US Department of State 

Dispatch, Vol 3, No 7, February 17, 1992


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.
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.
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.
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.

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.
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.
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.
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]
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."
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.
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.(###)