetings of the
Committee of Senior Officials [CSO] and the strengthening of the CSO as our
primary political arm should speed our responses to fast-moving events and
enhance CSCE's capabilities for crisis management.
Enhancing conflict prevention is another key CSCE challenge. We believe
more frequent CPC [Conflict Prevention Center] Consultative Committee
meetings, better CPC/CSO liaison, and a mandate for Helsinki to work on
guidelines for strengthening the CPC's operational capabilities and for
development of a fact-finding capability relating to military deployments
will all improve CSCE's conflict prevention capabilities.
If we work effectively, CSCE can help us all--during a time of transition
and uncertainty--reinforce a deepening democratic consensus across Europe
and the globe. This is CSCE's great challenge in the post-Cold War, post-
communist period.
And I believe CSCE is equal to it. Thomas Masaryk devoted a great deal of
thought to how a free, prosperous, and secure community of nations could be
forged out of the destruction and nationalist hatreds of the First World War.
The Great War had profoundly altered the map of Europe but not the habits of
its peoples.
Masaryk did not succeed in finding a lasting answer. Nor did his friend,
President Woodrow Wilson. But, I believe that they are on the right track to
a solution because they both chose the path of democracy.
Now, several years later, I am convinced that ultimately we can find an
enduring answer in the CSCE's democratic framework. For CSCE is the place
where the first responsibility of government is to respect the human rights
of all individuals, where justice and equality must govern the exercise of
authority, where tolerance must rule all levels of society, where the threat
and use of force is abhorrent, and where the peaceful settlement of disputes
is the only legitimate means of reconciling differences.
If we follow CSCE's compass, our peoples can, in the next century, find
themselves in a wholly democratic, prosperous, and secure Europe that we
have sought since Masaryk and Wilson. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 7, February 17, 1992
Title: Human Rights: An International Responsibility
Quayle
Source: Vice President Quayle
Description: Address before the UN Human Rights Commission, Geneva,
Switzerland
Date: Feb, 10 19922/10/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Whole World
Country: Czechoslovakia (former), Czech Republic, Slovak Republic
Subject: Human Rights, United Nations, CSCE
[TEXT]
I stand before you representing a nation and a people for whom the rights of
the individual are supreme. The United States is a nation built around a
simple but compelling idea: that all men and women are created equal, that
they are endowed by their creator with inalienable human rights, and that
the purpose of government is to protect these rights.
This is the essence of the American idea. It is the power of this idea that
binds together the multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-faceted society known
as the United States.
Of course, American practice has sometimes fallen short of American
ideals. In the 19th century, Americans fought the bloodiest war in our
history --a Civil War--to end the evil of slavery. And in the 20th century,
we have struggled to make the American dream a possibility for all. Today,
this effort continues.
For much of the 20th century, the American ideal has also found expression
in foreign affairs. Simply put, we have sought universal recognition of the
primacy of human rights. To us, this is a vitally important subject in the
affairs of nations and the concerns of statecraft.
With a suddenness no one could have predicted, millions of individuals,
communities, ethnic societies, and captive nations--all of them for
generations smothered under the oppressive weight of dictatorship--now
are free. Free to speak out, free to move, free to organize, free to vote, free
to make their own choices and pursue their own goals.
In Latin America, democratic pluralism, consent of the governed, and free
choice in the marketplace are the watchwords of a hemispheric awakening.
Across Africa, the promise of democracy is ushering out the post-colonial
era and empowering the people of Africa peacefully. Throughout the world,
the people are becoming masters of their own destinies. And by their very
freedom, they remind us that any attempt to create a new world order
without taking into account the aspirations of ordinary men and women to a
life of individual dignity is doomed to failure.
We gather in Geneva to take stock of the world's human rights practices.
One country is conspicuous by its absence in this chamber today--a country
that is absent for the simple reason that in the year 1992, it no longer
exists. I am speaking of the Soviet Union.
Today, across Central and Eastern Europe, human rights have triumphed over
Leninist ideology. The iron will of man has proved more durable than the
Iron Curtain of communism. So, let us mark a place in history for the late
1980s and early 1990s. In a period of 3 years, we have witnessed the
greatest expansion in human rights since the Revolutionary War era that
began with the American Revolution in 1776 and the French Revolution in
1789.
Let us review what has happened. The collapse of the communist revolution,
the end of the Cold War, and the spread of democracy worldwide were no
accidents. They did not simply happen. America and her friends and allies
around the world stood firm on principle, and our principles prevailed.
The Free World prevailed against tyranny because the people of Central and
Eastern Europe, the Baltics, and the former Soviet Union demanded their
rights and their freedom. Freedom prevailed because ordinary citizens said
no to the corruption of absolute power over their lives. And freedom
prevailed because my country and other like-minded nations were willing to
sacrifice our blood and the lives of our finest sons and daughters for the
human rights revolution that we are celebrating today.
This has been a long, difficult struggle. During the struggle, my country was
at times compelled to place less emphasis on human rights concerns in its
relations with others. We had no choice. In World War II, when the Soviet
Union under Stalin became an indispensable ally in the fight against Hitler,
no one questioned that the imperative of defeating the greater evil of
Nazism had to take priority.
So, too, after the war, when Soviet ambitions for global domination
threatened freedom around the world, standing up to the greater evil of
communist aggression required some painful compromises.
Some governments averted American scrutiny of their human rights failings
by threatening to shift their support to the other side--the Soviet camp--if
we pushed too hard for civil liberties and other democratic practices.
The world of 1992 is different. Today, no global evil forces such
distasteful dilemmas on the United States. Today, we assume the promotion
of human rights as a fundamental responsibility. We believe that the
defense of human rights is an international responsibility. If a just peace is
to prevail, human rights must be respected.
Fortunately, we are not alone in this belief. The world community at large
stands for human rights and for the independence of free nations. And the
world community recognizes that peace and security are closely linked to
respect for human rights and national dignity.
That is why, when the world's fourth largest army invaded and terrorized
the nation of Kuwait, the UN Security Council stood up to Iraq's aggression.
That is why no fewer than 30 countries contributed to the coalition effort,
which--after every reasonable alternative short of force had been
exhausted--counter-attacked with military force and achieved the
liberation of Kuwait.
This extraordinary commitment and sacrifice by the community of nations
was not motivated by a lust for battle or by a quest for domination. We did
not come as conquerors, and we withdrew the great majority of our forces
from Iraq and Kuwait as quickly as we came.
The unifying principle, the call to sacrifice, and the moral basis for this
action were none other than that which brings us to this hall today. I am
speaking of freedom, liberty, sovereignty, and the dignity of the individual.
Iraq's conquest of Kuwait was an attack on everything this commission
stands for--an assault on the fundamental human rights of the citizens of
an entire country.
A year after Kuwait's liberation, we can contemplate a world in which the
United Nations is seen as a legitimate and effective instrument for the
resolution of disputes and the advancement of shared values. A month after
the UN General Assembly redeemed its credibility by repealing,
overwhelmingly, the so-called Zionism-is-Racism resolution, we can speak
of moral suasion and the growing weight of world opinion.
Today, as never before, the possibilities for advancing human rights are
enormous. But despite all the progress and reasons for optimism, much
remains to be done. We cannot rest or be satisfied with the progress today.
The member states of this commission bear a special responsibility to
champion the principles of human rights.
Unfortunately, massive human rights violations continue to occur in many
parts of the world. Brutal dictators continue to inflict tremendous
suffering. Terrorism, sometimes state-sponsored, continues to claim
innocent victims. Here on the Human Rights Commission itself--the UN body
primarily charged with the promotion and protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms--sit some of the world's worst violators of human
rights. Some members of this commission are themselves presently the
subject of investigations or special procedures of the Human Rights
Commission.
It is unconscionable that member states of this commission, who are called
upon to judge and set an example for others, should include those who mock
the very principles we are committed to uphold. I refer in particular to the
Governments of Iraq, Iran, and Cuba.
This commission should not count among its members states which are
themselves gross violators of human rights. When we speak of human
rights, we must resist the temptation to allow the lowest common
dominator to prevail. We must set the highest possible standards of
fairness, decency, and respect for individual dignity.
The UN Charter sets forth a comprehensive view of international peace--a
view that links security, peace, and human rights. Let it be understood that
the subject of human rights is not only an important humanitarian and moral
issue but a necessary element in building and maintaining peace and
security. Recent experience has also taught us that respect for human
rights is related to economic prosperity.
Finally, we have learned that democratic regimes, while by no means
perfect, are the closest thing we have to a guarantee that human rights will
be respected and that abuses will be corrected. That is why the United
States firmly supports the democratic revolution sweeping the globe today.
The lessons of history are clear: Democracies have the best human rights
records; democracies produce the greatest wealth for individuals and
society as a whole; and, in this conflict-ridden and blood-stained century of
ours, it is a fact that no two democracies have waged war against each
other.
The new world order that is emerging before our eyes will emphasize the
importance of human rights. We will work to expand the frontiers of
political pluralism, tolerance, and individual liberty. We will help to
safeguard democracy in those many places where it has only recently been
afforded a chance to take root.
The difficulties experienced with democratic advances in countries such as
Haiti, Algeria, and Romania merit our concern. Stability is a critical
ingredient of democratic progress, and success is never guaranteed. We
cannot allow the democratic revolution to falter at this pivotal moment in
history, a moment so full of promise yet so fragile in an uncertain world.
The United States will, of course, always respect the sovereignty of
nations. However, you should be forewarned: We shall not hesitate to speak
the truth about clear violations of civil rights and civil liberties wherever
they may be found and whoever may be responsible.
The days when a government charged with human rights abuses could cite
"sovereignty" or "non-interference in internal affairs" as a defense are gone.
Today, whether we like it or not, we have all become our brother's keeper--
not merely for our brother's sake, but for our own.
When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948, many
Americans believed that it would inaugurate a new era in world affairs. The
Cold War forced us to defer these hopes, but we never abandoned them. We
never lost our faith that someday, men and women everywhere would
breathe the fresh, clean air of freedom. We never ceased to believe that
liberty was the birthright of men and women everywhere and not a privilege
reserved for the lucky few. And, when it became necessary to defend
freedom through the force of arms, we never turned our back on the call of
duty, when our sons and daughters had to be sent in harm's way.
I, therefore, come before this commission representing a nation, and a
people, that is proud to have played its part in advancing the cause of human
rights. It is on behalf of that nation, the United States of America, that I
declare that it is our most cherished hope, our most ardent ambition, that
one day soon, the basic principles and freedoms enshrined in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights will become a way of life for all the nations
and peoples of the earth. To that end, let us join together to answer
history's call and fulfill the bright promise of tomorrow. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 7, February 17, 1992
Title: Fact Sheet: Operation Provide Hope
HA
Source: Office of the On-site Coordinator for Humanitarian
Assistance to the Commonwealth States
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Feb, 10 19922/10/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Eurasia
Country: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine,
Uzbekistan
Subject: Development/Relief Aid
[TEXT]
Secretary of State James A. Baker, III, announced Operation Provide Hope at
the Coordinating Conference on Assistance to New Independent States [Jan.
22-23, 1992] in Washington. Fifty-four countries agreed on the need to
launch an immediate relief effort for the newly independent republics inside
the former Soviet Union. This effort is meant as a jump start to overcome
apparent food shortages and to provide a wide variety of basic medical
supplies and pharmaceuticals, especially antibiotics.
That effort is being launched today [February 10]. With the full cooperation
of many US Government agencies, 12 US Air Force C-5s and C-141s are
carrying an estimated 500 tons of bulk-food rations and medicines into 12
separate cities. Seven of these twelve flights are departing from Turkey
(five from Incirlik Air Base and two from Ankara) along with the five that
are departing Rhein-Main Air Base in Germany. The US Air Force Military
Airlift Command, under the US Transportation Command, is providing
aircraft, materiel, and personnel from the United States and Europe. The
21st Air Force at McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey, is the controlling
numbered air force. The 22nd Air Force at Travis Air Force Base, California,
is the supporting numbered air force. The 435th Tactical Air Wing at Rhein-
Main Air Base is providing logistics support and weather support for all
aircraft departing this site.
Landings are being made today at airfields in the following cities. From
Rhein-Main: Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kiev, Minsk, and Kishinev. From Turkey:
Yerevan, Alma Ata, Dushanbe, Ashkabad, Baku, Tashkent, and Bishkek
(formerly Frunze).
The 54 flights over the next 10 days will deliver an estimated 4.5 million
pounds of food and medicine to at least 23 locations across the breadth of
the Commonwealth. Weather conditions could affect scheduled landings
throughout the duration of Operation Provide Hope.
Fifty-eight vanloads of inspected and packed medical consumables from
Operation Desert Storm await transportation from Sharp Army Depot near
Oakland, California. Pharmaceuticals, medicines, and medical supplies
valued at $17 million await shipment from Pirmasens, Germany, and RAF
Burtonwood, UK. The "showcase" medication is a high-quality, multi-
purpose antibiotic, Ciprofloxcin, valued at $8.7 million, with 1 million
available dosages.
Medical consumables include such items as purified cotton, surgical
sponges, gauze bandages, surgical adhesive tape, disposable gloves, patient
clothing sets, airway devices, absorbable sutures, water purification
tablets, and patient blankets and linen.
Bulk rations consist of various entrees of beef, salmon, chicken, ham, and
pork (with consideration for Muslim sensitivities in the Central Asian
regions), with a variety of fruits, vegetables, dried potatoes, rice, pasta or
bread, desserts, and beverages. Most require heating, and some require
addition of water to rehydrate. Many of these items are identical to
commercially available foodstuffs.
A massive inter-agency and international planning effort has contributed to
the successful departures beginning today. Under the direction of the Office
of the Secretary of Defense, cargo has reached Rhein-Main from US military
depots in Europe and from selected warehouses in the continental United
States.
Military transportation assets under Transportation Command (TRANSCOM)
are involved in Operation Provide Hope. Twelve quick-reaction teams, under
the leadership and control of the On-Site Inspection Agency, already have
been inserted into most of the republics to ascertain needs, make contact,
coordinate with local government officials, airfield managers, and probable
recipients of aid, and supervise the off-loading and distribution of cargo on
board these cargo flights. Also on these teams are personnel from the US
Agency for International Development (USAID), the Office of Foreign
Disaster Assistance (OFDA), and TRANSCOM. Where possible, US Foreign
Service personnel at our existing embassies and consulates, in Moscow and
other locations, have been excellent sources of support.
Independent assessment teams under contract to USAID and OFDA have been
operating inside the Commonwealth for 3 weeks and relaying valuable
information for Operation Provide Hope. Much of the expenditure for this
jump start operation has come from a $100 million supplemental
appropriation from Congress under the dire emergency statute. By law, this
appropriation can cover only US- generated transportation (including that
provided to NATO for this purpose). None of the $100 million can be used to
purchase commodities. The US Department of Agriculture is providing
commodities under a $165-million program available during the first half of
calendar year 1992. The US Government is exploring as many uses of this
expenditure as are legally possible.
Additional flights could originate from Yokota Air Base in Japan to provide
relief supplies to many of the populations in need in the Far East and
Siberia, specifically in and near Irkutsk, Ulan Ude, and Chita.
Airlift missions will not remain overnight at their off-load destinations.
Weather contingencies and backup aircraft are being taken into
consideration for the time of year.
This unique airlift demonstrates the US commitment to assist those who
are suffering from the dislocations and difficulties of this last several
months of political upheaval and economic uncertainty.
The airlift also marks the beginning of what the United States hopes will be
a truly international effort. During this first phase, for example, the
Government of Japan has committed to shipping more than 50 tons of food,
medicines, and medical supplies to arrive in the far eastern region of the
former Soviet Union. The United States has offered to finance
transportation of humanitarian goods donated by other governments, and
several nations in the Middle East, Europe, and Latin America are working
with the United States to ensure this is truly an international effort.
When this phase of the operation is completed, the United States will
evaluate what needs to be provided on a much larger international scale, and
through more cost-effective surface transportation means, over the next
several months. The Department of Defense and all other US agencies
already cooperating in this effort will continue to be deeply involved.
Contributions by Other Countries
Belgium has shipped 1,000 tons of milk by vessel to St. Petersburg.
Canada is providing a cargo 707 aircraft with supplies to be determined for
shipment.
France sent three air force cargo aircraft (one 747, two DC-8s) to Frankfurt
on February 10.
Germany is sending food and medicine aboard four cargo aircraft, one 747,
two DC-8s, and one 707. The city of Berlin is donating 40 or more tons of
food, plus 1 ton of medicine, that was sent to its sister city Pushkin by US
Air Force C-5 on February 14.
Italy shipped 15 metric tons of oranges to Minsk aboard an Italian air force
C-130 from Frankfurt on February 10.
Japan has delivered $250,000 in food and medicine to Rhein-Main Air Base
for inclusion in Operation Provide Hope. Japan also will deliver 51 tons of
food and medicines to Vladivostok, Sakhalin, and Khabarovsk in three
separate shipments that arrived February 10.
Norway began shipping food and medicine to the Kola Peninsula on February
11.
Portugal is sending a C-130 to Frankfurt with supplies for the Russian
Federation.
Qatar has sent 800 tons of food and medicine in 25 planeloads to Moscow.
The Russian Federation will provide an IL-76 loaded with German supplies
bound for Moscow on February 10.
Spain sent a commercial DC-8 cargo plane to Frankfurt with 35 tons of
supplies on February 10. Spain plans to provide a second shipment of 35
tons on a second cargo flight on February 11.
Turkey is providing a pallet of cargo for each US Air Force flight departing
from Turkey on February 10. Turkey also is collecting 25,000 pounds of
cargo to be loaded onto flights at later dates.
The United Arab Emirates has completed deliveries by commercial air of
several planeloads of food and medicine.
The United Kingdom is chartering an aircraft to transport baby food and
medical supplies to Yekaterinburg (formerly Sverdlovsk) begining the week
of February 10. Shipments will include non-milk baby food,
pharmaceuticals, and other supplies such as disposable syringes. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 7, February 17, 1992
Title: Shipment of Supplies to Former Soviet Republics
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Statement issued by the Office of the Assistant
Secretary/Spokesman, Washington, DC
Date: Feb, 7 19922/7/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Eurasia
Country: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine,
Uzbekistan
Subject: Development/Relief Aid
[TEXT]
Badly needed pharmaceuticals and medical supplies will be flown tomorrow
from the United States to Yakutsk, Russia, in Eastern Siberia. The shipment
is part of the Humanitarian Medical Initiative announced by the President on
December 12, 1991, under which the United States has shipped over $27
million (retail) in donated medicines and related supplies to date. Under
this program we have delivered medical humanitarian supplies throughout
the former Soviet Union, including shipments to various regions in Russia,
Ukraine, Byelarus, Armenia, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan. In the near future,
deliveries will be made under this program to Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and
Turkmenistan, as well.
This shipment, arranged by Project Hope, the lead organization in carrying
out the presidential initiative, is valued at approximately $2.5 million
(retail), weighs roughly 40 tons, and consists of items donated by American
medical manufacturers. It includes such pharmaceutical products as
antibiotics, analgesics, vitamins, respiratory medications, anti-
hypertensives, cardiac medications, topical burn treatment, insulin and
hepatitis B vaccine, plus disposable supplies such as intravenous
administration sets, syringes, bandages, and sutures.
Items will be distributed to six hospitals in Yakutsk, including two
children's hospitals. Project Hope personnel, who have already visited
Yakutsk to assess the medical needs there, will be on site in Yakutsk to
oversee distribution, storage, and dispensation of supplies. Project Hope
also will provide a follow-up visit in about 6 weeks to make sure supplies
are being utilized properly. The
US Government has made available $10 million to Project Hope through the
US Agency for International Development to defray shipping and distribution
expenses for this program.
The plane, an Aeroflot IL-76 cargo aircraft, will depart Washington/Dulles
on February 8 for Yakutsk. It will stop in Fairbanks, Alaska, a sister city to
Yakutsk, to load medical supplies donated by the charity group Alaska
Christian Bridges and Sister Cities Representatives.
This delivery is being made under the Presidential Initiatives for Medical
Assistance to the former Soviet Union and is in addition to, but not part of,
Operation Provide Hope. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 7, February 17, 1992
Title: Report to Congress on Developments in Iraq
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: Text of President Bush's report to Congress
Date: Feb, 11 19922/11/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq
Subject: Military Affairs, Arms Control, Trade/Economics,
Development/Relief Aid
[TEXT]
To the Congress of the United States:
I hereby report to the Congress on the developments since my last report of
July 26, 1991, concerning the national emergency with respect to Iraq that
was declared in Executive Order No. 12722 of August 2, 1990. This report is
submitted pursuant to section 401(c) of the National Emergencies Act, 50
USC 1641(c), and section 204(c) of the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 USC 1703(c).
Executive Order No. 12722 ordered the immediate blocking of all property
and interests in property of the Government of Iraq (including the Central
Bank of Iraq) then or thereafter located in the United States or within the
possession or control of a US person. In that order, I also prohibited the
importation into the United States of goods and services of Iraqi origin, as
well as the exportation of goods, services, and technology from the United
States to Iraq. I prohibited travel-related transactions and transportation
transactions to or from Iraq and the performance of any contract in support
of any industrial, commercial, or governmental project in Iraq. US persons
were also prohibited from granting or extending credit or loans to the
Government of Iraq.
The foregoing prohibitions (as well as the blocking of Government of Iraq
property) were continued and augmented on August 9, 1990, by Executive
Order No. 12724 that I issued in order to align the sanctions imposed by the
United States with UN Security Council Resolution 661 of August 6, 1990.
1. Since my last report, important and rapid progress has been made in
establishing the framework for processing US and other nations' claims
against Iraq for damages arising from its unlawful invasion and occupation
of Kuwait. The Governing Council of the UN Compensation Commission has
adopted criteria for various categories of claims, including small and large
claims of individuals, claims of corporations, and claims of government and
international organizations (including environmental damage and natural
resource depletion claims). In addition, the Governing Council agreed to
begin expedited consideration of claims of individuals for up to $100,000 as
of July 1, 1992, and set July 1, 1993, as the deadline for filing this
category of claims with the commission.
In a claims census conducted by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign
Assets Control (FAC) during the first quarter of 1991 pursuant to section
575.605 of the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR Part 575 (ISR), reports
of claims from approximately 1,100 US nationals were received. Included
were claims for items such as personal property looted or destroyed in
Kuwait, loans or other obligations on which Iraq has defaulted, and lost
future business or concession rights. Inasmuch as these claims have not
been submitted to a formal claims resolution body, much less adjudicated,
their actual aggregate value is not known.
2. FAC has issued 199 specific licenses (51 since my last report) regarding
transactions pertaining to Iraq or Iraqi assets. Specific licenses were
issued for payment to US or third-country creditors of Iraq, under certain
narrowly defined circumstances, for pre-embargo import and export
transactions. Additionally, licenses were issued for conducting procedural
transactions such as the filing of legal actions and for legal representation.
Pursuant to UN Security Council Resolutions 661, 666, and 687, specific
licenses were also issued to authorize the exportation to Iraq of donated
medicine, medical supplies, and food intended for humanitarian relief
purposes.
To ensure compliance with the terms of the licenses that have been issued,
stringent reporting requirements have been imposed that are closely
monitored. Licensed accounts are regularly audited by FAC compliance
personnel and by deputized auditors from other regulatory agencies. FAC
compliance personnel have also worked closely with both state and federal
bank regulatory and law enforcement agencies in conducting special audits
of Iraqi accounts subject to the ISR.
3. Various enforcement actions discussed in previous reports continue to be
pursued, and additional investigations of possible violations of the Iraqi
sanctions have been initiated. These are intended to deter future activities
in violation of the sanctions. Additional civil penalty notices were issued
during the reporting period for violations of the IEEPA and ISR with respect
to attempted transactions involving Iraq, and substantial penalties were
collected.
After investigation by FAC and the US Customs Service, a Virginia
corporation and its export director were convicted in US District Court for
conspiracy and violations of the ISR. Investigation revealed that the
corporation and its export director continued to engage in activities that
were in violation of the executive orders and the ISR after August 2, 1990.
The corporation and its export director performed contracts in support of a
government industrial project in Iraq and engaged in prohibited transactions
relating to travel by a US person to Iraq. After conviction, the corporation
was fined $50,000 and the export director sentenced to 5 months'
incarceration, 5 months' supervised work release, and 2 years of supervised
release administered by the Department of Justice.
4. The various firms and individuals outside of Iraq in Saddam Hussein's
procurement network continue to be investigated for possible inclusion in
the FAC listing of individuals and organizations determined to be Specially
Designated Nationals (SDNs) of the Government of Iraq. In practice, an Iraqi
SDN is a representative, agent, intermediary, or front (whether open or
covert) of the Iraqi Government that is located outside of Iraq. Iraqi SDNs
are Saddam Hussein's principal instruments for doing business in third
countries, and doing business with them is the same as doing business with
Saddam Hussein himself.
Since the Iraqi Government tends to operate its international fronts as
interlocking networks of third-world countries and key individuals, the SDN
program is an important tool in disrupting Saddam Hussein's nuclear,
military, and technological acquisitions efforts. The impact is
considerable: All assets with US jurisdiction of parties found to be Iraqi
SDNs are blocked; all economic transactions with SDNs by US persons are
prohibited; and the SDN individual or organization is exposed.
5. The expenses incurred by the federal government in the 6-month period
from August 2, 1991, through February 1, 1992, that are directly
attributable to the exercise of powers and authorities conferred by the
declaration of a national emergency with respect to Iraq are estimated at
$2,992,210, most of which represents wage and salary costs for federal
personnel. Personnel costs were largely centered in the Department of the
Treasury (particularly in FAC, the US Customs Service, the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement, the Office of the Assistant Secretary
for International Affairs, and the Office of the General Counsel), the
Department of State (particularly in the Bureau of Economic and Business
Affairs and the Office of the Legal Adviser), and the Department of
Commerce (particularly in the Bureau of Export Administration and the
Office of the General Counsel).
6. The United States imposed economic sanctions on Iraq in response to
Iraq's invasion and illegal occupation of Kuwait, a clear act of brutal
aggression. The United States, together with the international community,
is maintaining economic sanctions against Iraq because the Iraqi regime has
failed to comply fully with binding UN Security Council resolutions calling
for the elimination of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, an end to the
repression of the Iraqi civilian population, the release of Kuwaiti and other
prisoners, and the return of Kuwaiti assets stolen during its illegal
occupation of Kuwait. The UN sanctions remain in place; the United States
will continue to enforce those sanctions.
The Saddam Hussein regime continues to violate basic human rights by
repressing the Iraqi civilian population and depriving it of humanitarian
assistance. The UN Security Council passed resolutions that permit Iraq to
sell $1.6 billion of oil under UN auspices to fund the provision of food,
medicine, and other humanitarian supplies to the people of Iraq. Under the
UN resolutions, the equitable distribution within Iraq of this assistance
would be supervised and monitored by the United Nations and other
international organizations. The Iraqi regime has refused to accept these
resolutions and has thereby continued to perpetuate the suffering of its
civilian population.
The regime of Saddam Hussein continues to pose an unusual and
extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the
United States, as well as to regional peace and security. The United States
will therefore continue to apply economic sanctions to deter Iraq from
threatening peace and stability in the region, and I will continue to report
periodically to the Congress on significant developments, pursuant to 50
USC 1703(c).
GEORGE BUSH (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 7, February 17, 1992
Title: Accelerated Schedule To Protect Ozone Layer
Fitzwater
Source: White House Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater
Description: Statement released in Washington, DC
Date: Feb, 11 19922/11/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Whole World
Country: United States
Subject: Environment
[TEXT]
President Bush today announced that the United States will unilaterally
accelerate the phase-out of substances that deplete the earth's ozone layer
and called on other nations to agree to an accelerated phase-out schedule.
Current US production is already more than 40% below the levels allowed by
the Montreal Protocol and more than 20% ahead of Europe's non-aerosol
production phase-down.
Recent scientific findings indicate that emissions of these substances--
major chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, methyl chloroform, and carbon
tetrachloride--are depleting the stratospheric ozone layer more quickly
than previously had been believed. The President announced that, with
limited exceptions for essential uses and for servicing certain existing
equipment, all production of these substances in the United States will be
eliminated by December 31, 1995. To accelerate progress in the near term,
the President called upon US producers to reduce production of these
substances to 50% of 1986 levels by the end of this year.
Under the terms of the Clean Air Act of 1990, which President Bush signed
into law in November 1990, the Administration has authority to accelerate
the phase out of these substances without new legislation. The President
also announced that the United States will re-examine the phase-out
schedule of hydrochlorofluorocarbons and will consider recent evidence
suggesting the possible need to phase out methyl bromide.
The President noted that due in large part to the use of innovative, market-
based mechanisms such as production fees and tradable allowances, the
United States has already reduced CFC production 42% below 1986 levels, a
reduction beyond that required by either the Clean Air Act or the amended
Montreal Protocol. The President pointed out that the United States has
been a leader in reducing CFCs--agreeing to a full phase-out of these gases
in February 1989, enacting a fee on their production in November 1989,
legislating the full phase-out in November 1990, and making the first
contribution to a multilateral fund established to assist developing
countries in phasing out CFCs.
The President called upon those nations which have not yet signed and
ratified the Montreal Protocol to do so and urged other nations to join the
United States in accelerating the phase-out of CFCs and other ozone-
depleting gases even faster than required by the protocol. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 7, February 17, 1992
Title: Enhanced US-Turkish Partnership
NSC
Source: David Gompert, Senior Director for European and
Eurasian Affairs, National Security Council
Description: Excerpts from press briefing, The White House
Date: Feb, 11 19922/11/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Eurasia, MidEast/North Africa, Europe
Country: Turkey, USSR (former), Yugoslavia (former)
Subject: Democratization, Regional/Civil Unrest, Terrorism,
Human Rights
[TEXT]
The President was eager to have [Turkish] Prime Minister Demirel come to
the United States soon after he formed his government at the end of last
year because of the changes in the world, because of the importance of
Turkey given its unique situation and location, and because of the enhanced
partnership that we have been attempting to create and successfully [are]
creating with Turkey. We discovered, not at all to our surprise, that Prime
Minister Demirel and his government saw the wide range of issues that were
discussed in very much the same terms that we did.
The issues that were discussed ranged from:
-- Developments resulting from the collapse of the Soviet Union--in
particular, the future of the Islamic Central Asian republics;
-- The instability in Southwest Asia--in particular, the continuing
concerns about Iraq;
-- The situation in the Balkans surrounding the civil war in what we have
known as Yugoslavia;
-- Turkish concerns about terrorism were addressed and our response to
those concerns; and
-- Of course, last but not least, Greek-Turkish relations and the Cyprus
problem.
. . . There was an extensive discussion of the consequences of the collapse of
the Soviet Union and especially about the future of the Islamic republics of
Central Asia. Turkey has, as you heard from the Prime Minister in his own
words, offered itself, if you will, as a model, a bridge, a gateway; and, in
the private discussions, the Prime Minister affirmed this offer to serve as a
model for these new states. Being a secular, democratic, Muslim state and a
successful one--one which has undergone a successful economic
transformation itself--Turkey views itself as a good model for these
states. We agree completely. The President agreed in the discussions that
we view Turkey as a very important player in this part of the world.
There was an exchange [of] views about the possibilities of instability but
also the strong possibilities to bring these societies and these states into
our larger community of values and nations and institutions in which Turkey
and the United States are members.
We agreed that we would not only continue to stay in close contact about
developments in that part of the world, but we also agreed that we would
pursue cooperation. We already [are] cooperating, as you may know, with
regard to the emergency humanitarian effort--Turkey playing a very
important role in the staging of that effort. But beyond that, we have also
agreed that we will work together in that part of the world for the long
term to help these societies establish democracy [and] capitalism and be
integrated into our community. . . .
Q: . . . Is the objective of the two countries to limit the influence of Iran in
this region?
Mr. Gompert: The objective of the two countries toward those states is no
different than the objective of the United States and its traditional
partners toward the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe, toward
the Baltic states, or toward the other new states that have risen out of the
collapse of the former Soviet Union.
These are states which for anywhere from 40 to 75 years have been under
tight rule. We and Turkey wish to introduce them to our values, our
standards of behavior, international conduct, the role of government toward
society, the role of military within a society, and so on. That is where
we're coming from with regard to those societies. In other words, the fact
that they happen to be Central Asian, the fact that they happen to be
Islamic, doesn't alter our goals.
Now, of course, a factor is the possibility that others--not democratic, not
secular--might present themselves as an alternative model.
We discussed--the President and the Prime Minister discussed--the
situation in Iraq, where there is a common view that there should continue
to be full support and full implementation of all UN resolutions. This would
include, of course, keeping the sanctions in place and a view that Iraq will
remain an isolated state as long as Saddam Hussein is in power. We also
discussed our continued cooperation with Turkey to avert a recurrence of
the very large-scale humanitarian problem we had with the Kurdish peoples
in northern Iraq a year ago.
We discussed the Balkans at some length. The Turkish Prime Minister
explained the recent decision of Turkey to recognize four of the republics
from Yugoslavia. We exchanged views about the dangers in that part of the
world in the event that the cease-fire breaks down--in the event that the
current UN effort is not successful.
Again, while there may be some slight differences with regard to the actual
diplomatic stance on the republics, the underlying fact is that we see the
situation in complete accord: that is to say, that peaceful resolution of the
Yugoslav crisis is absolutely essential. This is going to require a role for
the United Nations. The alternative is continued conflict and the danger of
instability throughout the Balkans, which is a matter of concern to both
countries. . . . (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 7, February 17, 1992
Title: North American Free Trade Agreement
PA
Source: Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public
Affairs
Description: Summary of US Foreign Policy
Date: Feb, 17 19922/17/92
Category: Policy Briefs (Gist)
Region: North America
Country: Canada, United States, Mexico
Subject: Trade/Economics, North America Free Trade
[TEXT]
The United States, Mexico, and Canada have embarked on free trade
negotiations that would create a North American market of more than 360
mil-lion consumers and producers and an annual output of more than $6
trillion. The proposed North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) seeks
to eliminate restrictions on the flow of goods, services, and investment
among the three countries. A successful agreement would be a catalyst for
economic growth and development in North America through increased trade,
investment, and job creation.
US Goals
The Bush Administration is determined to negotiate an agreement that is in
the best economic interest of the United States. Specific US objectives
include:
-- Elimination of tariffs either immediately or over a period of years (the
maximum period is 10 years in the US-Canada Free Trade Agreement);
-- Elimination of non-tariff barriers on goods and services, such as import
licenses and quotas;
-- Establishment of an open investment climate; and
-- Adequate and effective protection and enforcement of intellectual
property rights (such as patents, copyrights, and trademarks).
Achievement of these objectives will benefit a broad spectrum of US
businesses, workers, farmers, and consumers.
Negotiations
The NAFTA negotiations began in June 1991. Nineteen working groups were
established to handle issues in six broad areas--market access, trade rules,
services, investment, intellectual property rights, and dispute settlement.
In December 1991, Presidents Bush and Salinas reaffirmed their
commitment to concluding a good agreement as quickly as possible.
The negotiations were made possible by US congressional action in May
1991, extending the "fast track" procedures for negotiating trade
agreements, including the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade talks and the
proposed pact with Mexico and Canada. These procedures allow the
President to present a trade agreement to Congress for approval without the
possibility of amendment.
Congress and the US private sector remain an integral part of the NAFTA
process. President Bush is committed to extensive consultations with both
throughout the NAFTA negotiations. This is in the best interest of the
United States, Mexico, and Canada, as it helps ensure speedy approval of the
agreement and implementing legislation that the executive and
congressional branches develop together.
Expanded Trade
Canada and Mexico are the first and third largest trading partners,
respectively, of the United States. In turn, the United States accounts for
more than two-thirds of their total trade. In 1990, US commerce with our
two neighbors amounted to about $234 bil- lion, or 26% of total US trade.
Since 1980, US exports to Canada and Mexico have doubled, reaching $112
billion in 1990--28% of total US exports. Our exports to Canada and Mexico
have grown substantially faster than those to the rest of the world.
In 1990, US-Mexico trade totaled $59 billion, including $28.4 billion worth
of US exports. Since Mexico joined the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT) in 1986, US exports to Mexico have more than doubled. US
agricultural products and capital and consumer goods have gained important
markets there.
However, Mexico still has higher trade barriers than the United States. Its
average tariff duty is 10%, compared with 4% in the United States, and
significant Mexican non-tariff barriers remain. The United States has much
to gain from the elimination or reduction of these barriers under a trade
agreement.
A successful NAFTA would result in expanded trade with Mexico and the
creation of additional jobs for US workers. It would give US exporters
improved access to a Mexican market of more than 80 million people and one
that is expected to reach 100 million by 2000. In addition, traditional US
competitive advantages--geographic, cultural, and historic links--in this
important market would be further enhanced by NAFTA.
As the Mexican economy has grown, a substantial part of the increased
national income generated--as much as 15%--has been spent on US goods
and services. Strong Mexican growth has begun to occur as a result of
President Salinas' economic reforms. Mexico's middle class is increasing as
a percentage of the total population; this means a larger market for US
goods and services.
Investment Opportunities In Mexico
The United States is the largest source of foreign direct investment in
Mexico--$19 billion at the end of 1990. The US Government has a strong
interest in encouraging favorable conditions for new and expanded
investments in Mexico. US firms investing there tend to use US suppliers
and US design and managerial talent.
In May 1989, President Salinas expanded the percentage of allowable foreign
ownership (in many cases up to as much as 100%) in sectors accounting for
nearly two-thirds of Mexico's economic output. He streamlined the approval
process for foreign investments. Mexico also has enacted legislation that
goes far to respect intellectual property rights. A trade agreement would
further improve the investment climate for US firms in Mexico.
NAFTA will lead to a more open trade and investment climate that will
foster further partnerships and alliances in industry, agriculture, and
services. These partnerships can take advantage of the complementary
strengths of the three North American economies and will result in more
jobs, investment, and economic growth in the United States, Mexico, and
Canada.
Benefits to US Workers
NAFTA will be a positive development for American workers. It will help the
United States keep and create good jobs at good wages. One study prepared
for the Department of Labor suggests that a free trade agreement with
Mexico would result in 44,000-60,000 more US jobs, mostly in
manufacturing, over a period of 10 years.
American workers are concerned that NAFTA will result in jobs being lost
to Mexicans and in US products being replaced by Mexican imports.
President Bush has promised to work with Congress to develop an effective
training and readjustment program for US workers who may be displaced.
The United States wants an effective transition mechanism to enable
sensitive sectors of the economy to adjust to trade liberalization. US
negotiators also are pursuing safeguard provisions to ease the effects of
any sudden import surges, as well as "rules of origin" that would give NAFTA
benefits primarily to North American firms.
Benefits to the Environment
NAFTA will strengthen environmental protection efforts on both sides of the
US-Mexico border. Both countries are committed to enhancing
environmental protection. President Salinas has made it clear that Mexico
will not provide a haven for American companies that may seek to avoid US
environmental laws. He also has demonstrated his commitment to reducing
air, water, and chemical pollution in Mexico.
The US Government is pursuing expanded US-Mexico environmental
cooperation in parallel with the NAFTA negotiations. The two countries are
developing an integrated border environmental plan to address air and water
pollution, hazardous wastes, chemical spills, enforcement, and other
concerns. US and Mexican officials also are discussing expansion of their
cooperative enforcement activities, such as the coordinated targeting of
environmental violators.
Greater Hemispheric Cooperation
The United States is a close neighbor and friend of Canada and Mexico.
NAFTA provides a unique opportunity to draw North America even closer by
building a solid foundation for stronger cooperation, integration, and
growth. A trade agreement will give economic and political impetus to US
efforts to address other pressing North American problems, such as the
environment, the flow of drugs, and immigration. NAFTA will help forge a
US-Mexican partnership that could lead to closer cooperation on other
foreign policy issues.
A North American trade agreement also is important as the cornerstone of a
comprehensive Western Hemisphere policy. It will send a strong,
encouraging signal throughout Latin America to a new generation of leaders
pledged to democracy, human rights, and market economies. Its successful
conclusion will provide further impetus to President Bush's long-range
vision of a hemisphere-wide system of free trade.
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 7, February 17, 1992
Title: Fact Sheet: US-Mexico Economic Relations
PA
Source: Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public
Affairs
Date: Feb, 17 19922/17/92
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: North America
Country: United States, Mexico
Subject: Trade/Economics, North America Free Trade
[TEXT]
Converging Interests
The US-Mexican economic relationship is largely defined by two key factors:
the long common border and the relative size of the two economies (US
output is about 30 times larger than that of Mexico). The two countries
have increasingly close economic ties in trade, investment, and debt.
Mexico is the United States' third largest trading partner, while about two-
thirds of Mexican trade is with the United States. US exports to this fast-
growing market almost doubled during 1987-90, reaching $28.4 billion in
1990. (US trade data include shipments to and from maquiladora plants, in-
bond assembly plants located primarily in northern Mexico that assemble
goods in Mexico for export to the United States.) The United States has had
a trade deficit with Mexico since 1982. In 1990, it was $2.5 billion. A US
trade surplus of more than $1 billion is expected in 1991.
Under President Carlos Salinas, Mexico is reforming its economy and opening
key sectors to foreign investment. Mexico aims to revitalize its economy
and improve its competitive standing internationally. An independent,
strong, and economically healthy Mexico is a fundamental US interest.
NAFTA
Recognizing the importance of the economic relationship between their two
countries, Presidents Bush and Salinas agreed in 1990 to undertake
negotiations for a comprehensive free trade agreement. In June 1991, the
United States and Mexico, along with Canada, began negotiating a North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The 19 working groups, which are
discussing issues in 6 broad areas, are making good progress.
If successful, NAFTA will unite more than 360 million people into the
world's largest market with a total output of more than $6 trillion.
Investment
The United States is the largest source of foreign investment in Mexico. At
the end of 1990, the US share of cumulative direct foreign investment in
Mexico was $19 billion. A significant portion of this investment is in
maquiladora plants.
The Salinas Administration encourages greater investment, both domestic
and foreign, in the Mexican economy. It is counting heavily on foreign
capital (and Mexican capital abroad) to finance economic development,
including much-needed infrastructure projects, such as roads, ports,
irrigation works, and electric generating facilities. The United States fully
supports the efforts of the Salinas Administration to encourage foreign
investment and the return of flight capital.
External Debt
Mexico makes great efforts to address the problem of its external debt, one
of the highest in the world. In December 1990, 450 foreign commercial
banks agreed to receive Mexican Government bonds in return for reducing
Mexican debt principle and interest. At the end of 1990, external debt was
down to about $98 billion, 43% of gross domestic product (GDP), compared
with 59% of GDP in 1988.
Other major benefits of the 1990 debt agreement have been an improvement
in Mexico's balance of payments and greater confidence in Mexico among
investors and creditors. This has resulted in large capital inflows in 1991
and the reopening of international credit markets to Mexican borrowers on
more favorable terms.
Mexico's participation in the Brady Plan, which is viewed as a model for
other countries, is another key component of its debt reduction efforts. The
Brady Plan, devised by the US Treasury Secretary and his colleagues,
provided the necessary framework and financial support for the July 1989
debt package. The Mexican bonds are backed by $3.5 billion that have been
used to buy US Treasury zero-coupon bonds and by an additional $3.5 billion
held as a guarantee of 18 months of interest payments by Mexico.
Title: Fact Sheet: US-Mexico Political Relations
PA
Source: Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public
Affairs
Date: Feb, 17 19922/17/92
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: North America
Country: United States, Mexico, El Salvador, Haiti
Subject: Trade/Economics, North America Free Trade,
Immigration
[TEXT]
The US-Mexican relationship encompasses a broad range of political issues,
affecting nearly every aspect of national life of these two great neighbors.
The relationship, which includes frequent meetings between Presidents
Bush and Salinas, is marked by an extraordinarily high level of cooperation
and understanding. There are intensive, bilateral efforts on such issues as
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), environmental
cooperation, labor, human rights, border concerns, the war on drugs, and
educational and cultural exchanges. The Binational Commission is a major
vehicle for these ongoing discussions.
Hemispheric Trends
Progress on NAFTA is only the most visible sign of a hemispheric drive
toward lower tariffs and more open markets, as embodied in the President's
Enterprise for the Americas Initiative. The simultaneous strengthening of
democratic institutions continues throughout the region.
The United States and Mexico have made important progress in their joint
campaign against drug trafficking and production. Delegates to the
Binational Commission review counter-narcotics efforts as they aim for
continued improvements in drug interdiction and enforcement and in demand
reduction.
East-West Relations
The end of the Cold War and the tumultuous political changes occurring in
the former Soviet Union mark the beginning of a new era in world history.
By pursuing a free trade agreement, the United States, Mexico, and Canada
are preparing for a future dominated more by economic and commercial
issues.
Central America
The United States and Mexico actively support efforts to promote stability,
peace, and prosperity in the region. At the summit of Central American
presidents in January 1991, Mexico led the way in setting the goal of
creating a Central American free trade zone by 1996.
The United States and Mexico both seek a peaceful resolution of the crisis in
El Salvador. As one of the "Four Friends of the Secretary General," Mexico
has played an important role in facilitating the UN-mediated peace talks
between the El Salvador Government and the Farabundo Marti National
Liberation Front (FMLN). On December 31, 1991, the two parties signed a
historic accord which would lead to the end of the 12-year armed conflict.
The final peace agreement was signed in Mexico City on January 16, 1992.
Haiti
While remaining true to its traditional doctrine of non-intervention, Mexico
supported the actions of the Organization of American States (OAS) to
reverse the anti-Aristide coup in Haiti. Mexico has made a critical
contribution to the effectiveness of the OAS embargo by stopping oil
deliveries to Haiti.
US-Mexico Border
The United States and Mexico have increased their cooperation on border
issues to improve environmental protection and promote economic
development. Both countries work hard to expand border-crossing facilities.
In 1991, two new international bridges were opened, construction began on
a third, and an agreement was reached to establish a new land border
crossing. Also, the two governments have established direct channels of
communication for handling border violence cases.
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 7, February 17, 1992
Title: Fact Sheet: US-Mexico Anti-Narcotics
Cooperation
PA
Source: Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public
Affairs
Date: Feb, 17 19922/17/92
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: North America
Country: United States, Mexico, El Salvador, Haiti
Subject: Narcotics, North America Free Trade
[TEXT]
Because of thousands of miles of open border, Mexico is a major target for
trafficking organizations moving drugs into the US market. The United
States will continue to cooperate with the Mexican Government in carrying
out its expanded program to disrupt these trafficking organizations. US-
Mexico anti-narcotics cooperation focuses on crop eradication and
interdiction of shipments destined for the United States.
President Carlos Salinas has expressed concern over the threat that
narcotics pose to Mexico's national security and to the health of its people.
As a result, the Mexican Government has intensified eradication and
interdiction activities, implemented tough anti-corruption measures within
the government, and reformed the criminal justice system. Salinas also has
issued strong directives ensuring the protection of human and civil rights.
Mexico has made a major effort to interdict cocaine entering its borders
enroute to the United States, seizing a record 50 metric tons (mt) of
cocaine in 1991 and 408 mt of marijuana in 1990. The cocaine flow has
been disrupted by these major seizures. Consequently, traffickers have been
forced to adopt new tactics and apparently have shifted operations further
south in Mexico.
Mexico is one of the largest sources of heroine sold in the United States, and
it accounts for about two-thirds of the foreign-produced marijuana
consumed in the United States. In 1990, the Mexican Government eradicated
4,650 hectares of opium poppy and 6,750 hectares of cannabis, resulting in
a net reduction in both crops. Mexico's 1990 eradication campaign showed
qualitative improvements because of a reorganization and the introduction
of new procedures and technologies.
Perhaps the most important anti-narcotics accomplishment in Mexico has
been the creation of the Northern Border Response Force (NBRF). This rapid
response team interdicts aircraft delivering cocaine to accomplices in
remote areas in Mexico. The NBRF has been extremely successful, seizing
more than 35 mt of cocaine, numerous aircraft, and traffickers. The United
States supports the NBRF by sharing tactical information on suspected
trafficker aircraft and by leasing transport helicopters to the Mexican
Government to enhance the NBRF's effectiveness.
The United States is working closely with Mexico to strengthen the NBRF
interdiction program. The US Government assists in pilot training and
aircraft support and maintenance. When fully operational, the NBRF will
consist of seven strategically located semi-mobile response units which
can be moved around the country in response to changes in trafficking
patterns. The Mexican Government plans to improve logistical support bases
for both the NBRF interdiction and aerial eradication operations. It also is
committed to enhancing communications between civilian and military anti-
narcotics personnel.
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 7, February 17, 1992
Title: Fact Sheet: NAFTA and the Environment
PA
Source: Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public
Affairs
Date: Feb, 17 19922/17/92
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: North America
Country: United States, Mexico, El Salvador, Haiti
Subject: Environment, North America Free Trade
[TEXT]
A North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) will strengthen
environmental preservation efforts in both the United States and Mexico,
particularly along the border. Both countries are committed to protecting
the environment. Efforts are under way to increase air and water quality,
improve the management and disposal of hazardous wastes, and enhance
cooperation in enforcing environmental regulations, particularly in the
border area.
The Administration pursues a comprehensive, multi-agency environmental
program with Mexico. As called for by Presidents Bush and Salinas, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed with Mexico to
develop the US-Mexico Integrated Border Environmental Plan, a
comprehensive and unprecedented bilateral environmental initiative. In
addition, the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) has proposed a
review of US-Mexico environmental issues, including an evaluation of the
possible environmental effects of NAFTA. USTR consults with US
environmental groups as negotiations on an agreement proceed, and
prominent environmental experts have been added to key private sector
advisory committees.
US Objectives
During the negotiations with Mexico, the United States insists on its right
to:
-- Exclude any products that fail to meet US health or safety requirements;
-- Impose stringent pesticide, energy conservation, toxic waste, and health
and safety standards; and
-- Strictly respect international treaties on such environmental issues as
wildlife protection and the preservation of the ozone layer.
The United States is seeking a commitment to work together with Mexico to
enhance and enforce the environmental, health, and safety standards of
products. Full public and scientific scrutiny of any changes to standards
will be provided before they are implemented. Consultations also are being
held on better enforcement capability, monitoring, and verification.
President Salinas has made it clear that Mexico will not become a "pollution
haven" for American companies that may seek to avoid US environmental
laws. Mexico has a comprehensive environmental law that is similar to US
legislation. The Secretariat for Urban Development and Ecology (SEDUE),
Mexico's environmental agency, has had a rapidly rising budget since 1989.
By the end of 1991, it had 200 trained environmental inspectors on duty in
the border area. This has resulted in an increased number of facilities that
have been shut down due to the lack of environmental compliance.
Border Environment and Development
The United States and Mexico have improved substantially their cooperation
on border issues in recent years, partly because of the growing economic
interdependence of their border states. Both countries are implementing an
integrated border environmental plan to address air and water pollution,
hazardous wastes, chemical spills, pesticides, enforcement, and pollution
prevention. This plan received public comments in sister cities along the
border in September 1991 and was finalized in February, 1992.
The Administration's FY 1993 budget includes a request for $243 million to
support environment projects. Mexico announced that $460 million will be
allocated during the next 3 years for environmental infrastructure projects
along the border. The funds will be allocated for water supply and
wastewater treatment; municipal solid waste treatment; highway, bridge,
and border-crossing projects; and the provision of necessary utilities in
housing areas.
The 100-year-old International Boundary and Water Commission is
constructing a joint sewage treatment plant in Nuevo Laredo to greatly
improve the quality of water in the Rio Grande River. A major expansion of
the international waste water treatment plant at Nogales, Arizona, will be
completed in 1992. A long-awaited joint sewage treatment project has
begun in the Tijuana/San Diego area. In addition, the border environment
plan provides for cleaning up the waters of the New River near Mexicali and
Calexico, California.
Conservation Cooperation
The United States and Mexico have been partners in conservation since 1936.
Both countries plan to accomplish more in the future. The US Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and the National Park Service have
developed separate cooperative agreements with their Mexican counterparts.
Mexico has a unique wealth of species that it seeks to preserve. In July
1991, it joined CITES, an international convention for the protection of
endangered species. Mexico has joint programs with various US agencies to
protect wildlife, national parks, and tropical forests.
In the area of marine resources, the United States and Mexico work together
in multilateral forums to place stringent restrictions on waste generated
from ships in the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, both countries cooperate on
programs to reduce the deaths of dolphins and sea turtles from commercial
fishing. In September 1991, President Salinas announced a new Mexican
program to conserve dolphins.
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 7, February 17, 1992
Title: Fact Sheet: NAFTA Negotiations and US Goals
PA
Source: Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public
Affairs
Date: Feb, 17 19922/17/92
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: North America
Country: Canada, United States, Mexico
Subject: Trade/Economics, Resource Management,
Media/Telecommunications, North America Free Trade
[TEXT]
The United States, Canada, and Mexico are negotiating a wide range of issues
in an attempt to conclude a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Their major objective is to reduce trade and investment barriers in North
America. The negotiations cover six broad areas--market access, trade
rules, services, investment, intellectual property rights, and dispute
settlement.
Market Access
Tariff and Non-tariff Barriers. More than 28,000 tariff items are under
negotiation. The average US tariff (duty) is 4%. Mexico's is 10%. Non-tariff
barriers (NTBs) include import licenses and quotas.
The United States seeks the immediate or phased elimination of all tariffs
among the three countries and the reduction of NTBs. US objectives are to
maximize the economic gains from free trade and to minimize the
adjustment problems in sensitive sectors.
Rules of Origin. In general, these rules determine a product's country of
origin for purposes of duty assessment, import programs, and statistics.
All three countries seek rules of origin that will maximize benefits for
North American producers by determining which products have enough North
American content to qualify for NAFTA duty preference.
The United States wants the gradual elimination of subsidy programs
involving the remission of duties. Another US objective is to harmonize
customs procedures and documents to facilitate the entry of goods in all
three countries.
Government Procurement. The United States seeks to achieve greater
liberalization of procurement markets in Mexico and Canada. A key US
objective is to provide greater transparency and predictability in the
competition to sell goods and services to governments and public sector
enterprises by firms in NAFTA countries.
Agriculture. US agricultural trade with Mexico and Canada totaled $13
billion in 1990. The US goal is to enhance the free flow of agricultural
products by eliminating tariff and non-tariff barriers to this trade in North
America. The United States also seeks a transition that will allow
sensitive sectors to adjust to trade liberalization, as well as a safeguard
provision for certain agricultural items.
Automobiles. Automotive trade (including parts) among the three countries
totals about $59 billion annually. The principal task of the negotiators is to
liberalize auto trade and investment to make the North American automotive
industry more integrated and globally competitive. The United States seeks
to eliminate Mexican restrictions on auto investment and imports and to
increase US exports of motor vehicles and parts to Mexico.
Textiles and Energy. The parties wish to eliminate tariff and non-tariff
barriers to trade in textiles and apparel, but with a sufficiently strong rule
of origin to ensure that the benefits go primarily to North American
producers. The United States seeks a transition period long enough to give
US companies and workers time to adjust.
Energy products and services are a significant part of North American trade.
Fuels alone account for 20% of US imports from Mexico, and 12% of
US imports from Canada. The energy/petrochemicals negotiators seek to
establish an open market for energy and petrochemical trade, investment,
and services among the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
Trade Rules
Safeguards. Safeguards can be invoked when imports of a certain good
increase to such an extent that they harm a domestic sector. The focus of
the trilateral discussions has been to ensure that the safeguard process is
transparent.
The United States seeks a two-track safeguard system. A bilateral
provision would allow parties to respond quickly and effectively in the
event of injurious increases in imports of goods from a NAFTA partner in
any industry or farm sector during the transition period in which tariffs are
being reduced to zero. A global provision would maintain the US ability to
limit NAFTA imports as part of a safeguard action on imports from all
sources, provided NAFTA products are more than minimally responsible for
the injury.
Subsidies and Trade Remedies. All three countries have laws against unfair
pricing and subsidized goods, but significant differences remain in the
administrative and judicial procedures related to these laws. The United
States seeks better cooperation among the authorities in each country and
greater transparency of laws and regulations against unfair trade. The US
goal is to maintain a strong and effective defense against unfairly traded
goods without unduly burdening business in North America.
Standards. Health, environmental, or other standards could constitute
unwarranted trade barriers to protect affected domestic producers. The
United States wants to eliminate such discriminatory or unnecessary
standards. An equally important US goal is to preserve the US right to apply
standards and technical regulations, including those that are more stringent
than international standards, to protect human, plant, or animal health or
safety and to safeguard the environment.
Services
Negotiators are developing a framework of rules to govern cross-border
trade in services (such as telecommunications, tourism, accounting,
engineering, financial services, and insurance) and are negotiating a
rollback of barriers to services trade. These barriers usually consist of
laws, administrative measures, or licensing requirements that discriminate
against the activities of foreign companies. Many of the barriers are at the
state/provincial level in the United States and Canada. A subgroup is
negotiating to facilitate the temporary entry of NAFTA-country
professionals and managers who are engaged in trade and investment
activities.
Finance. The negotiations have dealt with the full range of financial
services and service providers to be covered in the agreement, including the
rights and opportunities for establishment, the treatment of firms once
established, and cross-border trade. The US goal is to negotiate as
complete a liberalization of the financial services sector as possible,
subject to legitimate prudential considerations. The liberalization would
include the right of establishment through a branch or subsidiary, national
treatment and equality of competitive opportunity once established, and
liberal rules on cross-border purchases of financial services.
Insurance. Many of the issues in insurance overlap those in financial
services. Rules governing the provision of insurance services will apply to
a broad range of insurance-related activities, with limited exceptions (e.g.,
government insurance) to be negotiated.
Land Transport. This sector includes railroads, local/inter-city transit
service, trucking, warehousing, non-petroleum pipelines, vehicle
maintenance and repair, bus and rail passenger transportation, and the
landside aspects of port operations. The working group is negotiating the
liberalization of current restrictions that impede transportation efficiency
in North America.
Telecommunications. The United States seeks to ensure that trade within
North America is facilitated by NAFTA commitments regarding access to
and use of the public telecommunications network. The United States also
wants the greatest possible liberalization of trade in telecommunications
services among the three countries.
Investment
The United States seeks to establish principles customarily included in
bilateral investment treaties, such as national treatment, the right of
establishment, the right to repatriate profits, guarantees against unfair
expropriation, and access to arbitration for the settlement of disputes. The
United States wants to keep sectoral restrictions on investment to the
minimum and to prohibit new restrictions, except those necessary to ensure
national security.
Intellectual Property
All three countries are committed to the strong protection of intellectual
property. The United States seeks to codify existing levels of protection
provided under national laws and to establish new and higher levels of
protection in certain important sectors. The United States also wants
strong provisions to enforce intellectual property rights, both internally and
at the borders, and has put forward proposals dealing with copyright,
trademarks, patents, trade secrets, integrated circuits, and enforcement.
Dispute Settlement -- One of the keys to a successful trade agreement is a
swift and fair dispute settlement procedure. Business leaders have
frequently called for such a procedure to handle their complaints.
The United States wishes to create a flexible, pragmatic oversight and
consultation mechanism for NAFTA. When consultations fail to resolve a
problem, the United States supports the establishment of fair, speedy, and
effective dispute settlement panel procedures to resolve controversies.
(###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 7, February 17, 1992
Title: Fact Sheet: NAFTA and Labor
PA
Source: Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public
Affairs
Date: Feb, 17 19922/17/92
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: North America
Country: Canada, United States, Mexico
Subject: Trade/Economics, Refugees, North America Free Trade
[TEXT]
Fact Sheet: NAFTA and Labor
How the proposed North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) will affect
US jobs is a major issue. According to most studies, an agreement would
benefit the US economy and increase the exports of US manufactured goods
to an expanding Mexican market. This would result in the creation of new US
jobs. Although some worker dislocation may occur, concerns about job
losses have been exaggerated.
The Administration recognizes the need to assist any US workers dislocated
as a result of NAFTA. It is committed to working with Congress to ensure
that an effective, adequately funded worker adjustment program is in place
when NAFTA takes effect. In addition, the agreement could include
safeguards to ease the transition if imports from Mexico become too
disruptive.
Job Creation
The overall impact of NAFTA on US employment should be positive, but
small, according to most studies. One analysis prepared for the Department
of Labor suggests that a free trade agreement with Mexico would result in a
net increase of 44,000 to 60,000 jobs in the United States over a period of
10 years.
Most of these jobs would be in manufacturing. Other studies suggest that
NAFTA would increase average real wages in the United States.
Since Mexico started its trade liberalization in 1986, US exports to Mexico
have more than doubled--from $12.4 billion in 1986 to $28.4 billion in 1990.
However, Mexican trade barriers are still higher than those in the United
States. Reducing or eliminating them should result in increased US exports
that will help create employment in the United States. It is estimated that
each $1 billion worth of US merchandise exports generates about 20,000 US
jobs.
Assistance to Displaced Workers
There are currently three major programs to assist US workers who lose
their jobs:
-- The unemployment insurance system that provides at least 26 weeks
of wage replacement to eligible workers;
-- Trade adjustment assistance that provides benefits only to displaced
workers in companies where increased imports have contributed
significantly to lower sales or production; and
-- The Economic Dislocation and Worker Adjustment Assistance Act
(EDWAA) that was enacted with bipartisan support in 1988.
EDWAA is a comprehensive and flexible program for all dislocated workers
whose job loss (for any reason) means that they are unlikely to return to
their previous industries or occupations. Eligibility for this program is
broad based and easy to determine. Any worker in any company/industry is
eligible for assistance without the need for time-consuming certifications.
EDWAA has been used successfully in such major industries as automobiles,
steel, electronics, copper, food processing, aerospace, defense, and timber.
The program has served more than 700,000 workers during the past 3 years.
About two-thirds of the participants were placed in jobs identified by local
business communities, at an average wage of $7.50 per hour. Funding for the
program has nearly doubled in the past 2 years, to $527 million in program
year 1991.
US Investment
The investment of US firms in Mexico strengthens their ability to meet
global competitive challenges. NAFTA would help save US jobs by making US
companies better able to compete against Asian and European rivals.
According to a 1988 study by the International Trade Commission, most of
the 900 US firms surveyed indicated that, if they could not move part of
their labor-saving assembly operations to Mexico, they would transfer their
operations to East Asia. This would result in the use of fewer US
components and machinery.
Many US companies have established maquiladoras in Mexico. These are
export-oriented assembly plants that operate under special Mexican
regulations and US tariff codes that allow maquiladoras to import
components duty-free from the United States and to re-export finished and
semi-finished products to the United States, subject to import tariffs only
on the non-US components and Mexican value-added. This production-
sharing has enabled US firms to become or remain price competitive, expand
their sales and lines of products, and thereby hire more US workers. Many
firms have said that they would be forced to shut down their US operations
without the maquiladora programs.
The assembly in Mexico of US components has created or maintained
thousands of US production jobs that would have been lost if production had
been shifted to Asian countries. By placing the most labor-intensive and
low-paid operations in Mexico, plants in the United States can retain and
create the higher-skilled and more capital-intensive activities that require
higher-paid jobs. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 7, February 17, 1992
Title: North Pacific Salmon Convention
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Statement issued by the Office of the Assistant
Secretary/Spokesman, Washington, DC
Date: Feb, 13 19922/13/92
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: Eurasia, East Asia, North America
Country: Canada, United States, Japan, Russia
Subject: Environment, Trade/Economics, Resource Management
[TEXT]
On February 11, 1992, the United States, Canada, Japan, and Russia signed
the Convention for the Conservation of Anadromous Stocks in the North
Pacific Ocean. Deputy Chief of Mission James F. Collins signed the
convention in Moscow for the United States.
The convention brings to an end a long-standing Japanese high seas fishery
that has been of concern to Alaska, Washington, and Oregon since before
World War II. The new convention will prohibit directed high seas fishing
for North Pacific salmon, which will protect US-origin salmon species.
Incidental taking of Pacific salmon will be strictly limited. The parties to
the convention will be allowed to take action individually or collectively to
prevent unauthorized fishing activities by others and to prevent trafficking
in illegally harvested Pacific salmon. Each party will have the authority to
board, inspect, and seize fishing vessels found operating in violation of the
convention.
A new international organization established under the convention will
serve as an effective forum for closer international coordination of fishery
enforcement activities on the high seas. It will also significantly promote
the conservation of Pacific salmon throughout their migratory range as well
as marine mammals, seabirds, and other fish species that interact with
these resources.
The United States, Canada, Japan, and Russia are the primary states of
origin for salmon stocks in the North Pacific Ocean. These stocks
intermingle extensively during their migrations on the high seas of the
North Pacific. The United States has maintained that fishing for migrating
salmon on the high seas is irrational due to the adverse effects it has on
efforts to manage and conserve such fish.
The convention will replace the US-Canada-Japan International Convention
for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean.
The convention, which will enter into force upon ratification, acceptance, or
approval by the four Signatories, will aid in ensuring that the United States
receives the fullest possible social, economic, and recreational benefits
from Pacific salmon produced in US waters.(###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 7, February 17, 1992
Title: Country Fact Sheet: Ireland
PA
Source: Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public
Affairs
Date: Feb, 17 19922/17/92
Category: Country Data
Region: Europe
Country: Ireland
Subject: History, Trade/Economics, Cultural Exchange
[TEXT]
History
From 1800 to 1921, Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom.
Religious freedom was guaranteed in 1829. Severe economic depression and
mass famine occurred when the potato crop failed in 1846-48. In 1858, the
Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB--also known as the Fenians) was founded
as a secret society dedicated to armed rebellion against the British. A
constitutional force for independence, the Home Rule Movement, was created
in 1874. Galvanized by the leadership of Charles Stewart Parnell, this party
was able to force British governments after 1885 to introduce several home
rule bills. The turn of the century witnessed a surge of interest in Irish
nationalism, including the founding of Sinn Fein ("Ourselves Alone") as an
open political movement.
The outbreak of war in Europe in 1914 put home rule efforts on hold, and, in
reaction, Padraic Pearse and James Connolly led the unsuccessful Easter
Rising of 1916. The decision to execute the leaders of the rebellion
alienated public opinion and produced massive support for Sinn Fein in the
1918 general election. Under the leadership of Eamon De Valera, the elected
Sinn Fein deputies constituted themselves as the first Dail. British
attempts to smash Sinn Fein produced the Anglo-Irish War of 1919-21.
The Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921 established the Irish Free State of 26
counties within the British Commonwealth and recognized the partition of
the island into Ireland and Northern Ireland, though supposedly as a
temporary measure. The six predominantly Protestant counties of northeast
Ulster--Northern Ireland--remained a part of the United Kingdom with
limited self-government. A significant Irish minority repudiated the treaty
settlement because of the continuance of subordinate ties to the British
monarch and the partition of the island. This opposition led to a civil war
(1922-23), won by the pro-treaty forces.
In 1932, Eamon de Valera, the political leader of the forces initially
opposed to the treaty, became prime minister, and a new Irish constitution
was enacted in 1937. The last British military bases were withdrawn, and
the ports were returned to Irish control. Ireland was neutral in World War
II. The government formally declared Ireland a republic in 1948. However,
it does not normally use the term "Republic of Ireland," which tacitly
acknowledges the partition, but refers to the country simply as "Ireland."
Government
Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state with a parliamentary
government. The president, who serves as chief of state in a largely
ceremonial role, is elected for a 7-year term and can be re-elected once. In
carrying out certain constitutional powers and functions, the president is
aided by the Council of State, an advisory body. On the prime minister's
advice, the president also dissolves the House of Representatives.
The president appoints as prime minister the leader of the political party,
or coalition of parties, which wins the most seats in the House of
Representatives. Executive power is vested in a cabinet whose ministers
are nominated by the prime minister and approved by the House.
The bicameral National Parliament (Oireachtas) consists of a Senate
(Seanad Eireann) and a House of Representatives (Dail Eireann). The Senate
is composed of 60 members--11 nominated by the prime minister, 6 elected
by the national universities, and 43 elected from panels of candidates
established on a vocational basis. The Senate has power to delay legislative
proposals and is allowed 90 days to consider and amend bills sent to it by
the Dail. The Dail wields the actual power in the national parliament. It has
166 members popularly elected to a maximum term of 5 years under a
complicated system of proportional representation.
Judges are appointed by the president on nomination by the government and
can be removed from office only for misbehavior or incapacity and then only
by resolution of both houses of parliament. The ultimate court of appeal is
the Supreme Court, consisting of the chief justice and five other justices.
The Supreme Court can also decide upon the constitutionality of legislative
acts if the president asks for an opinion.
Local government is by elected county councils and--in the cities of Dublin,
Cork, Limerick, and Waterford--by county borough corporations. In practice,
however, effective authority remains with the central government.
Political Conditions
During the last general election in June 1989, no single party won enough
seats to form a majority government. However, in July 1989, a coalition
government was formed between the largest political party, Fianna Fail, and
the Progressive Democrats, a political party created 6 years ago by
dissident members of Fianna Fail. Now headed by Albert Reynolds as prime
minister, the coalition partners generally agree on economic and fiscal
objectives, although there are principled differences over social issues and
approaches to Northern Ireland. The opposition consists primarily of two
major adversaries, Fine Gael and the Labor Party.
The presidential election of November 1990 signaled possible change in the
Irish political scene, as Mary Robinson, the Labor Party's nominee,
surprisingly won. Articulating a progressive agenda for Ireland's future and
outspoken on the subject of social issues, Mrs. Robinson's election in a
generally conservative Catholic country suggests a possible shift in the
focus of Irish politics.
The Northern Ireland problem remains a key concern. The six counties of
Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom, comprise about 900,000
Protestants and 600,000 Catholics. Since 1968, when the "Troubles" began
and fighting erupted between the two communities, the status of Northern
Ireland often has been the dominant factor in Ireland's relations with its
closest neighbor.
In May 1983, the Northern Ireland Social Democratic and Labor Party joined
the three major southern parties in a "New Ireland Forum" to make
recommendations aimed at a final peaceful resolution of the "Irish
question." In May 1984, the Forum published an agreed nationalist position,
reaffirming the aim of a united Ireland to be pursued only by democratic
means and on the basis of agreement.
Intense negotiations beginning in 1984 culminated in the signature by Prime
Ministers FitzGerald and Thatcher of the Anglo-Irish Agreement on
November 15, 1985, at Hillsborough, Northern Ireland. In the landmark
accord, the Irish Government gained a formal voice in the governing of
Northern Ireland on behalf of the Catholic Nationalist community. The
accord provides for change in the status of Northern Ireland only with the
consent of a majority there but pledges support by both govern- ments if
unity should be desired by a majority.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement has provided a framework for dialogue and a
common approach to the issue by neighbors often at odds in the past. The
accord and the presence of Irish Government representatives in the north
are powerful symbols for both Nationalists and Unionists. (The latter wish
to remain part of the United Kingdom.) Reforms designed to lessen the
alienation of the Nationalist minority community have been introduced. The
US Congress has authorized contributions totaling $170 million to the
International Fund for Ireland since its establishment in 1986 under the
auspices of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
In April 1991, after months of debate, Northern Ireland Secretary Peter
Brooke's "talks-on-talks" initiative finally succeeded in convincing the
constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government
in Dublin to agree on a series of talks on a political solution in Northern
Ireland, relations between Northern and southern Ireland, and the overall
relationship between Ireland and the United Kingdom. The talks were
suspended in the beginning of July. Although the parties remain split on
substance--primarily Dublin's role in Northern Ireland's subsequent
government--it is hoped that progress will help break the cycle of violence
which has plagued the region.
Economy
The Irish economy continued to strengthen during 1990, the fourth year of
positive economic performance. Real GNP rose by more than 5%, with strong
growth in investment (8%) and exports (6%). However, GNP growth is
expected to fall to about 1.5% in 1991 due to recessionary conditions in
Ireland's main export markets, high domestic interest rates, and falling
demand for some agricultural production.
Among the least developed countries in the EC, Ireland has two serious
economic problems--public debt and unemployment. During 1990, the
government continued its recent policy of fiscal responsibility, reducing
exchequer borrowing to 2% of GNP. Ireland also has made progress in its
efforts to reduce the national debt as a percentage of GNP. At the end of
1990, the national debt was 120% of GNP, compared with 129% the previous
year. Despite impressive job creation in the economy, the rapid entry of
young people into the labor force and a slowdown in emigration caused the
unemployment rate to rise to 16.3% in February 1991 after falling to a low
of 15.6% in 1990.
Until the mid-1950s, the Irish economy was largely agrarian. Consecutive
governments over the past decades have promoted rapid industrialization,
and various inducements have attracted a significant amount of industrial
investment from overseas sources, especially the United States.
In recent years, collective bargaining has taken place in the context of a
national economic program. In 1987, representatives of government,
employers, unions, and farmers negotiated the Program for National
Recovery. A second 3-year agreement, the Program for Economic and Social
Progress (PESP) was approved in February 1991. PESP covers a range of
economic and social objectives, including further wage restraint guidelines,
reductions in government budget deficits and the debt/GNP ratio, tax
reform, guidelines for consultations between unions and government on
privatization of state-owned companies, and job creation targets.
Labor. Ireland has a tradition of trade union activity reflected in the 73
member unions of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU). The ICTU and
many Irish trade unions also have members and affiliates in Northern
Ireland. A number of Irish unions are British offshoots. The ICTU and its
member unions are active in promoting their positions on key economic and
social issues with the government. In negotiating the PESP, the ICTU put
forward proposals for tax reform, social welfare and public health
programs, and enhanced education and training programs.
Employee-management relations are determined through collective
bargaining between individual companies and their unions. Under the
Program for National Recovery (1988-90) annual wage increases were
limited to 2.5%. Under the PESP, wage increases will be limited to 10.7%
over 3 years, with the possibility of an additional 3% based on local
bargaining. However, special pay increases of 8-9% have been approved for
large sectors of the public service in 1991. There is a growing trend toward
part-time employment. Accounting for almost 8% of total employment,
part-time workers until recently were not covered by labor protection laws.
In early 1991, the government introduced legislation to extend protective
measures to those who work at least 8 hours per week. Some of the
proposed measures have been implemented.
Investment. US firms have been particularly important to the growth and
modernization of Irish industry over the past two decades by providing new
technology, export capabilities, and employment opportunities. There are
more than 350 US subsidiaries in Ireland spanning activities from
manufacturing of high-tech electronics, computer devices, medical supplies,
and pharmaceuticals to retailing and services. US investment in Ireland is
more than $6 billion.
Many US businesses find Ireland an attractive location to manufacture for
the European Community market, since it is inside the EC customs area. The
availability of a well-trained, English-speaking work force and relatively
moderate wage costs have been important factors. Ireland offers good long-
term growth prospects for US companies under an imaginative financial
incentive program, including capital grants, favorable tax treatment, and a
10% corporate income tax rate for all manufacturing firms.
Trade. In 1990, trade between Ireland and the United States was $4.9
billion, a 11% increase over 1989. US exports to Ireland were $3 billion, an
increase of 8% over 1989, and 12% of Ireland's total imports. The range of
US products includes electrical components, computers and peripherals,
drugs and pharmaceuticals, electrical equipment, and livestock feed.
The United States traditionally has had a trade surplus with Ireland, due
primarily to purchases of US-origin raw materials and intermediate goods
by the many US subsidiaries in Ireland and substantial trade in agricultural
products. In 1990, the US trade surplus was $1.1 billion, compared to $1.2
billion in 1989. Given the favorable outlook for the Irish economy, good
sales opportunities exist for US producers in Ireland. Export-Import Bank
financing and the presence of major US banks in Ireland facilitate marketing
by US suppliers.
Irish exports to the United States grew by 19% to almost $2 billion in 1990.
Exports to the United States represent about 8% of all Irish exports and
include alcoholic beverages, chemicals and related products, electronic data
processing equipment, electrical machinery, textiles and clothing, and
glassware.
Tourism. Tourism is one of Ireland's principal industries. More than 3
million people visited Ireland in 1990 and spent more than $1.4 billion. In
1990, about 400,000 Americans visited Ireland, contributing more than
$300 million to the Irish economy. Increasing numbers of Irish citizens
have visited the United States in recent years, particularly since the fall of
the dollar in 1985.
Defense. The Irish Defense Force is about 13,000. The army, with a
strength of 11,400, is the largest service by far, with the air corps and
naval service together accounting for about 1,800 personnel. Irish defense
expenditures of $511 million in 1990 represent about 1.4% of GNP.
Supreme command of the defense forces is vested constitutionally in the
president. However, actual control of military affairs is exercised by the
government through the defense minister, who is advised by the Council of
Defense.
Foreign Relations
Since gaining independence in 1921, Ireland has been active in international
affairs, first as a member of the League of Nations and, since 1955, as a
member of the United Nations. Ireland has contributed defense forces to UN
peace-keeping units in the Middle East, western New Guinea, the Belgian
Congo (now Zaire), Cyprus, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Kuwait. Irish foreign
aid to developing countries in 1990 was $57 million or 0.2% of GNP.
Neutrality is the basis of Ireland's security policy. Ireland was neutral in
World War II, and, in 1949, it declined to join NATO; it is the only EC country
that is not a member. Since joining the EC in 1973, Irish foreign policy has
shifted from a concentration on relations with the United Kingdom to
relations with Europe in general.
US-Irish Relations
US relations with Ireland are based on common ancestral ties and on similar
values and political views. The United States seeks to maintain and streng-
then the traditionally cordial relations between the people of the United
States and Ireland.
The Irish Government has welcomed St. Patrick's Day statements which have
reaffirmed US Government policy on Northern Ireland. These statements
have emphasized that the United States will continue to condemn all acts of
terrorism and violence. They also have renewed the caution to all
Americans to question closely any appeal for financial or other aid from
groups involved in the Northern Ireland conflict to ensure that contributions
do not end up in the hands of those who perpetuate violence, either directly
or indirectly. US statements have noted the important contribution toward
economic and social progress represented by American industrial
investment in Ireland--north and south--and have pledged to maintain the
US commitment to facilitate the growth of such job-creating investment.
The United States has warmly welcomed the Anglo-Irish agreement of 1985
as a framework for progress in Northern Ireland.(###)