US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 3, No 15, April 13, 1992
Title: Aid to the New Independent States: A Peace We
Must Not Lose
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: Excerpts from remarks to the American Society of
Newspaper Editors, Washington, DC
Date: Apr, 9 19924/9/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: USSR (former), Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan
Subject: Trade/Economics, Development/Relief Aid
[TEXT]
Today, I want to share some serious observations with you on events around
the world. Look around the world today. Think of the page one stories of the
past few years and our victory in the Cold War, the collapse of imperial
communism, the liberation of Kuwait. Think of the great revolutions of
1989 that brought down the Berlin Wall and broke the chains of communism
and brought a new world of freedom to Eastern Europe. And think of the role
this nation played in every one of these great triumphs--the sacrifices we
made, the sense of mission that carried us through.
Each day brings new changes; new realities; new hopes; new horizons. In the
past 6 months alone, we've recognized 18--in 6 months--18 brand new
nations. The bulk of those nations, of course, are born of one momentous
event: the collapse of Soviet communism.
Today, I want to talk to you all about the most important foreign policy
opportunity of our time--an opportunity that will affect the security and
the future of every American, young and old, throughout this entire decade.
The democratic revolutions underway in Russia, in Armenia, Ukraine, and the
other new nations of the old Soviet empire represent the best hope for real
peace in my lifetime. Shortly after taking office, I outlined a new American
strategy in response to the changes underway in the Soviet Union and
Eastern and Central Europe: It was to move beyond containment, to
encourage reform, to always support freedom for the captive nations of the
East.
Now, after dramatic revolutions in Poland and Hungary and Czechoslovakia,
revolutions that spread then to Romania and Bulgaria and even Albania; after
the unification of Germany in NATO; after the demise of the one power--the
USSR--that threatened our way of life, that mission has been fulfilled. The
Cold War is over. The specter of nuclear Armageddon has receded, and
Soviet communism has collapsed. In its wake, we find ourselves on the
threshold of a new world of opportunity and peace.
But with the passing of the Cold War, a new order has yet to take its place.
The opportunities [are] tremendous. They're great, but so, too, are the
dangers. And so we stand at history's hinge point--a new world beckons,
while the ghost of history stands in the shadows.
I want to outline today a new mission for American policy toward Russia
and the other new nations of the old USSR. It is a mission that can advance
our economic and security interests while upholding the primacy of
American values--values which, as Lincoln said, are the "last, best hope of
earth."
A New Mission for America
Americans have always responded best when a new frontier beckoned. I
believe that the next frontier for us and for the generation that follows is
to secure a democratic peace in Europe and the former USSR that will ensure
a lasting peace for the United States of America.
The democratic peace must be founded on the twin pillars of political and
economic freedom. The success of reform in Russia and Ukraine, Armenia
and Kazakhstan, Byelarus and the Baltics will be the single best guarantee
of our security, our prosperity, and our values.
After the long Cold War, this much is clear: Democrats in the Kremlin can
assure our security in a way nuclear missiles never could. Much of my
Administration's foreign policy has been dedicated to winning the Cold War
peacefully. The next 4 years must be dedicated to building a democratic
peace--not simply for those of us who lived through the Cold War and won it
but for generations to come.
From the first moments of the Cold War, our mission was containment--to
use the combined resources of the West to check the expansion, the
expansionist aims, of the Soviet empire. It has been my policy as President
to move beyond containment to use the power of America and the West to
end the Cold War with freedom's victory.
Today, we have reached a turning point. We have defeated imperial
communism. We've not yet won the victory for democracy, though. This
democratic peace will not be easily won. The weight of history--74 years
of communist misrule in the former USSR--tells us that democracy and
economic freedom will be years in the building. America must, therefore,
resolve that our commitment be equally firm and lasting.
With this commitment, we have the chance to build a very different world--
a world built on the common values of political and economic freedom
between Russia and America, between East and West, and, at long last, a
peace built on mutual trust, not on mutual terror.
Today, we find ourselves in an almost unimaginable world where democrats
not communists, hold power in Moscow and Kiev and Yerevan; a new world
where a new breed of leaders--Boris Yeltsin, Levon Ter-Petrosian, Leonid
Kravchuk, Askar Akyev, among others--are pushing forward to reform.
They seek to replace the rule of force with the rule of law. And they seek,
for the first time in their countries' histories, not to impose rule in the
name of the people but to build governments of, by, and for the people. They
seek a future of free and open markets where economic rights rest in the
hands of individuals, not on the whims of the central planners. They seek
partnerships. They seek alliances with us. And they also seek an end to
competition and conflict.
Our values are their values. In this time of transition, they are reaching out
to us. They seek our help. If we are to act, we must see clearly what is at
stake.
Dividends for America
Forty years ago, Americans had the vision and the good sense to help
defeated enemies back to their feet--as democracies. Well, what a wise
investment that proved to be. Those we helped became close allies and
major trading partners.
Our choice today, just as clear: With our help, Russia, Ukraine, [and] other
new states, can become democratic friends and partners. Let me say here,
they will have our help. What difference can this make for America, you
might ask? We can put behind us for good the nuclear confrontation that has
held our very civilization hostage for over 4 decades; the threat of a major
ground war in Western Europe has disappeared with the demise of the
Warsaw Pact.
A democratic Russia is the best guarantee against a renewed danger of
competition and the threat of nuclear rivalry. The failure of the democratic
experiment could bring a dark future, the return to authoritarianism or a
descent into anarchy. In either case, the outcome would threaten our peace,
our prosperity, and our security for years to come.
We should focus not on the dangers of failure but on the dividends of
success.
First, we can reap a genuine peace dividend this year and then year after
year in the form of permanently reduced defense budgets. Already, we've
proposed $50 billion of defense spending reductions between now and 1997.
Now that cut comes on top of savings totaling $267 billion--more than a
quarter of a trillion dollars in projected defense expenditures--since the
fall of the Berlin Wall. Make no mistake: I am not going to make reckless
defense cuts that impair our own fundamental national security.
Second, working with our Russian partners and our allies, we can create a
new international landscape--a land-scape where emerging threats are
contained and undone, where we work in concert to confront common threats
to our environment, where terrorists find no safe haven, and where genuine
coalitions of like-minded countries respond to dangers and opportunities
together.
Finally, third, the triumph of free governments and free markets in the old
Soviet Union will mean extensive opportunities for global trade and
economic growth. A democratic Russia, one dedicated to free-market
economies, will provide an impetus for a major increase in global trade and
investment. The people of the former Soviet Union are well-schooled and
highly skilled. They seek for their families the same better future each of
us wishes for our own.
Together, they form a potentially vast market that crosses 11 time zones
and comprises nearly 300 million people. No economist can pinpoint the
value of trade opportunities we hope to have. It's impossible to compute,
but the potential for prosperity is great. Increased trade means vast new
markets for American goods, new opportunities for American entrepreneurs,
new jobs for American workers. I'm committed to giving American business
every possible opportunity to compete fairly and equally in these new
markets.
For example, last week I asked the Congress to repeal the Stevenson and
Byrd amendments that limit [the] Exim [US Export-Import Bank] bank's
ability to help promote American exports to the former USSR. I'm pleased
that Congress has acted. I'm also seeking to conclude trade, bilateral
investment, and tax treaties with each of the new Commonwealth states.
The first agreement between the United States and Armenia was signed last
week, and we expect a lot more to follow.
Russian democracy is in America's interest. It's also in keeping with this
nation's guiding ideals. Across the boundaries of language and culture,
across the Cold War chasm of mistrust, we feel the pull of common values.
In the ordeal of long-suffering peoples of the Soviet empire, we seek
glimpses of this nation's past. In their hopes and dreams we see our own.
This is an article of the American creed: Freedom is not the special
preserve of one nation, it is the birthright of men and women everywhere.
We have always dreamed of the day [when] democracy and freedom will
triumph in every corner of the world, in every captive nation and closed
society. This may never happen in our lifetime, but it can happen now for
the millions of people who for so long suffered under that totalitarian
Soviet rule.
Some may say this view of the future is a little unrealistic. Let me remind
you that three of our leading partners in helping democracy succeed in
Russia are none other than Germany, Japan, and Italy. If we can now bring
Russia into the community of free nations who share American ideals, we
will have redeemed hope in a century that has known so much suffering.
It is not inevitable, as de Tocqueville wrote, that America and Russia were
destined to struggle for global supremacy. De Tocqueville only knew a
despotic Russia, but we see and can help secure a democratic Russia. One of
America's greatest achievements in this century has been our leadership of
a remarkable community of nations: the free world. This community is
democratic; it is stable; it is prosperous; it is cooperative; and it is
independent. America, all of us, are the better for that. We have strong
allies; we have enormous trade; and we are safer as a result of our
commitment to this free world.
And now we must expand this most successful of communities to include
our former adversaries. Now, this is good for America. A world that trades
with us brings greater prosperity. A world that shares our values,
strengthens the peace. This is the world that lies out there before us. This
is the world that can be achieved if we have the vision to reach for it, and
this is the peace that we must not lose.
Winning the Peace
This is what we're doing right now to win this peace. Strategically, we're
moving with the Russians to reach historic nuclear reductions. We've urged
speedy ratification of START [Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty] and CFE
[Conventional Armed Forces in Europe]. We're working with all the new
states to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. We are
offering our help in safety--in nuclear weapons safety--and security and,
yes, in the dismantlement.
We're engaged in an intensive program of military-to-military exchanges to
strengthen the ties between our two militaries; indeed, to build
unprecedented defense cooperation--cooperation that would have simply
been unthinkable a few short months ago.
Politically, we're reaching out so America and American values will be well
represented in these new lands. We are the only country with embassies in
all of the former republics. We're planning to bring "America Houses" and
American expertise to the former USSR; to send hundreds of Peace Corps
volunteers to help create small businesses; to launch major exchanges of
students, professionals, and scientists so that our people can establish the
bonds so important to permanent peace.
Economically, working with the European Community and many other
countries, we organized a global coalition to provide urgently needed
emergency food and medical supplies this past winter. Now, we will send
Americans to help promote improvements in food distribution, energy,
defense conversion, and democratization.
I have sent Congress the FREEDOM [Freedom for Russia and East European
Democracies and Open Markets] Support Act, a comprehensive and
integrated legislative package that will provide new opportunities to
support freedom and repeal all Cold War legislation. In its key features,
this bill asks Congress to meet my request for $620 million to fund
technical assistance projects in the former USSR. It urges Congress to
increase the US quota in the IMF [International Monetary Fund] by $12 billion.
I pledge to work with the Congress on a bipartisan basis to pass this act,
and I want to sign this bill into law before my June summit with President
Yeltsin here in Washington, DC.
Just as the rewards of this new world will belong to no one nation, so, too,
the burden does not fall to America alone. Together with our allies, we've
developed a $24-billion package of financial assistance. Its aim: to provide
urgently needed support for President Yeltsin's reforms.
Ours is a policy of collective engagement and shared responsibility.
Working with the G-7 [seven leading industrialized nations], the IMF and the
World Bank, we are seeking to help promote the economic transformation so
central to an enduring democratic peace.
Forty-five years after their founding, the Bretton Woods institutions we
created after World War II are now serving their original purpose. By
working with others, we're sharing the burden responsibly and acting in the
best interests of the American taxpayer.
The Need for Public Support
I know that broad public support will be critical to our effort to get this
program passed, so let me say something to those who say: "Yes, the people
of Russia and all across the old Soviet empire are struggling; yes, we want
to see them succeed, to join the democratic community. But what about us?
What about the challenges and demands we must meet right here in
America? Isn't it time we took care of our own?" And to them, I would say
this: Peace and prosperity are in the interest of every American, each one
of us alive today, and all the generations that will follow.
As a nation, we spent more than $4 trillion to wage and win the Cold War.
Compared to such monumental sacrifice, the costs of promoting democracy
will be a fraction, and the consequences for our peace and prosperity beyond
measure. America must take the lead in creating this new world of peace.
Three times this century, America has been called on to help construct a
lasting peace in Europe. Seventy-five years ago this month, the United
States entered World War I to tip the balance against aggression. And yet,
with the battle won, America withdrew across the ocean, and the "war to
end all wars" produced a peace that did not last even a generation. Indeed,
by the time I was born in 1924, the peace was already unraveling.
Germany's economic chaos soon led to what? To fascist dictatorship. The
seeds of another, more terrible war were sown.
And still, the isolationist impulse remained strong. Years later, as the
Nazis began their march across the continent, I can still remember the
editorials here in the United States talking about "Europe's war," as if
America could close itself off, as if we could isolate ourselves from the
world beyond our shores.
As a consequence, you know the answer: We fought the most costly war in
the history of man, a war that claimed the lives of countless millions. At
war's end, once again, we saw the prospect of a new world on the horizon.
But the great victory over fascism quickly gave way to the grim reality of a
new communist threat.
We are fortunate that our post-war leaders, Democrats and Republicans
alike, did not forget the lessons of the past in building the peace of the next
4 decades. They shaped a coalition that kept America engaged, that kept the
peace through the long twilight struggle against Soviet communism. They
taught the lesson that we simply must heed today: That the noblest mission
of the victor is to turn an enemy into a friend.
Now America faces a third opportunity to provide the kind of lasting peace
that for so long eluded us. At this defining moment, I know where I stand. I
stand for American engagement in support of a democratic peace, a peace
that can secure for the next generation a world free from war, free from
conflict.
After a half-century of fear and mistrust, America, Russia, and the new
nations of the former USSR must become partners in peace. After a half-
century of Cold War and harsh words, we must speak and act on common
values. After a half-century of armed and uneasy peace, we must move
forward toward a new world of freedom, cooperation, reconciliation, and
hope.
Thank you all very much for inviting me here today. May God bless the free
peoples of the former Soviet empire, and may God bless the United States of
America. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 15, April 13, 1992
Title: Securing a Democratic Peace
Baker
Source: Secretary Baker
Description: Statement before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, Washington, DC
Date: Apr, 9 19924/9/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: USSR (former), Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan
Subject: Trade/Economics, Development/Relief Aid
[TEXT]
In the middle of the last century, Alexis de Tocqueville prophesied that
America and Russia were destined to hold in each of their hands half the
world. Throughout this century, de Tocqueville's words have been invoked
time and time again as a prophesy of the superpower rivalry that has
dominated and divided world politics since World War II.
Today, we meet to discuss an issue --the democratic revolutions in Russia
and Eurasia--that will weigh heavily on America's future peace and
prosperity well into the next century.
With our hopes for the 21st century firmly in mind, I come here today to
advance our work toward one overriding goal: to overcome history's rivalry
and to build instead a democratic peace with the peoples of Russia and
Eurasia, an enduring peace that can help unite the world well into the next
century.
With you today, I want to explain our vision of a democratic peace that can
lift forever the old Iron Curtain and unite the lands of Russia and Eurasia--
and of Central and Eastern Europe-- with the democratic community of
nations.
I also want to explain what's at stake in this historic transformation, how
we're going about supporting democracy and free markets in Russia and
Eurasia, and what we need the Congress to do.
Before I go any further, let me give you our bottom line: The President and I
ask the Congress to pass the FREEDOM [Freedom for Russia and Emerging
Eurasian Democracies and Open Markets] Support Act by the time President
Yeltsin arrives here in June. With passage of the act, we will be poised to
use the June summit as a springboard to Russian-American partnership and
broader support for democracy across Russia and Eurasia. Without the
FREEDOM Support Act, not only will Russian-American relations suffer but
so, too, will our relations with Ukraine and Armenia; Kazakhstan and
Byelarus; and our position in the world more generally.
A Democratic Peace
Let me begin with our vision for the future--a vision and approach that the
President will present this afternoon when he speaks before the American
Society of Newspaper Editors. As you'll see, the President's vision is a
straightforward and compelling one--a view of America's relations with
Russia and Eurasia that we believe all Americans can support.
Until very recently, de Tocque-ville's prophesy has for the most part been
borne out by events. America and czarist Russia were never close partners,
and, with the Bolshevik accession to power in 1917, the new Soviet Union
and the United States very quickly became rivals. With the exception of
World War II and the last years under President Gorbachev, we remained
rivals and competitors with the Soviet Union.
While some would argue that the Cold War was primarily a geopolitical
rivalry driven by competing interests, the real fuel for the fire of
confrontation came from a more fundamental source: a marked and
irreconcilable conflict over basic values. At its core, the Cold War was a
titanic struggle between freedom and totalitarianism.
Our solution to this uneasy and uncomfortable state of affairs was
containment. While containment was a successful policy, it was never a
truly satisfying one for it was, at heart, a policy with a negative goal: to
deter the Stalinists from going any further while avoiding nuclear war at
the same time.
Consequently, the peace of the Cold War was not a genuine peace at all but
really a series of episodic accommodations punctuated by frequent super-
power crises. Peace was simply the avoidance of war, not the
reconciliation of peoples. And the avoidance of war was achieved only
through confrontation, tension, and the haunting shadow and threat of
nuclear holocaust.
Today, we face a wholly different and novel situation--a chance to build a
genuine peace based on common, democratic values.
Today, we live in a world where freely elected leaders govern in Moscow and
Kiev; Yerevan and Bishkek; Chisinau and Alma-Ata. Our aspirations--the
desire to choose one's own destiny in political and economic freedom--are
their aspirations. Our foundations--the rights of the individual, the rule of
law, free elections-- are becoming their foundations.
Today, we have the opportunity to break radically with the past. We can
shift our eyes far beyond the negative goal of containment because now a
positive purpose beckons: to support political and economic freedom and to
build a democratic peace with Russia and Eurasia.
A democratic peace would be a genuine peace, not just the absence of war.
Starting from what the President calls the twin pillars of political and
economic freedom, the ground would be sown for cooperation and common
work, not conflict and military competition. With such a foundation for our
relations, the peace we would share with Russia, Ukraine, and the other new
states would be a peace founded on shared values--the enduring peace we
share with Great Britain or France.
It would be the peace we share with old adversaries, like Germany, Italy,
and Japan, who now share our democratic values. No one envisions a war
now with these countries, and the reason is simple: Following World War
II, we supported political and economic freedom in these nations and by
doing so, as one analyst has put it, built a zone of peace.
Now, by reaching out to the Rus-sians and Kazkahs, Uzbeks and Azeris, we
can extend this zone of peace. By cultivating common values now, we can
avoid dangerous conflicts for generations to come. That's a purpose worthy
of the American people. And that's a purpose we believe all Americans will
be willing to support.
What's At Stake
Here's why. A democratic government in Russia will no longer pose a clear
and present threat to the United States. Real democracies do not go to war
with one another. Arms control dealt with the symptom--nuclear weapons-
-while democracy's success in Russia will deal with the cause:
totalitarianism.
Democracy in Russia will bolster democracy's chances in Byelarus and
Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. That will be all to the good, not only
for our allies in Western Europe but for the prospects of democracy in
Central and Eastern Europe and in the Middle East and South Asia as well.
In this way, we hope the community of democratic nations will soon stretch
across the Eurasian landmass from Japan to Europe, as today it extends from
Europe across the Western Hemisphere to Japan. This would make more
effective our collective work to meet growing new challenges:
proliferation, terrorism, drugs, environmental degradation.
Such a state of affairs is not only in America's strategic interest but in the
interest of every American. For decades now, we've spent trillions of
dollars to defend against the communist threat. By investing in a
democratic peace now, we can leave a wealthy inheritance to our children
and grandchildren--an inheritance of enduring peace, an inheritance of
enduring opportunities to make of America a better country.
The growth of democracy and free markets in Russia and Eurasia can be a
new source of trade and investment for American businesses and companies.
These lands are rich in natural resources and educated, talented peoples.
They want us to trade with them and invest in their ventures and their
futures. This is something that is in our mutual benefit. While helping them
build a free market society, we can improve our competitiveness and utilize
our resources to meet the needs of these new markets. This will
strengthen our economy as we support their efforts to build free markets.
Moreover, we know that our democracy--and our people--thrive best in a
democratic world. The more democratic the lands of Russia and Eurasia
become, the greater the opportunities for peace and friendship between our
peoples. That's something that is in everyone's interest.
Above all, this is a purpose worthy of the American character. In the past,
we have often mobilized the American people to war to defend our way of
life. Now, we seek to mobilize them to build a democratic peace to extend
our way of life and our values to new frontiers.
Collective Engagement
Mr. Chairman, let me turn now from what's at stake to what we need to do to
support democracy in Russia and the other new independent states.
While the Soviet Union was in the stage of final collapse last December, I
called in a speech at Princeton University [Dispatch, Vol. 2, No. 50,
December 16, 1991] for the West to pursue a diplomacy of collective
engagement with the former Soviet Union. I said we should work with our
allies and organize our efforts around three tasks:
First, helping destroy and control the military remnants of the Cold War;
Second, helping our former adversaries build democracy and political
legitimacy out of the wreckage of totalitarianism; and
Third, helping free market forces stimulate economic stabilization and
recovery in the lands of the former Soviet Union.
By working across this agenda, we address the myriad military, political,
and economic problems the new states must overcome to build democracy
and free markets. And, since December, we've moved forward in each,
working in concert with our allies.
In the military sphere, we've moved forward with new proposals by
President Bush and President Yeltsin for nuclear arms control; with new
practical steps to help Russia, Ukraine, Byelarus, and Kazakhstan disable
and dismantle nuclear weapons; and with the creation of an international
science center in Russia and in Ukraine to cope with the brain drain problem.
In the political realm, we've established diplomatic relations with and are
opening embassies in all the new independent states, and we've welcomed
them into the United Nations, the North Atlantic Cooperation Council, and
the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. We've also had the
historic Camp David declaration between President Bush and President
Yeltsin--a clear sign of the new era Russia and America are entering
together.
In economics, we pushed for special associate status for the Soviet Union
with the IMF [International Monetary Fund] and World Bank and now have
pushed hard for Russia and the new independent states to become full
members. We've accelerated, through Operation Provide Hope, a massive
effort to meet emergency humanitarian needs. We've expanded our technical
assistance programs. And at the Washington Coordinating Conference, we
and our allies began an extensive and productive effort to coordinate
assistance.
FREEDOM Support Act
Now, the FREEDOM Support Act can give us greater abilities and more
impetus as we move to the next stage of support for democracy and free
markets.
It represents a comprehensive, integrated framework for addressing the
military, political, and economic problems of Russia and Eurasia. It
supports our policy of collective engagement and our efforts to coordinate
and share responsibilities with our allies. The FREEDOM Support Act purges
Cold War restrictions, but more importantly, it supports our efforts to build
a democratic peace.
In this regard, it is as much a policy statement as a legislative package.
But as a legislative vehicle for which we request your support, we are
attempting to unite the executive and legislative branches around a
bipartisan program that can mobilize the American people.
Let me briefly explain how the act supports the three-part agenda I have
outlined.
First, the act supports our efforts at threat reduction, demilitarization, and
nuclear safety. It authorizes funds to be used for demilitarization, defense
conversion, non-proliferation, withdrawal and relocation of former Soviet
military forces, and reduction of the nuclear threat. It will broaden the
allowable uses of Nunn-Lugar [nuclear risk reduction legislation] funds--as
well as foreign military financing (FMF) funds--for these purposes as well.
It also expresses support for an International Science and Technology Center
in Ukraine similar to the one we've agreed to for Russia.
Second, the act supports our democratization programs in Russia and the
other new independent states. It will support our efforts to build "America
Houses"--centers where local citizens in the new states can go to learn
about America and learn from American resident advisers. It will reinforce
our commitment to the President's Citizens Democracy Corps as well as our
ability to support a Eurasia Foundation. Both of these organizations will be
better able to catalyze the involvement of our private sector in this effort.
The act will also authorize funding for new diplomatic posts to expand an
effective diplomatic presence across the former Soviet Union.
In addition, the act supports an International Military Education and Training
(IMET) program with Russia and the other new independent states aimed at
promoting the democratic principle of civilian control in these new states.
Third, the FREEDOM Support Act supports free and open markets through
technical assistance, trade and investment promotion, and macro-economic
stabilization. Let me deal with each separately.
With regard to technical assistance, the act authorizes agencies involved in
the SEED [Support for East European Democracies] program for Central and
Eastern Europe to conduct comparable activities in Russia and the other new
independent states. This will allow us to draw on the expertise from a wide
range of US Government agencies in providing technical assistance in the
former Soviet Union. The act also provides for greater flexibility in
Department of Agriculture programs.
What these new independent states need more than anything else--that for
which they truly hunger--is knowledge: how to build democratic
institutions, how to operate in a free market economy. These states do not
require old-style "foreign aid" as much as they need something different:
the knowledge that can be passed along by the active involvement of an
energized private sector acting in partnership with the US Government. Our
technical assistance program is focused on facilitating such a partnership.
With regard to business, trade, and investment promotion, the act will make
it easier for our companies to get involved in trade and investment
opportunities in Russia and the other new independent states. Notably, the
act lifts otherwise applicable ceilings on OPIC [Overseas Private
Investment Corporation] and Export-Import Bank programs and will allow us
to use funds to cover subsidy portions of guarantee programs. In this way,
we can leverage US Government funds to catalyze private sector trade and
investment. That's good for our business and our economy--as well as for
the development of markets and democracy in the new states.
The act will allow the President to waive many statutory provisions which
now hamstring normal economic relations and hinder American business,
including Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) eligibility restrictions
and Johnson Debt Default Act restrictions on private lending. The act also
makes clear our intention to lift even further COCOM [Coordinating
Committee for Multilateral Export Control] restrictions.
The former Soviet republics are new countries. They should begin their new
histories with a clean bill of health, not be unduly burdened by restrictions
aimed at Stalinists.
With regard to macroeconomic stabilization, the act will provide a
framework of support to continue our important role in the multilateral
stabilization program we're working out with the IMF, World Bank, and G-7
[seven leading industrialized nations].
Most importantly, the act authorizes the IMF quota increase--a step the
Congress absolutely must take to support this multilateral effort. Let me
note, Mr. Chairman, when I was up here 2 months ago, members of the
committee made it a point to tell me that the Congress would not act on
this until the President weighed in.
Mr. Chairman, the President has now weighed in--publicly and
unequivocally--and now we look to Congress to act. Not only do we need
Congress to authorize the quota increase through the FREEDOM Support Act,
we also request that the Congress act concurrently to pass the necessary
appropriations legislation.
The act further supports our efforts to play a leading role in supporting a
macroeconomic stabilization program by providing an expression of
congressional support for US participation of up to $3 billion for a currency
stabilization fund or funds.
The act also makes clear that the Congress supports the Adminis-tration's
approach of working multilaterally through the IMF and World Bank in
support of macroeconomic stabilization.
Macroeconomic Stabilization Program
Before I conclude, let me say a few words about the macroeconomic
stabilization program and our role in it.
The $24 billion in G-7 macro-economic support for Russia's ambitious
economic reform plan that the President announced will provide essential
help in Russia's transition to market economics.
Russia is a country rich in resources and talented people. Market economics
are key to tapping those resources and talents; markets will unlock the door
to economic growth and development. But while markets develop, Russia
needs help in meeting its liquidity problem.
We don't see this as an endless cycle of billions of dollars going to prop up
the Russian economy. The sound, IMF-backed economic program President
Yeltsin has embarked upon will, we believe, promote growth and
development. And that economic growth will further support the democratic
peace we seek to build.
Balance-of-payments support will come in the form of lending from the IMF
and the other international financial institutions in the context of a
negotiated standby arrangement and in bilateral assistance from the G-7
countries themselves. Further debt deferral, if necessary, could add
interest payments to the already existing agreement on deferral of pre-
1991 principal payments.
The details are being worked out with a view to having a complete
agreement by the end of April. Much will depend on Russia reaching
agreement with the IMF on a standby program. Details of a larger debt
deferral would have to be worked out among the creditor countries.
In addition, the G-7 have decided to make available a currency stabilization
fund for Russia. The precise nature and purposes of this fund are being
worked out. We will want to proceed carefully so that the fund is properly
put together and supports sound economic policies; the currency
stabilization fund cannot be a substitute for such policies. But, as in
Poland, a currency stabilization fund could provide crucial backing for
Russia's efforts to make the ruble an effective means of exchange.
The funding for the currency stabilization fund will be financed entirely
from the General Arrangements To Borrow, a borrowing authority the IMF
created in the 1960s to enable it to augment its resources in time of
critical need. We need it now. The US share of the General Arrangements To
Borrow is 25%, so we, in effect, would provide $1.5 billion of the $6-billion
currency stabilization fund. But there would be no net budget outlay
required.
In principle, we would be prepared to support creation of a fund or funds for
other former Soviet republics, depending on reform plans and needs. But,
frankly, none of the other republics has gotten as far as Russia in developing
a comprehensive economic reform program in conjunction with the IMF. And
many of them probably will be included in a ruble zone rather than have
separate currencies. However, should a clear need arise, we will be
prepared to find ways to address their needs, too.
Progress on microeconomic and structural issues is no less essential than
macroeconomic stabilization. Stabilization policies create the climate for
markets, but Russia and other republics also need vigorous policies to
promote competition, genuine property and contract rights, de-
monopolization and privatization, and sectoral reform. Our technical
assistance will be targeted in part in these areas. We look also to the World
Bank to play a key role in this.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, let me conclude by saying this: As
the President has made clear, we stand at a defining moment for America
and for the world. With the end of the Cold War, history has granted us a
unique opportunity. The task is daunting and success cannot be guaranteed.
But the choices we make now will have consequences for decades to come,
and, therefore, I am convinced that we must seize this present opportunity
to work toward a democratic peace and a better future.
It is true that Americans are a prudent, pragmatic people with little taste
for foreign adventures. But we are also a courageous people. In these
revolutionary times, we must draw on that courage. We must dare.
We have shown that courage before. And we have dared before. During the
long, dark years of the Cold War, we dared to believe that the nightmare of
communism would pass. We dared to believe that we could create a better
world--a world no longer divided into armed camps, a world freed from the
bonds of oppression. We're well on our way to that world. It is time to dare
again and complete our work.
We must dare to believe that America is great enough--that America is good
enough--to lead the way into a more peaceful, free, and prosperous world.
We must dare to believe that we can prosper at home even as we thrive
abroad.
We must dare to believe that our businesses can compete, that our children
can sleep without fear of war, that our values can flourish in a new century.
We must dare to believe that as we help create a new world abroad, we can
build a new America here at home and that we can--and must--do both
together. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 15, April 13, 1992
Title: US Recognition of Former Yugoslav
Republics
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Statement released by the White House Office of the
Press Secretary, Washington, DC
Date: Apr, 7 19924/7/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: E/C Europe
Country: Yugoslavia (former), Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia,
Slovenia
Subject: Democratization, State Department, EC
[TEXT]
The United States recognizes Bosnia-Hercegovina, Croatia, and Slovenia as
sovereign and independent states and will begin immediately consultations
to establish full diplomatic relations. The United States accepts the pre-
crisis republic borders as the legitimate international borders of Bosnia-
Hercegovina, Croatia, and Slovenia.
We take this step because we are satisfied that these states meet the
requisite criteria for recognition. We acknowledge the peaceful and
democratic expression of the will of citizens of these states for
sovereignty.
We will continue to work intensively with the European Community [EC] and
its member states to resolve expeditiously the outstanding issues between
Greece and the republic of Macedonia, thus enabling the United States to
recognize formally the independence of that republic as well. The United
States will also discuss with the governments of Serbia and Montenegro
their interest in remaining in a common state known as Yugoslavia.
In light of our decisions on recognition, the United States will lift economic
sanctions from Bosnia-Hercegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, and Slovenia.
Sanctions were applied to Yugoslavia on December 6, 1991. We will lift
sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro contingent on Belgrade's lifting the
economic blockades directed against Bosnia-Hercegovina and Macedonia.
The UN arms embargo remains in effect.
It has been US policy throughout the Yugoslav crisis to accept any resolution
arrived at peacefully, democratically, and by negotiation. The United States
strongly supports the UN peace-keeping plan as worked out by Cyrus Vance
and the full deployment of the UN peace-keeping force. We continue to
support the EC peace conference as the indispensable forum for the parties
to reach a peaceful settlement of their dispute and to establish the basis
for future relations. US recognition is without prejudice to any future
association Yugoslav successor states might agree to establish.
The United States views the demonstrated commitment of the emerging
states to respect borders and to protect all Yugoslav nationalities as an
essential element in establishing full diplomatic relations. Equally, we
view such a commitment by Serbia and Montenegro as essential to proceed
in discussions on their future status.
The deployment of the UN peace-keeping force, the continuation of the EC
peace conference, and the process of international recognition offer all of
the former Yugoslav republics a historic opportunity to reject decisively the
tragic violence which has marked this crisis. Continued commitment to
peaceful dialogue should lead toward reconciliation, toward integration
within Europe, and toward cordial and productive relations with the United
States. The United States will continue to work to achieve these goals.
(###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 15, April 13, 1992
Title: The United States and Israel: An Unshakable
Alliance
Quayle
Source: Vice President Quayle
Description: Remarks before the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC), Washington, DC
Date: Apr, 7 19924/7/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Israel, United States
Subject: Democratization, Refugees, State Department
[TEXT]
It is great to be back with my friends at AIPAC. Two years have passed
since I last spoke with you here in Washington. Since then, some new doors
have been opened, and some old wrongs have been righted. Last week, I had
breakfast with Spain's Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez. He told me how
moved he was to have the President of Israel in Spain as a guest of King
Juan Carlos--500 years after Spain expelled the Jews. I remember the wise
words of President [Chaim] Herzog at Beth Yacov Synagogue in Madrid. He
said: "We cannot change the past. But we can learn its lessons and thus
assure a better future for ourselves and humanity."
Some recent events do point to a better future. Justice has finally prevailed
with regard to Soviet and Ethiopian Jewry, and we remain committed to the
human rights of the Jews of Syria and elsewhere, particularly their right to
migrate. Morality and decency have prevailed in a war against aggression in
the Persian Gulf. Hope has prevailed with the beginning of the Middle East
peace talks. And, at long last, reason and truth have prevailed at the United
Nations: The disgraceful resolution equating Zionism with racism is dead
and buried.
The days before Passover should be especially joyous ones this year for the
Jewish people and their friends, not just in America but around the world.
But instead, one detects a feeling of uncertainty, reservation, doubt--even
foreboding. Part of the uncertainty and foreboding is due to disagreements
between the Governments of the United States and Israel on specific
policies. Some of the "experts" are telling us the American-Israeli
relationship has reached a "turning point." From time to time, it's put even
more strongly. I noticed a recent cover story in the Washington Jewish
Week entitled, "US/Israel Relations: Coming Apart at the Seams."
I am here to tell you that is not the case. Israel and the United States need
each other. We benefit from each other. Our alliance is unshakable because
it rests on two firm pillars: strategic interests and common values.
Difficulties aside, Israel and the United States remain friends and allies
today, and we shall be friends and allies forever.
Think for a moment about our strategic relationship. It is in America's
interest to have a strong Israel that works closely with the United States
on behalf of peace and stability in the region.
A strong Israel and a strong America stand together in opposition to the
threat posed by various forms of radicalism in the Middle East. There are
those in that area of the world who pursue policies that are fundamentally
hostile to our most basic values. There are also those who employ or
protect terrorists. Israel is our partner--indeed, a heroic partner--in the
battle against international terrorism and its agents.
All this highlights a basic point: Since the US-Israeli relationship was not
a product of the Cold War, it won't be diminished by the end of the Cold War.
Over the last 3 years, I have begun each working day with an intelligence
briefing at the White House. Every morning I hear what's going on, what's
changing, what needs to be watched. Believe me: The world in still a
dangerous place--in some respects, even more dangerous than it used to be.
Our relationship is absolutely critical in this new world. In fact, because of
the unchanging principles on which it is based, the US-Israeli alliance is one
of the very few permanent strategic alliances we have. Cold War or no Cold
War, Israel remains our closest and most reliable ally in the Middle East.
Nothing will change our commitment to maintaining Israel's qualitative edge
against any likely combination of aggressors.
This is not just rhetoric. Our commitment is real, and it is deep. Some of
you may know that 2 weeks ago, the Administration sent Army Secretary
Mike Stone and Hank Cooper, the Director of the Strategic Defense Initiative,
to Israel for a series of meetings. They were joined by my own military
adviser. They went there to sit down with Israeli officials and plan for
joint efforts to meet the challenges of the coming years. There will be
many such joint efforts. Indeed, US-Israeli military-to-military contacts
and cooperation are now wider in scope than ever before.
That leads me to the second pillar that sustains our alliance: common
values, embodied both in the Judeo-Christian tradition on which our
societies rest and in the democratic values we share. Israel is a vibrant
democracy in a part of the world where democratic institutions have not, as
yet, taken hold. It faces daily challenges of a kind that other democracies,
surrounded by peaceful neighbors, simply don't have to face. Yet, Israel's
democracy holds firm--indeed, it flourishes. No wonder that among the
first steps taken by the fledgling democracies in Eastern Europe was the re-
establishment of formal ties with Israel. She is, indeed, a light to the
nations. And that, my friends is a tribute to the courage and determination
of the people of Israel.
Not long ago, I was disturbed to open the newspaper and read an article that
said it is "very hard for some Americans to feel the sense of shared values
with Israel that they once did." The article went on to report the belief of
some that "(t)he case for Israel has increasingly become the almost
exclusive preserve of American Jews."
I, for one, do not believe either of those statements to be true. To imply
that Americans--Jews and non-Jews alike--no longer share basic values
with a democratic Israel is just plain wrong. And, speaking as a non-Jew,
let me say this: As long as I am in public life, the case for Israel will not
become the "exclusive preserve of American Jews."
It's been said nations do not have "friends" but only "interests." But with
Israel, the United States has both. We are young nations; both of us built on
freedom, and in resistance to oppression and intolerance; both of us founded
by people who had the courage to stand up and speak the truth--against the
odds, and on behalf of faith and hope.
America's founders lived 2 centuries ago; many of Israel's founders are still
with us. And when I think of them and of all the brave pioneers who built
the state of Israel upon the ashes of the Holocaust, I cannot help but recall
one who left us only last month: the late Prime Minister Menachem Begin.
Menachem Begin did many remarkable things in his life. Perhaps his most
acclaimed achievement was as a peace-maker--as the late President
Sadat's partner in making a historic peace between Israel and Egypt. Then,
as now, Israel faced hard choices. Menachem Begin seized the opportunity
and made choices that broke once and for all the ring of rejection around
Israel. The peace process now underway builds on Menachem Begin's vision-
-a vision of "real peace" between Israel and her neighbors.
But during the Gulf war last year, who among us did not think back to
another event associated with Menachem Begin as well--to that day in 1981
when Israel's air force knocked out Iraq's nuclear reactor in Osiraq? We
now know that had Israel not acted in 1981, Saddam Hussein might well
have had the nuclear bomb by the time he invaded Kuwait and attacked
Israel. He did not, thank God, and thanks to Menachem Begin.
It is good that Menachem Begin lived to see the victory against Saddam
Hussein. It is good that he lived to see the historic emigration of Soviet
Jews. And it is right that we acknowledge today the enormous debt the
entire world owes to Israel in general, and to one Israeli leader in
particular: Menachem Begin.
Let me turn now to the current state of US-Israeli relations. As I need
hardly tell this audience, differences over settlements, over the meaning of
UN Security Council Resolution 242, and over loan guarantees have strained
the relationship. But let's keep our disagreements in perspective. Let's
remember that were it not for the statesmanship of Ronald Reagan and
George Bush:
-- The great Soviet emigration would not have occurred;
-- The rescue of Ethiopian Jewry would not have happened;
-- Zionism-is-racism would still stand;
-- Direct peace talks, on terms that Israel has rightly sought for 43 years,
would not be a reality; and
-- Iraq might be threatening Israel's very survival today.
When you take all these things into account, I think you'll agree: Ronald
Reagan's presidency and George Bush's presidency have been good for Israel.
I am here as George Bush's Vice President to underscore his commitment to
Israel. The bumps in the road trouble him and all of us deeply, but they do
not change or threaten the basic principles behind our relationship. I think
the President stated it best 2 weeks ago in a letter to a friend: "Our
fundamental commitment to Israel is just that--fundamental. Please know
this, for it comes from the heart as well as the head."
To the President's observation, I would like to add one of my own. I come
from the town of Huntington, Indiana--a small, decent, quiet American
town, where life was safe and secure. That was my world. As with many
Americans, it was only as I grew up that I learned some ugly realities--like
the Gulag, like Auschwitz and Treblinka. Later, in public life, I would meet
people like the refusenik Vladmir Raiz, Elie Wiesel, Natan Shcharansky, and,
of course, Menachem Begin--a man who would tell you how his father "went
to his death at Nazi hands voicing his faith to God and singing 'Hatikvah.'"
I learned that the safety and security I took for granted as a boy were not
part of the inevitable order of things. You have to work at it; you have to
fight for it; and sometimes you have to sacrifice for it. I am committed to
working for human rights, for the security of Israel, and against anti-
Semitism. That is a commitment I know I share with all of you. And
together we know this: America and Israel have proven to the entire world
our commitment to work--and, when necessary, to fight and to sacrifice--
for what we believe.
Let me conclude with this thought. As Americans, you have every right to
voice your support for the state of Israel. You have every right to remind
your fellow Americans of the value of the American-Israeli relationship.
After all, like freedom of religion, access to the political process is not a
privilege. It is a right. Indeed, it is one we have a duty to exercise. And
in
doing so, my friends, you are performing a valuable service.
We must defend the right of all Americans to advocate their views and
speak out for the causes they support. One of those causes--one of my
causes--is the security and well-being of the people of Israel. We who live
in this blessed land, at this historic hour, owe it to our children, and to our
children's children, to preserve and strengthen the friendship of these great
and noble democracies--the United States of America and Israel--now and
forever. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 15, April 13, 1992
Title: The North American FTA: The New World Order
Takes Shape in the Western Hemisphere
Zoellick
Source: Robert B. Zoellick, Under Secretary for Economic
and Agricultural Affairs and Counselor of the Department of
State
Description: Address before the Columbia Institute's conference on
"NAFTA: Impacts of a Borderless Economy on North American
Regional Competitiveness," Tucson, Arizona
Date: Apr, 3 19924/3/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: North America, Central America
Country: United States, Mexico, Canada
Subject: North America Free Trade, Trade/Economics
[TEXT]
What do Switzerland, the Cold War, and NAFTA have in common?
This is not a riddle, but a serious question.
According to the story, President Salinas was attending a meeting of the
World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in early 1990 when he came to
a realization about the end of the Cold War. President Salinas reportedly
observed that the post-Cold War world would pose new economic challenges
for Mexico and North America. On the one hand, many developed nations,
especially those of Western Europe, would probably be preoccupied with the
demands for investment, trade, and development of the world that was
frozen behind the Iron Curtain for over 4 decades. On the other hand,
developing countries would have to compete even more vigorously than
before for capital, to create jobs, and to expand trade.
So, the story goes, NAFTA was born.
I start with this perspective because it is important to recognize that we
are in fact creating a post-Cold War order, and NAFTA is part of it. Indeed, I
believe that NAFTA could be a practical expression of the way that the
United States can address a number of the changing challenges of a new era.
Of course, this is still a period of transition. This new era is so fresh that
we still don't even have a proper name for it, other than to refer to these
times as after what came before: a post-Cold War era. Yet to me, this flux
represents dynamism, and dynamism means opportunity for those who are
ready to leave old assumptions behind and be guided by a vision of the
future. One feature of the United States' foreign policy strategy in this
post-Cold War world is that our economic policy must become an
increasingly critical component of our planning and action. The United
States must be economically strong at home and abroad. One or the other
won't do.
That is why NAFTA is so important. It is a rare strategic opportunity to
secure, strengthen, and develop our continental base, economically and
politically, in a way that will promote America's foreign policy agenda, our
economic strength and leadership, and US global influence.
The United States is the only nation in the world today that ranks at the top
of the scales of political, military, and economic power. Over the course of
the past few years--in Europe, the Gulf, and elsewhere--we have once again
demonstrated our political and military leadership. But it is also vital that
we remain in the forefront of international economic policy.
We've taken important steps in this direction. The US is the largest
exporter in the world. Nearly one-third of our growth in GDP from 1986 to
1991 is due to our increased exports. The US worker is the most productive
in the world, 31% above Japan, 26% above the western states of Germany.
During the 1980s, the productivity of our manufacturing workers grew an
average of 3.6% per year.
Taken together, exports and productivity produce jobs: Our growth in
merchandise exports accounted for about 25% of the total growth in private
industry jobs between 1986 and 1990.
But no one ever got ahead just by touting accomplishments.
We need to develop political and economic structures that enable us to grow
stronger, and in doing so, to expand prosperity and opportunity for others
around the globe.
The NAFTA would be a key component of a network of global, regional, and
bilateral arrangements that promote American interests. It can strengthen
the capabilities of North America, enhancing our ability to compete globally.
Attention to the challenges of regional integration is definitely not the
same as the promotion of regional blocs. The signal the United States wants
to send the world is that we're committed to opening markets and that we
will extend a hand to others who share that commitment. NAFTA is a
commitment by the United States, Mexico, and Canada to be outward-
looking, promoting liberalization of trade and capital flows in our
hemisphere as a step toward promoting them globally.
In particular, we want to support the efforts of Mexico, and then the rest of
Latin America, to leave behind the illogic of economic autarky. The new
leaders building competitive market economies in Latin America want to do
business with Asia and Europe as well as North America. It is in our
interest to support their transition to the global marketplace.
Indeed, this generation of political and business leaders has the opportunity
to fulfill a lost promise of America's revolutionary generation. Our
revolution won more than our independence; it was viewed at the time as a
practical experiment emanating from the Age of Reason, the Spirit of the
Enlightenment. That's why in 1782 the new Congress of the United States
selected the motto "Novus Ordo Seclorum," New Order of Ages, for the Great
Seal of the new nation.
Our experiment inspired others, inspired the causes of Bolivar and San
Martin. While the revolutions against Spanish colonial authority in Latin
America were victorious on the field of battle, their hopes were not
fulfilled. Indeed, a traveler to Washington, DC, today can see the special
place accorded statues of Latin American liberators--not European, not
Asian--among the Capital's memorials to our American heroes; mute
statements of a dream not yet realized.
For 2 centuries, the United States' hemispheric relations, starting at our
Latin border with Mexico, were marked by disappointments and conflicts on
both sides.
But the original vision still survived, preserved by leaders with imagination
on both sides of the border, people who understood the importance of US-
Mexican relations.
In the 1860s, during the Civil War that almost destroyed our American
experiment, President Lincoln still took time to support President Juarez in
his struggle against French efforts to install a European Emperor in Mexico.
In 1933, shortly after assuming office, FDR rose above preoccupation with a
deep depression at home to chart a new course with Mexico and the rest of
Latin America. FDR called it the "Good Neighbor Policy." And he dismissed
the special interests who argued that Latin America was "different" and not
ready for such a special relationship.
Almost 30 years later, in 1961, another new President, John F. Kennedy,
called for an Alliance for Progress with Latin America. He asked us to reach
out to our hemispheric neighbors, to rise above those who lament about
what we cannot do, saying the Latins are poor--or "different."
Now, after another 30 years, we have the opportunity to sustain and
invigorate that vision. After 200 years, history is coming full circle. This
generation, on both sides of the border, has the opportunity to integrate
North America in a way that will build the foundation for stronger cohesion,
growth, and cooperation.
The people of the United States may take for granted our geopolitical good
fortune. Unlike most of the rest of the world, our land borders, extending
about 7,500 miles, are marked by the absence of military threat. But the
challenges of the 21st Century will be of economics, environment,
narcotics, and migration, as well as military. The security of our citizens
will encompass this broader set of challenges. So we need to complete the
North American reconciliation in a way that strengthens our ability to
handle these challenges cooperatively. The North American Free Trade
Agreement can be the cornerstone of this structure.
NAFTA will give important economic and political impetus for our current
efforts to address the range of pressing North American problems. By
dismantling the economic barriers among the United States, Mexico, and
Canada that create inefficiencies and higher costs, NAFTA will generate
economic growth, enhancing our ability to take on new challenges, economic
and otherwise.
A failure to complete and approve NAFTA, on the other hand, would be seen
as a rebuff of the Mexican political leaders and people who have sought to
reorient their country as part of North America. The United States would be
trying to isolate itself from its neighbors, something it cannot, in fact, do.
We would do irreparable harm to our ability to work together, with mutual
respect, on the numerous issues--migration, narcotics, environment, and
others--that do not recognize borders. We would repeat mistakes of the
past. We would fail to answer the call for leadership.
NAFTA will send strong encouraging signals throughout all of Latin America.
A new cadre of leaders throughout the hemisphere is struggling to
transform our region into one pledged to democracy, market economics, and
growth. These men and women are taking a totally new attitude towards the
United States. They reject the excuses of "dependency theory." But the
process of progress is still fragile; tremendous barriers must still be
overcome.
The governments of Latin America and, even more important, the people of
Latin America, are trusting that the people of the United States will
continue to stand for the ideals that we have espoused for so long. They
know that they must perform the tasks of reform--but they also know that
their prospects for success depend on the willingness of the United States
to preserve and promote international systems based on the free flow of
capital, trade, and ideas.
If there is to be a New World Order that unites security and economic
policies, certainly these must be our objectives.
But Latins are troubled by the new echoes of the old nay-sayers in the
United States who grumble that Latin America is in some way "different," or
even a threat.
The United States cannot promote the same vision that Lincoln and FDR and
JFK acted on, if we follow the voices that have abandoned America's faith in
bettering itself--and others.
Now I understand that Americans are practical people as well as idealists.
Any New World Order for the United States must also be based on common
sense. That's good news for NAFTA, because the nuts and bolts of this
agreement can fit together very well.
The North America Free Trade Agreement will create the largest market in
the world: 360 million consumers with a total output of $6 trillion.
The agreement will eliminate economic barriers and inefficiencies with our
first and third largest trading partners. In 1991, our three-way trade
amounted to $243 billion.
NAFTA will increase sales opportunities for US firms, improve their
operating efficiency, increase real income for workers in the United States,
create jobs, and spur growth in all three nations. Our neighbors' growth
multiplies benefits for the United States. For each dollar of growth in
Mexico, about 15 cents is spent on US goods. As Mexico grows more, it will
import more. Seventy cents of each Mexican import dollar is spent on goods
from the United States.
This is an important point: Trade is not a "you win, I lose" proposition. By
generating growth, trade multiplies the purchasing power of our trading
partners.
Of course, Mexico's economy is relatively small compared to that of the
United States. Its GDP, approximately $280 billion, is about the same as
that of Illinois. Because Mexico's economy is only about one-twentieth the
size of the US economy and its exports only amount to about 6% of US
imports, scare stories of mass dislocations from reducing barriers simply
are not credible.
Moreover, the factual record since 1986, when Mexico began a major opening
of its economy, tells a very encouraging story. US exports to Mexico have
increased from $12.4 bil-lion to $33.3 billion in 1991, making Mexico our
third largest export market. This growth of 169% is almost twice the rate
of overall US export growth in this period. By way of example, our exports
to Western Europe increased 93%, a hefty amount but still significantly
less.
US manufacturing exports to Mexico increased from $10.4 to $26.7 billion
during this period, almost twice the rate of our overall growth in
manufacturing exports. Agricultural exports jumped from $1.1 to $2.8 bil-
lion, making Mexico our third largest customer in 1991. Consumer goods
exports tripled from $1 to $3 billion in 1990.
Exports of telecommunications equipment doubled. Exports of autos and
auto parts more than doubled. In fact, two highly sensitive sectors--steel
and textiles--were in surplus with Mexico in both 1990 and 1991.
If you forget all the rest of these numbers, just remember this fact: We
have swung from a bilateral trade deficit with Mexico in 1986 of $4.9
billion to a surplus of $2.1 billion in 1991. If one excludes our petroleum
imports, the surplus shoots up to $6.6 billion.
The United States has even more to gain because our economy is already
relatively open. Right now Mexico has relatively good access to our market;
NAFTA will help us secure reciprocal access to Mexico's. To take just one
example, our already sizable agricultural exports to Mexico are still less
than they could be because restrictive Mexican import licenses still apply to
about 30% of the value of the US agricultural exports.
I also think it is a serious miscalculation to assume that the alternative to
NAFTA is Mexican barriers as they exist today. Those lower barriers and the
growth that is stimulating more Mexican purchases of US goods are a recent
phenomenon, reflecting a shift by Presidents de la Madrid and Salinas away
from the historical Mexican reliance on protectionism and economic autarky.
At the end of 1985, Mexican tariffs ranged up to 100%, the average tariff
was about 30%, and licenses for imports protected 47% of domestic output
(down from 92% earlier in the year); today, Mexico's maximum tariff is 20%,
its average trade-weighted tariff is about 10%, and many more licensing
restrictions have been removed.
If the United States sends a signal to the Mexican people that we intend to
reject this historic opening, I could easily see a return to the old ways.
Politics and economics are dynamic, not static, systems. There are
political forces in Mexico, as in the United States, that are afraid of
competition. In Mexico, these forces usually are strongly associated with
antipathy toward the United States. A failure to complete NAFTA would fuel
their animosity for decades and give these negative protectionists the upper
hand. That's why NAFTA is an excellent example of the serious choices we
have to make as we define this New World Order.
I understand that some people will snipe that all these statistics may sound
good for American business, but what about the American worker. Speaking
frankly, that sort of logic will trip up the United States as we cross the
threshold into the 21st Century. It certainly will leave America ill-
prepared to play a strong leadership role in the post-Cold War world.
Because the fact is that successful American businesses are going to help
create US jobs.
The Commerce Department estimates that our current trade with Canada and
Mexico supports jobs for well over 2 million US workers, about 538,000 of
whom are linked to our exports to Mexico. That's just the start of what we
can do.
As a rough rule of thumb, every extra billion dollars of US merchandise
exports creates about 20,000 new jobs; so consider the benefits we've
already achieved because trade liberalization and faster growth in Mexico
has produced a swing of our trade balance of over $7 billion. Various
studies suggest that NAFTA will create between 64,000 and 150,000 new
US jobs. My personal view is that these estimates are on the low side,
because most are based on so-called "equilibrium," or "static," models that,
in effect, measure the impact of reduced barriers in an economy at rest.
They do not generally capture the dynamic effects of higher growth, which I
suspect will be the real generator of jobs.
The claims about overall job loss just don't stand up to scrutiny. Jobs don't
flee to places just because wages are lower. If they did, I imagine that
Puerto Rico, which enjoys duty free entry into the US as well as tax
incentives, would be the manufacturing center of the hemisphere.
In fact, firms' decisions on locations of investments and their ability to pay
higher wages depend significantly on the productivity of the labor force.
Productivity, in turn, depends on the education, skills, capital, technology,
management, and overall infrastructure (including financial,
communications, and transportation systems) that can be brought to bear.
Moreover, the US market is already relatively open to Mexico. Our trade-
weighted tariff for Mexican goods is only about 3-4%, with 45% of Mexico's
goods coming in duty free; so we can use NAFTA to slash Mexico's higher
barriers and lock in new market openings. It's also useful to observe that
past dire warnings about job losses from reducing US barriers turned out
flat wrong: For example, after the Caribbean Basin Initiative opened our
markets, we turned a $200 million deficit with those nations in 1986 into a
$2.1 billion surplus in 1991.
Consider the real competition. Japanese firms have grown stronger by
sourcing components in Asia. EC firms are doing the same with inputs from
southern Europe. Integrated operations that produce or assemble parts in
Mexico can help make our higher wage workers more competitively globally.
We even could expect a bonus because Mexican workers will buy more from
us, too.
Nevertheless, the reduction of remaining US barriers to competition will
require adjustment by some US firms and individual workers. But it is
important not to overstate the scope of these changes. Since Mexico's
economy is about 5% the size of ours, it is not likely to overwhelm us. In
addition, I would expect that NAFTA will incorporate long transition
periods. It will also probably include safeguards that ease the transition if
the import flows become too disruptive. To place this adjustment in
context, recall that about 10% of the US labor force changes jobs annually
(87% of them voluntarily). Finally, these changes are necessary if the US is
to remain a dynamic economy that is always striving to produce goods and
services in which we have a comparative advantage.
Job changes can also be expedited and eased through the financial
assistance of programs such as the Economic Dislocation and Worker
Adjustment Assistance Act, or EDWAA. EDWAA is a flexible, comprehensive
program that Congress created in 1988 with broad bipartisan and
Administration support. Funded at $540 million in 1992, EDWAA will have
served approximately 750,000-800,000 workers in its first 3 years,
achieving a placement rate of about 66%.
President Bush recently reaffirmed the importance of these programs as
part of an overall strategy to make America stronger. On March 20th, the
President said, "We must prepare our work force to compete, through better
education, better training." His set of education reforms, called America
2000, and our new approach to job training, Job Training 2000, are natural
complements to the NAFTA.
The United States didn't get where it is today by shrinking from challenges.
With good education, good training, and a fair opportunity to sell our goods
abroad to countries whose growing economies draw more US goods, we can
help the American worker and American business lead the way in the New
World Order.
In addition to benefiting the United States, Mexico, and Canada
economically, NAFTA is likely to lead to a pattern of cooperation that will
be important for other challenges we face after the Cold War. The publics in
all our countries have expressed an increasing interest in the so-called
transnational problems: These are issues that cross national borders, but
which tend to be generated by the actions of private individuals and groups,
not governments. Topics like narcotics, the environment, migration, and
health are examples of trans-national problems.
The traditional foreign policy machinery is only beginning to figure out how
to cope with such issues; we need to integrate them more effectively within
our statecraft. I strongly believe that a new and strengthened North
American relationship, founded on NAFTA and economic integration, could be
extended to address a series of such transnational problems that
neighboring states will have to face together in the 21st Century.
Just take one example--the environment.
The United States and Mexico know that sustainable economic development
and environmental safeguards need to be mutually supportive.
Indeed, the Salinas Administration has made significant strides in recent
years to orient environmental policies, as well as economic policies,
towards the standards set by the United States and other developed nations.
President Salinas has made clear that Mexico is taking these steps because
it recognizes they are in its own interest, not because we and other
developed nations require them as an "entry ticket" to the club of developed
nations. Without underestimating the tasks it faces, Mexico could become a
model for nations that believe economic growth and protection of the
environment are complements, not alternatives.
Of course there is a relationship between economic prosperity and the
ability to devote resources to environmental protection. Mexico has about
one-third the population of the United States with only one-twentieth of our
economic resources.
Our task, then, is to build on the program of environmental cooperation that
we have already begun with Mexico, and to negotiate a trade agreement that
will help Mexico grow so it will have new resources to fulfill its
environmental goals.
Mexico took a major step towards environmental protection in 1988 through
enactment of its General Law for Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental
Protection. Much of this statute is based on US law and experience. It
covers air, water, and soil pollution; contamination by hazardous materials
and waste; pesticides and toxic substances; the conservation of ecosystems;
ecology reserves; and the rational use of natural resources.
A central element of the 1988 law is the requirement of environmental
impact assessments for all new investment projects in both the public and
private sectors. The law also establishes administrative sanctions and
criminal penalties for non-compliance.
The Salinas Administration recognizes that laws on the books will not be
effective unless they're backed by proper enforcement. So the Mexican
government is acting to remedy its past problem of inadequate enforcement.
It sent a strong signal over the past 2 years by temporarily closing some
1,000 industrial enterprises for non-compliance. The budget of SEDUE,
Mexico's environmental agency, increased almost eightfold between 1989
and 1991; a large part of this increase will go to develop regulations and
enhance enforcement. SEDUE recently announced a commitment of 50 new
environmental inspector positions for Mexico City and a total of 200 for the
US-Mexican border.
Mexico is also turning to international sources to expand its environmental
resources. The World Bank has extended loans worth $345 million to
support projects in forestry development, water supply, and sanitation, and
it is currently considering lending to support projects worth $226 million in
environmental and resource management and air pollution. In addition, the
Inter-American Development Bank is currently working on loans for water
projects in Guadalajara, ecology conservation in Mexico City, and forestry.
The United States and Mexico already cooperate extensively in a number of
environmental areas. Not surprisingly, these joint efforts have intensified
along with our economic integration.
Let me refer to just a few examples. The United States is providing
technical support for Mexico's efforts to reduce Mexico City's air pollution.
In the areas of wildlife and parks, we have around 100 joint projects,
ranging from conservation and management of migratory bird habitats, to
protecting endangered species such as the jaguar, to research on tropical
birds. Mexico's extensive domestic wildlife conservation programs include
the establishment of 44 national parks, 8 reserves, and 14 biosphere
reserves. Mexico has joined CITES, the International Convention for the
Protection of Endangered Species. The US Forest Service and the Agency for
International Development have developed a cooperative program with the
Mexican government for the sustainable management of tropical forests.
Joint projects include, for example, cooperative research on insects and
pest control, protecting migratory bird habitats, and remote sensing
inventories of Mexico's forests.
In the area of marine resources, we're working together to place stringent
restrictions on waste generated from ships in the Gulf of Mexico, to protect
endangered sea turtles, and, most recently, Mexico proposed a number of far
reaching moves to protect dolphins.
To help include business in our efforts, we established a joint business
committee to provide advice and training in compliance with environmental
laws and regulations for businesses in Mexico. In November 1991, we set up
a Technical Information Clearinghouse in Mexico City that offers businesses
access to information on advanced environmental technologies to meet
standards more effectively.
I know that the border environment is particularly important for many of
you. Our initial efforts built on programs of the 100-year-old International
Boundary and Water Commission. In 1983, Mexico and the United States
established a new framework for cooperation on border and environmental
pollution, supplementing the IBWC by tackling a broader range of pollution
problems.
Then this year, the two Presidents announced a much more comprehensive
and in-depth plan for addressing environmental concerns in the border
region. This border plan focuses on problems in the areas of air pollution,
water pollution, hazardous waste, chemical emergencies, enforcement, and
pollution prevention. Recognizing the need to adjust to changing
circumstances, our border plan includes programs that will be implemented
during the period 1992-94. The plan will then be reviewed every 2 years,
with further initiatives added or expanded as needed.
As part of the development of the border plan, US and Mexican officials held
a series of public hearings in cities along the border. This was the first
time the government of Mexico had ever conducted such public hearings. To
ensure ongoing input from the public, EPA and SEDUE are establishing
advisory committees.
This new border plan is backed by money. The Mexicans have committed
$460 million over 3 years. And the United States proposed $241 million for
next year alone.
Both Mexico and the United States recognize that these moves, substantial
though they might be, are just a start of a much larger effort. Both of us
intend to do more in the future--to address problems and opportunities that
are unconstrained by borders.
I believe all of us want to do more to improve environmental conditions in
Mexico and the United States. I also firmly believe that economic growth is
the essential ingredient in helping us to do so. So I hope you appreciate that
I am deeply disturbed by the statements of some who seem willing to
sacrifice the free trade agreement to make a point.
I would hope people would answer this question honestly: Do you really
believe killing NAFTA would improve Mexico's efforts to clean up the
environment?
The answer must be no.
First, it is a practical fact of life that the Salinas Administration's
innovative efforts to improve the environment are far less likely to win
popular support if the Mexican people are struggling to find jobs or eking out
an elementary existence.
Second, rejection of NAFTA on environmental grounds will lend great
support to those in Mexico who argue that the United States and other
developed nations are only pressing the environmental topic so as to
perpetuate the developing world's dependency.
Third, our joint efforts with Mexico on environment and conservation issues
have been based on a spirit of cooperation, reciprocity, and respect. We
have avoided self-defeating actions that might appear to Mexicans like the
hectoring commands of gringos who have in the past inserted themselves
into Mexican sovereignty and decisionmaking. The Mexican people, who
today want to clean up their own environment because they recognize it is
in their own interest, will resent environmental dictates that they may
perceive as an insult to their own commitment and as a new form of eco-
protectionism.
There is a great deal that the US, Mexico, and Canada can and must
accomplish together. To do it, the parties on each side of the border need to
work together on the same side of the issue.
In conclusion, a successful North American Free Trade Agreement can be
part of a new paradigm for the United States in the post-Cold War era.
This agreement can stand for US leadership in opening markets abroad.
It can stand as a building block in a strategy to produce growth, jobs, higher
incomes, competitiveness, and economic strength for America.
It can stand as a practical commitment by the United States to help support
nations, in Latin America and elsewhere, that are struggling to adopt
outward-looking market economies and democratic political systems.
It can stand as a model of effective integration that will enhance our
cooperation on other mutual challenges--such as the environment,
narcotics, migration, and health.
And at a time when, elsewhere in the world, the fervors of nationalism are
fragmenting countries and regions, NAFTA can stand out and move the world
ahead by showing the benefits of enhanced integration based on mutual
respect and working from shared principles.
That is my vision of a New World Order for the post-Cold War world. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 15, April 13, 1992
Title: Democracy in Latin America
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Statement by Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler,
Washington, DC
Date: Apr, 8 19924/8/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Central America, South America
Country: El Salvador, Nicaragua, Peru, Venezuela
Subject: Mideast Peace Process, Development/Relief Aid,
Trade/Economics
[TEXT]
When this Administration took office, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, and
Chile were dictatorships. All have successfully moved toward democracy.
The war in El Salvador has been ended through negotiations, as has the war
in Nicaragua.
For the first time in a decade, Latin America, as a whole, is growing
economically. Net capital flows to the region are positive. Under the Brady
plan and the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, commercial or bilateral
debt has been reduced or forgiven in Mexico, Venezuela, Uruguay, Costa Rica,
Bolivia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guyana, and Chile. We think the
Administration's record is a very good one.
Having said that, it is also true that democracy remains fragile and
threatened in many parts of the hemisphere. That is why, in our view, it is
very important for the United States to remain engaged in the hemisphere.
Frankly, we are disappointed that Congress has been unable to be more
supportive. We asked for $246 million in authority to forgive over $1 billion
in debt in the hemisphere in the continuing resolution that just passed.
Unfortunately, not a penny was provided.
The President remains committed to a North American Free Trade
Agreement; negotiations continue. But, again, unfortunately, some in
Congress do not support this effort.
As for levels of aid, we would obviously like to do more in many parts of the
world, including Latin America. Nevertheless, despite budget limits, we
had allocated, as I stated yesterday, $275 million in aid for Peru for Fiscal
Year 1992. The United States is feeding one out of every seven Peruvians
today.
We proposed, and the Congress passed, the Andean Trade Preference
Initiative which would provide duty-free access for 15% of Peru's products.
We still are optimistic about democracy in this hemisphere, but recent
events in Peru, as well as those in Haiti and Venezuela, demonstrate that
democracy remains embattled.
We must remain engaged, and we must work through the Organization of
American States and other means to defend democracy when it is
threatened. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 15, April 13, 1992
Title: Geneva Meeting On Liberia
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Statement by Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler,
Washington, DC
Date: Apr, 8 19924/8/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Subsaharan Africa
Country: Liberia
Subject: Democratization
[TEXT]
The United States commends the ECOWAS (Economic Community of West
African States) Committee of Five for its firm and clear reaffirmation of
the Yamoussoukro IV Accords on Liberia, which was formulated during
informal consultations April 6-7 in Geneva. The final communique calls for
effective implementation without any further delay of the primary
objectives of Yamoussoukro IV, including encampment, disarmament, and the
conduct of democratic elections. The parties also clarified arrangements
for the planned buffer zone along the border with Sierra Leone and directed
that it be established without further delay.
The United States fully supports the ECOWAS directive. We expect all
Liberian parties to honor it scrupulously and to respect fully the sense of
urgency ECOWAS has attached to implementation. We call on all armed
factions to disarm and encamp and give ECOWAS their utmost cooperation.
The United States will condemn any action which interferes with peaceful
establishment of the buffer zone as an urgent priority.
ECOWAS has once more demonstrated its resolve to bring about a peaceful
solution in Liberia. It is time for the Liberian people to get on with the
process of healing, reconciliation, and reunification. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 15, April 13, 1992
Title: One Year After the Gulf War: Prospects for
Peace
Haass
Source: Richard N. Haass, Special Assistant to the
President and Senior Director for Near East and South Asian
Affairs of the National Security Council
Description: Address before the Faculty Club, University of Miami,
Coral Gables, Florida
Date: Apr, 2 19924/2/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, Kuwait
Subject: Mideast Peace Process, United Nations,
Military Affairs, Democratization
[TEXT]
My subject tonight concerns the Gulf--I suppose in Florida one needs to
make clear which Gulf one is talking about--and the Middle East. I want to
talk about what we accomplished by the Gulf War and the President's Middle
East peace initiative and also about what remains to be done.
It was just over a year ago that the guns fell silent. But in just 6 weeks of
war, the United States and its coalition partners had accomplished a great
deal. Saddam Hussein and the world's fourth largest military were forced
out of Kuwait. Kuwait's sovereignty and independence were restored.
By defeating Iraq, we ensured that oil, which remains the key to the
economic performance of the industrialized world, would continue to flow
in adequate quantities at reasonable prices that would not be manipulated
for political purposes. It is important to remember that Iraq has 10% of
the world's oil reserves. With Kuwait, it had 20%. Even without invading
Saudi Arabia, Iraq would have been able to control a majority of the world's
oil reserves. Just remember that the next time someone argues that foreign
policy doesn't affect the quality of life here at home.
As a direct result of the war, we dramatically reduced the military strength
of Iraq and its ability to project power, whether through conventional or
unconventional means. Chemical and biological capabilities certainly did
exist. We have learned just how close Iraq was to obtaining a functioning
nuclear weapon. With ballistic missiles, they clearly had the means to
threaten the entire region. As a result of what we did, our friends in the
Middle East, from the Arab oil producers to Israel, no longer live in the
shadow of a significant Iraqi military threat.
We set the stage for the release of the American hostages. It is hard to
point to any event that explains why the hostages were released this past
year--that is, other than what happened during the crisis in the Gulf. It was
not because diplomats suddenly got a lot more clever or because diplomats
increased their efforts. No, the hostages were freed because of what we
accomplished in the war and the resulting new respect for American power
in places ranging from Tehran to the slums of Beirut.
We also did some good beyond the immediate region. This crisis came about
as the Cold War was coming to an end. There was a sense that by what we
did and how we did it we would be setting precedents for the post-Cold War
era. There was a strong concern that if we allowed this wanton aggression
and brutality to stand, a lot of would-be Saddams would draw the obvious
lesson, and we would soon be living in a world where restraint, collective
security, and the rule of law were no longer to be found. So we acted to
send a message to friend and foe alike.
Similarly, the crisis may have proved a turning point for the United Nations.
For the first time, the institution began to resemble the dreams of its
founders. It proved to be a united nations, and the United Nations did act on
behalf of the common security and legal principle. Since, the United Nations
has continued to show it is much improved, requiring full Iraqi compliance
with its resolutions, repealing the resolution that equated Zionism with
racism, and isolating Libya for its role in the destruction of Pan Am [Flight]
103.
I'm not going to argue that we have solved everything or that challenges
don't remain. Obviously, there are things we did not accomplish. Just as
obviously, significant challenges remain. We still face the challenge of
bringing about full Iraqi compliance with UN Security Council resolutions,
including both those mandating that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and
the means to deliver them be destroyed and those dealing with the safety
and human rights of the Iraqi people. We also have the related challenge of
seeing Iraq's current leadership replaced by one representative of the Iraqi
people, one willing to live in peace with its own people and its neighbors.
We still have the problem of consolidating viable security arrangements in
the region, arrangements that are militarily significant and politically
sustainable for those we seek to help. There is, as well, the growing threat
of proliferation, be it of conventional or nuclear, chemical, and biological
weapons.
There are the familiar but no less deadly menaces of terrorism and
narcotics. Iran's leaders must be persuaded to moderate their behavior at
home and abroad. Lebanon's Government has not yet extended its sovereignty
over all its territory. Virtually all of the countries of the region would
benefit from an increase in popular political participation and a
liberalization of economic policies. We are seeing some signs of both, but
they need to be nurtured and supported.
The agenda is long and difficult. This is in itself nothing new. The Gulf
region has posed major dilemmas for American foreign policy for half a
century. Unlike Europe and Asia, where we have had very strong allies, a
large military presence, and states we had a lot in common with--
culturally, historically, and linguistically--this part of the world is more
difficult for us. It is a place where we have allies who may be economically
strong but who are militarily weak. There are many threats to them. It is a
place where we have very important interests--oil among them--but where
our ability to safeguard these interests never has been what we would want
it to be. There has always been something of a gap between the importance
of this part of the world and our ability to safeguard it. It is a fact of life
that this gap remains. I see no way to close it completely, but like most
problems, it is one that can be worked out with concerted effort. This is no
time for pulling back, no time for isolationism, be it here or anywhere else.
Yet despite all these challenges, the Gulf remains a far better place for
what we did. I am aware that this view is not universally shared. There has
been a wave of revisionism and criticism disparaging what was
accomplished. Some argue that the war could have been avoided had we done
more to prevent Iraq's build-up. But this ignores the context. Although we
never sold arms to Iraq, we had worked with Iraq to prevent Iran's victory in
their 8-year war; had we not, the Persian Gulf today could well be Persian
in more than name. In that war's aftermath, we sought to forge a working
relationship with Iraq, then the region's most powerful state. This proved
impossible, owing to Saddam's ambitions. But the fact that we tried made
it that much easier to forge the successful coalition against Saddam.
Moreover, it was impossible to build such a coalition against Saddam prior
to his invasion of Iraq; it took a graphic demonstration of brutality and
aggression to convince his Arab neighbors as well as our allies in Europe to
stand up to him.
Still others argue that we stopped the war too soon and that we should have
gone on into Baghdad to force Saddam out of power. Yet this view, too, is
flawed. Our mandate--as voted by the UN Security Council and supported by
the Congress--was to seek Kuwait's liberation, not remake Iraq. Our
coalition would not have survived the more ambitious undertaking.
Moreover, getting into Baghdad likely would have proved easier than leaving
it. There is no guarantee we would have located Saddam quickly, and there
is even less assurance we could have extricated ourselves from Iraq
confident that what we had left behind was stable.
The bottom line is that the revisionists need to revise their thinking. No,
we did not transform the region. We did not end history. We did not solve
all the problems of this part of the world. But you have to set standards
that are realistic. And by realistic standards, the Gulf region, and the
broader Middle East, is a much better place compared to 2 years ago. It is an
infinitely better place than would have been the case had we not reversed
Saddam's brutal aggression.
One reason I feel as comfortable as I do in asserting this point is one other
dividend of the war: peace. Call it ironic, but the fact is that it was the
successful conclusion of two wars--the Cold War and the Gulf war--that
created new opportunities for peace in the Middle East. Our leadership
helped to create a political environment in which there was a lot more
confidence in the United States. Radical forces in the Middle East--both
Iraq and those who sided with Iraq--that historically had looked to the
Soviet Union were dealt a severe setback. Those countries who historically
had worked with the United States and made peace, namely Egypt and Israel,
emerged from the conflict substantially better off.
At the same time, this most recent war was something of a warning. People
realized what another war in the Middle East might mean that population
centers could become battlefields, that civilians could become combatants,
that the horror of weapons of mass destruction could be unleashed. The
peoples of a region that had known war in 1948, in 1956, in 1967, and in
1973, as well as in Lebanon, between Iran and Iraq, and now with Iraq were
at long last realizing that, in the modern age war, was increasingly
becoming a loser's game.
The current phase of US policy toward the Middle East goes back more than a
year to March 6, 1991. Speaking before a joint session of the Congress,
President Bush outlined the key principles of the emerging US approach.
Pointing out that, in the modern age, geography cannot guarantee security
and that security cannot come from military might alone, the President
announced that the United States would work for a comprehensive peace
grounded in UN Resolutions 242 and 338 and the principle of territory for
peace. He went on to say that this principle must be elaborated to provide
for Israel's security and recognition and at the same time for legitimate
Palestinian political rights. Security and fairness became the watchwords
of what would follow.
Less than 8 months later, and thanks in large part to the eight missions
undertaken by Secretary Baker, the parties central to the Arab-Israeli
conflict were gathered for the first time around the same table to talk
peace. We had brokered approaches to the questions of the participation of
both Palestinians and the United Nations that all parties could accept.
Similarly, we had gained agreement on just what the conference could and
could not do. More than 4 decades after Israel's birth, more than a decade
after Camp David and the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, real negotiations
between Israel and her Arab neighbors--all her Arab neighbors--became a
reality, as did the promise of a comprehensive peace.
In the 5 months since Madrid, we have seen four rounds of bilateral
negotiations--between Israel and Syria, Israel and Lebanon, and Israel and a
joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation. Again, there have been frustrations.
But again, there is progress to point to. Israelis and Palestinians have both
tabled their ideas about how to structure interim or transitional
arrangements that would govern the situation in the occupied territories
until final status terms were agreed upon and implemented. Syria and Israel
have had exhaustive, substantive talks on UN Security Council Resolution
242 and its requirements. Lebanon and Israel have established that their
main problem is not borders, which are commonly accepted, but how to
ensure security and peace to both southern Lebanon and northern Israel.
Meanwhile, Jordanians and Israelis are exploring practical ways to address
the relatively limited issues on which they disagree.
We have also begun a set of talks involving a much broader membership,
including many of the countries of the region and beyond. The intent here is
to address those regional issues--water, environment, economic
development, refugees, arms control, and security--that can only be
addressed on a regional or multilateral basis. These are the problems--and
the opportunities--that affect peoples. In Moscow, 36 countries met to
organize these talks. Follow-on working groups are slated to meet later
this spring. The goal is to make this part of the world a region in more than
the narrow geographical sense.
In short, over the last few months we have come a long way. We finally have
a Middle East peace process that provides a mechanism by which the basic
political questions key to the region's stability can be addressed. We are
moving past procedure and getting into substance. While no one should
underestimate all the differences--they are clearly great--or all the
pitfalls, what has been accomplished is considerable. For the first time, we
have a comprehensive process where ideas can be constructively addressed.
The participation of the United States remains central to the process. Yet
we have been careful not to make it too central. We are described as an
"honest broker" or "catalyst" for peace, but there are also limits to what we
can and should do. We cannot and will not deliver any party. We can propose
but not impose our preferences. In the end, we are not of or in the Middle
East. It is for those who are to negotiate their own future and to learn to
talk and ultimately live with one another.
Where will this process take us? It is always risky if not downright foolish
to predict. Let me put it this way. In my last incarnation, I was a professor
and wrote a good deal about negotiations and why some succeed and others
do not. I came to the conclusion that a conflict would be ripe for resolution
when four factors came into being.
First, leaders of the key parties had to be committed to finding a realistic
compromise.
Second, these leaders had to be strong enough to bring their people and
governments along.
Third, it was necessary to have the outlines of a compromise on the table.
Fourth, it was necessary to have a table where all the key players would be
prepared to sit.
As things now stand in the Middle East, it is not clear that all four
prerequisites exist. In some cases, what is in question is the commitment
of leaders to compromise; in others, it is their ability. We have pieces of a
formula that are acceptable but not a complete package. The one thing we
do have going for us is a process that all are participating in.
Successful peace-making will take real discipline. The road to peace is
certain to be rough. All parties should avoid those statements and actions
that will only make things that much more difficult. At the same time, this
being the Middle East, there will be acts of violence and other provocations
that will cause one or more of the key parties to want to pull back. But
these are temptations that must be overcome if progress is to happen.
Peace-making will also require compromise. Any compromise will bring
with it certain costs and risks. And these must be carefully examined, for
there are proposals real or imagined that are ill-advised and simply not
worth it. When the issues are war and peace and security, too much is at
stake to act recklessly.
But if it is important to examine the costs and risks of possible
agreements, it is no less important to assess the costs and risks of
rejecting compromise, of sticking with the status quo. Here, I would argue
that the current situation in the Middle East is both costly and dangerous.
The resources devoted to preparing for war--the billions of dollars in
budget outlays, the billions of man-hours lost to military service--are
enormous. Countries pay, too, by lost trade and investment, by businesses
that choose to place their money in an environment less prone to conflict.
And above all, there is the human cost of war itself--the physical
destruction, the wounded, the dead.
For Palestinians, there is the additional cost of living under occupation, of
not being able to exercise their legitimate political rights. But for Israel,
too, there are costs of occupation. These are measured not only in incidents
of violence or the costs of policing but also in the realm of politics and
demographics. Israel was created not just to be a state but to be a Jewish
state, a functioning democracy, and a successful society. Israel needs to
make peace, not as a favor to the Arabs, but to keep its commitment to
itself.
If it is necessary to examine the very real costs and risks of the status quo,
it is also necessary to look at the possible benefits of peace. Here, I mean
the benefits that go beyond the obvious ones of avoiding war. If I may quote
from what President Bush had to say at the Madrid Conference in October
[1991], "Our objective. . . is not simply to end the state of war in the Middle
East and replace it with a state of non-belligerency. This is not enough;
this would not last. Rather, we seek peace--real peace--and by real peace I
mean treaties, security, diplomatic relations, economic relations, trade,
investment, cultural exchange, even tourism. . . a Middle East where normal
men and women lead normal lives."
I expect for some--if not most of you--this all sounds utopian. You may be
right. But then again, who would have predicted during World War II that
Germany and Japan would one day be two of our closest allies and partners?
And who, just 5 years ago, would have predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall,
Germany's unification, or the demise of the Cold War? Who among you
foresaw the progress we are today witnessing in Cambodia or South Africa?
Peace and reconciliation are possible, even in the Middle East. Right now,
the Middle East stands apart from this trend, but not in a way that should
give anyone satisfaction. Saying all this does not argue for any particular
set of transitional or final status arrangements. To paraphrase what
President Bush said in Madrid, we come with no maps saying where final
borders are to be drawn. This is the stuff, this is the purpose of
negotiations. These are questions for the peoples of the region to decide.
They are the ones who must live with the consequences of negotiations, of
success or failure.
But we do have a role, and an important one. There is simply too much
suspicion, too much residue of war, for the peoples of the Middle East to
make peace by themselves. It is our role to support their efforts. At this
stage of the process, we can help--with our ideas, our suggestions, our good
offices. Later, if it is desired and if Congress agrees, we can provide
security guarantees and additional financial aid. But we can only be
effective, we can only be a force for peace and an honest broker, if we are
seen to be consistent.
We are doing our utmost to be fair and consistent. Let me explain how. We
are firmly committed to Israel's security and welfare. While we support
legitimate political rights for the Palestinian people, we do not support a
Palestinian state, which we believe would be a source for instability and a
potential threat to Israel. We believe Jerusalem should remain united, its
final status determined by negotiations. We will proceed on the basis of UN
Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and the principle of territory for
peace.
I want to say something about another of our principles. We oppose
settlements, which we believe constitute an obstacle to peace. This is not
an invention of the Bush Administration; to the contrary, it has been a
principle of every administration, Democratic and Republican, since 1967.
The reasoning is simple: settlements constitute a unilateral action by
Israel that prejudice the outcome of negotiations and, quite frankly, weaken
the prospects for peace. To those who argue that we ought not link
settlements to loan guarantees, I would say that peace, too, is a
humanitarian aim, and that peace is a must if new immigrants and all
Israelis are to enjoy the quality of life they deserve.
Let me also make clear what our policy is not about. We are not challenging
the right of Jews or anyone else to live where they choose. We are not using
loan guarantees to determine the ultimate borders of Israel. We are not
setting a precedent in which aid critical for Israel's security is denied. And
we are not seeking to substitute ourselves for the Arab negotiating teams.
What we are doing--no more and no less--is giving the first comprehensive
peace talks ever to be held in the Middle East every chance of succeeding.
I know that disagreement over this issue has introduced great strain into
our relationship with Israel. I am aware of the anguish many of you feel;
trust me when I say it is shared. I hope the differences with Israel can be
bridged. We, in the Administration, are committed to making a good faith
effort to do so. But even if we cannot find a formula that both governments
can accept, this question must not be allowed to weaken US-Israeli ties or
create any questions about US support for Israel's security. Here, too, I can
do no better than quote President Bush, who recently wrote that the
"measure of a good relationship is not the ability to agree, but rather the
ability to disagree on specifics without placing fundamentals at risk. We do
this all the time with Britain; we should manage with Israel."
This, then, is where things stand. Just 1 year after the end of the Gulf war,
we are working to bring peace and stability to a part of the world where our
interests are important and enduring and where the threats to our interests
will not go away. The United States has a critical role to play, in deterring
war, in promoting peace. Any temptation to evade this role, to evade this
responsibility, will come to haunt us if we give in to it.
In the end, when history is written, the final judgment on wars is often the
peace that follows. What we have accomplished in winning the Cold War,
what we have accomplished in winning the Gulf war, will depend in large
part upon what comes next. If we consolidate the opportunities before us
and help create conditions of lasting peace, our sacrifices and all our
efforts will have been worthwhile. If we are not willing to see through
what we have begun, we will have squandered our investments and will one
day find ourselves being asked once more to sacrifice a great deal.
This would be reckless folly. Fortunately, it can be avoided. What is
required is that we stay the course, that we lead in peace as we did in war.
If we do, we shall succeed in winning the peace, just as we won the war.
(###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 15, April 13, 1992
Title: Curbing Destabilizing Arms Transfers
Bartholomew
Source: Reginald Bartholomew, Under Secretary for
International Security Affairs
Description: Statement before the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations
of the House Appropriations Committee, Washington, DC
Date: Apr, 8 19924/8/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Whole World
Country: South Africa, South Korea, India, Argentina, Brazil,
USSR (former), Russia
Subject: Arms Control, Security Assistance and Sales,
Nuclear Nonproliferation
[TEXT]
This Administration has assigned a very high priority to preventing the
spread of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles that
can deliver them.
We have been at work over the past 3 years developing and implementing
new initiatives in all these areas. We have strengthened and expanded the
international control regimes. We have increased the equipment and
technology subject to export controls, both in the United States and
multilaterally. We have undertaken regional initiatives to stop
proliferation in volatile areas of the world. And we have inaugurated a
process for dealing with conventional arms transfers.
Let me first discuss some of these achievements and then recount the
problem areas which are our current focus.
International Institutions
The international institutions dealing with nuclear proliferation have been
greatly strengthened under American leadership. Membership in the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has expanded. Long-time powerful holdouts
such as China and South Africa have joined, and France is about to join.
In addition, many countries have adopted stricter conditions on their
nuclear-related exports. Twenty-seven countries--the members of the
Nuclear Suppliers Group--have agreed to the long-standing US position on
"full-scope safeguards"--that a country receiving any significant new
nuclear-related supplies must have safeguards on all its nuclear facilities.
The international lists of items controlled for nuclear proliferation reasons
have been updated and expanded. At US initiative, the Nuclear Suppliers
Group agreed on April 3 to control a substantial list of dual-use, nuclear-
related equipment and technology.
In sum, these advances mean a substantially stronger institutional
framework for nuclear non-proliferation. They heighten the barriers to
obtaining nuclear technology by countries seeking nuclear weapons
capabilities.
Regional Gains
We have also made gains on some pressing regional nuclear problems.
Argentina and Brazil have both renounced nuclear weapons ambitions. If
things continue to go well, they may soon be taken entirely off the map of
nuclear proliferation concerns.
Our long-time concerns about South African nuclear weapons ambitions have
been alleviated. That country has now acceded to the NPT and promptly
completed its NPT safeguards agreement.
We have set back Iraq's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq's WMD [weapons of mass destruction] programs were heavily damaged
during the Gulf war, and those that remain are subject to destruction under
international supervision. Long-term international monitoring will be
conducted to assure these programs are not rebuilt.
We have made an important start on the North Korean nuclear problem by
strongly encouraging the North-South dialogue and nuclear inspection
agreement and pressing North Korea fully to implement its nuclear
obligations under the NPT.
Multilateral Controls
There have been major positive developments to strengthen multilateral
controls of missile technology. Key supplier countries, such as Germany and
Switzerland, have toughened their national export controls.
Institutional membership has expanded dramatically. The Missile
Technology Control Regime--MTCR --responsible for combating missile
proliferation has grown from 7 to 18 member nations, and at least two more
will join this year.
The list of controlled items has been revised and updated. The MTCR has
extended the scope of its efforts to include missiles capable of delivering
all weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological as well
as nuclear weapons.
The United States has persuaded key supplier countries to apply strict MTCR
missile export control standards. These include Russia and China.
Argentina now observes MTCR-equivalent controls, as does Israel. Several
East European countries are in the process of doing likewise.
Beyond this, the MTCR is conducting an active outreach program to non-
member countries to help them assure effective missile export controls. On
March 30, [1992], the United States--with contributions by other MTCR
partners--hosted a seminar for nations of Eastern Europe, the Baltic states,
and the former Soviet Union.
US Controls
The United States has tightened its own controls on missile technology.
Under our Enhanced Proliferation Controls Initiative, licenses will soon be
required for any exports to missile projects in the Middle East and in
certain other countries of proliferation concern.
Under a US law enacted in 1990, we have imposed missile trade sanctions on
foreign entities in several nations, including China, Pakistan, South Africa,
North Korea, and Iran.
This means that almost all sources of missile technology have now been
closed off to proliferant countries. Only North Korea is still exporting
complete MTCR-class missile systems.
We have gotten a number of countries out of the missile business.
Argentina, last year, announced the termination of its Condor Ballistic
Missile Program. Iraqi missile programs are subject to UN efforts to
dismantle them.
Chemical, Biological Weapons (CBW) Controls
Important steps have also been taken against the spread of chemical and
biological weapons. The international institution dealing with CBW
proliferation--the "Australia Group"--has become stronger and larger.
Membership has expanded from 20 to 22 members, including newest
members Finland and Sweden.
The list of internationally controlled CBW-related goods has jumped
dramatically under US prodding. In 1990-91, the United States greatly
expanded its own list of controlled chemical weapons precursors--from 11
to 50 worldwide--and introduced controls on chemical and biological
weapons-related, dual-use equipment and whole chemical plants. Now, all
Australia Group members are adopting these same strict controls.
There have been regional achievements as well. Argentina, Brazil, and Chile
last year agreed to a chemical and biological weapons-free zone.
East European CBW export controls have multiplied. Czechoslovakia,
Hungary, Poland, and Romania are meeting the high Australia Group export
control standards. Other countries are joining the trend to better controls.
Israel, China, and, to some extent, India have adopted export controls in this
field as well.
The net result of these persistent efforts has been to choke off most of the
traditional sources of supply for chemical and biological weapons programs.
Conventional Arms Transfers
The five major conventional arms suppliers have begun moving toward
responsibility, transparency, and consultation on conventional arms
transfers. Concerning responsibility, the five have acknowledged their
special obligation for insuring that their arms transfers do not undermine
stability.
Regarding transparency, they have also agreed that we must exchange
information about arms sales in order to identify and avert destabilizing
arms transfers.
In the way of consultation, the five have agreed, for the first time, to make
their arms transfers subject to debate and criticism and to abide by
common guidelines concerning arms transfers.
In short, the five have agreed to apply the collective reason of the five to
decisions they--except for the United States--do not share with their own
parliaments. This is not business as usual. It is both new and important.
Present Focus
Institutionally, our top priority is to get a chemical weapons convention
completed this year as a basic framework for dealing with chemical
weapons. There are several regional problems that warrant our continuing
attention.
-- On North Korea, we need to assure that the North carries out fully its
nuclear commitments. These include nuclear inspections under IAEA
[International Atomic Energy Agency] and its bilateral agreement with the
South. We need to continue pressure on North Korea to stop its uncontrolled
missile technology transfers.
-- We are making a start on South Asian non-proliferation. Our proposal for
a five-power conference is an important step in the right direction, and our
bilateral discussions are continuing. Four of five participants have agreed
to the conference, and we continue to engage India with a view toward
obtaining its participation as well.
-- In the Middle East, we will continue to insist on Iraqi compliance with
its obligations to destroy and not rebuild its weapons of mass destruction.
Iran has increased its efforts to obtain missiles and weapons of mass
destruction and expanded its conventional weapons capability. We will keep
Iran under very close scrutiny.
-- We will need to assure that Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union
do not become new sources of supply or brain power for countries seeking
weapons of mass destruction. Initiatives are underway to help strengthen
export controls, improve nuclear material accountancy and control and
physical protection, and to redirect scientists in meaningful non-military
endeavors. Our contacts with the newly independent states have been
encouraging.
On conventional weapons transfers, we intend to move the process forward
by holding a plenary meeting this spring.
Review of Proliferation Developments
Nuclear Controls:
Cooperating Countries Increase, Controls Are
Tightened. Several important steps to further nuclear non-proliferation
have been taken in the last 3 years.
Important new members have been added to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT]. China has acceded to the NPT, and France is expected to do so
soon. South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Estonia, Latvia, and
Lithuania have also adhered to the NPT since the beginning of 1991. Russia
has assumed the obligations of the former Soviet Union under the NPT, and
prospects are favorable for the other newly independent states of the
former Soviet Union to join the NPT as non-nuclear weapons states.
Other important nuclear-related agreements have been completed.
Argentina and Brazil are removing themselves from the area of nuclear
proliferation concerns. They entered into a agreement with the IAEA
accepting full-scope nuclear [inspections] at all their facilities.
Other countries have taken important steps. South Africa promptly
completed its NPT safeguards agreement. Algeria has placed its Chinese-
origin research reactor under safeguards, and Syria has recently completed
an NPT full-scope safeguards agreement with the IAEA.
While North Korea has signed its IAEA safeguards agreement, it has still
failed to ratify and fully implement it as required by the NPT, and we are
greatly concerned about its continued stalling. Prompt and full
implementation remains crucial. North and South Korea have agreed to a
joint declaration to establish a non-nuclear Korean Peninsula, with a mutual
inspection regime. Here, again, the key will be effective implementation.
There has been significant progress over the past couple of years on a key
nuclear export policy long supported by the United States, i.e. requiring full-
scope IAEA safeguards in non-nuclear-weapons states as a condition for any
significant new nuclear supply commitment. All 27 members of the Nuclear
Suppliers Agreement issued a statement calling for full-scope safeguards
as a condition of significant nuclear supply.
The Nuclear Suppliers Group is upgrading its trigger list and agreed upon a
list of dual-use nuclear related equipment and technology for common
controls at its meeting in Warsaw last week. This is a major step forward
in impeding access by proliferant countries to technology potentially
relevant to nuclear weapons.
The NPT Exporters or Zangger Committee recently clarified its controls on
heavy water production plants by itemizing equipment and components of
such a facility which should not be exported in the absence of a commitment
to apply IAEA safeguards.
The IAEA Board of Governors, spurred by the example of Iraq's clandestine
nuclear program, confirmed the agency's authority to carry out "special
inspections," whereby it can inspect nuclear activities at any place in a
country, not just at declared nuclear facilities.
Chemical and Biological Weapons:
US Controls Strengthened. The
United States has taken the lead in strengthening its own controls and
creating a stronger international institution to deal with chemical and
biological weapons.
In 1991, the Administration introduced regulations under the Enhanced
Proliferation Controls Initiative (EPCI), which expanded US export controls
related to chemical and biological we