US Department of State 

Dispatch, Vol 3, No 18, May 4, 1992


Consolidating Peaceful Revolution In the Americas

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Excerpts from address to the Forum of the Americas, Washington, DC Date: Apr, 23 19924/23/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: North America, South America, Caribbean, Central America Country: Mexico, Canada Subject: North America Free Trade, OAS, Democratization, Trade/Economics [TEXT] I can't think of a more important moment than now to convene again this Forum on the Americas. Over the last 3 years, we have seen our world literally transformed: the Berlin Wall torn down and Germany peacefully unified; the people of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union liberated from communism; and South Africa's historic vote to reject apartheid. We have seen Arab neighbors negotiating for the first time face-to-face with Israel; and a worldwide coalition, under the banner of the United Nations, stand up- -and turn back--Iraqi aggression against Kuwait. There has been a profound change with meaning for every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth: We've drastically reduced the threat of nuclear war. Just today, the United States took steps to facilitate trade in high- technology goods, an initiative made possible by the changed strategic environment and the peaceful rebirth of freedom in the formerly communist lands. We relaxed trade restrictions on exports that served us well during the Cold War era but are no longer necessary in our new world. Our actions today will eliminate requirements for thousands of export licenses, including many that affected computers, one of our strongest export earners. Trade covered today by today's deregulation amounts to about $2.5 billion. Here in our own hemisphere, the Americas have launched an era of far- reaching and hopeful change. We have made history, all of us. We are well on our way to creating something mankind has never seen: a hemisphere wholly free and democratic, with prosperity flowing from open trade. From Mexico City to Buenos Aires, that vision is becoming a reality. For the first time in many years, more private capital is flowing into the Americas for new investments than is flowing out. In country after country, the hyperinflation that literally devastated the region's economies, particularly its poor, has been halted. In nearly every nation, real growth has returned. A growing number of nations are taking advantage of the Brady Plan, an important initiative of our Administration designed to reduce the debt burden of our neighbors and set the stage for the renewal of growth. Barriers to trade and investment are coming down. Go to the financial centers of the world and you will get the same message: One of the most exciting regions for investment is Latin America. Alongside this economic revolution, we have witnessed and played a vital role to shape a political revolution just as powerful. Two years after we initiated Operation Just Cause, Panama has replaced the repression of the Noriega era with freedom and democracy. In El Salvador, after 12 years of civil war, our consistent efforts have brought peace. In Nicaragua, we succeeded in our goal of restoring peace and democracy through free elections. Throughout Central America, civilian presidents hold office, and the principle of consent of the governed is now firmly established. And in South America, Chile and Paraguay have rejoined the community of democracies. This peaceful revolution throughout the Americas did not happen by accident. It is the work of a new generation of courageous and committed democratic leaders with whom we have worked closely in pursuit of common goals--those leaders supported by this dynamic private sector that is so beautifully represented here tonight. The new spirit was demonstrated in June of last year, when the OAS [Organization of American States] General Assembly passed a resolution designed to strengthen the international response to threats to democracy. Consolidating this revolution will not be easy; we understand that. Millions of people in our hemisphere are still mired in poverty and political alienation. Recent events in Haiti, Venezuela, and Peru remind us that democracy is still fragile and faces continued dangers. In all our nations, powerful special interests cling to old ideas and privileges, promote protectionism, and resist expanded trade. For the diehards--for Castro's totalitarian regime, for those in the hemisphere who would turn the clock back to military dictatorship, for the stubborn holdouts for economic isolation--I want to make one point clear: Hundreds of millions of Latin Americans share a faith in human freedom and opportunity, and I stand with them. As long as I am President of this great country, the United States will devote its energies to the true and lasting liberation of the people of the Western Hemisphere. Sharing the democratic spirit makes a difference on every issue we care about: Democracy's rebirth led Argentina and Brazil to join hands to halt the spread of nuclear arms; democracy energized Brazil to slow deforestation of the Amazon rainforest; democracy gave Argentina the will to stop the Condor ballistic missile program financed by Libya and Iraq. Colombia's democracy is leading the fight against the drug trade and working to restore its economic vital-ity. The restored democracy in Panama has passed tough new laws to combat money laundering, and it's working to renew its importance as an East-West trade corridor. Make no mistake: Political and economic freedom are linked; they are inseparable. Just as people have a God-given right to choose who will govern them, they also must be free to make their own economic choices. When we lift barriers to economic freedom within and among our countries, we unleash powerful forces of growth and creativity. Before I leave office, I want manufacturers in Cleveland to enjoy virtually the same access to markets in Monterrey as they now have in Minneapolis. With new technologies, creators of services in Denver may be able to tap markets in Santiago as readily as those in Chicago. And I'll work to assure that government protection and excessive regulation don't stand in their way. To do this, we'll have to overcome the stunted vision of the special interests. I am determined that we can and will do exactly that. I've made it a top priority to conclude a free trade agreement designed to remove all tariffs on trade between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. This agreement will build on our historic free trade agreement with Canada. The success of the agreement with Canada demonstrates how free trade can benefit all concerned. We can't achieve this breakthrough by equivocating between the status quo protectionists and the movement for freedom and change. Some suggest that we can hide in a cocoon of protection and pretend still to benefit from the fresh air of competition. Well, if there's ever an audience that understands this; you and I know that is simply wrong-headed. Our economic future must not depend on those who pay lip service to free trade but full service to powerful special interests. We can't have it both ways. In our own War for Independence, those who took this kind of stand were known as the "summer soldiers." They wanted the glory of the revolution without showing the gumption to stand for freedom even in tough times. Our stand is clear--my stand is clear: Open trade is vital to this country, to the United States, every bit as vital as domestic reforms to renew our systems of education, health care, government, and administration of justice. A free trade area comprising the United States, Mexico, and Canada would be the largest market in the entire world--360 million consumers in a $6- trillion--$6-trillion--economy. Mexico--and I salute its President, its business people here tonight--is among the fastest growing national markets for US exports today. Over the last 3 years alone, American merchandise exports to Mexico have increased by two-thirds. Our exports of autos, auto parts, and telecommunications equipment to Mexico have doubled. While members of this audience may be aware of this, I doubt it is widely known in the United States that two-thirds of all imports into Mexico come from the United States. It's not just the border states that profit from this growth. During my presidency, 45 of our 50 states have increased their exports to Mexico. Our top 10 exporters to Mexico today include Michigan, Illinois, New York, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio, as well as Texas, California, and Arizona--those border states. Trade with Mexico already supports hundreds of thousands of US jobs. Just as an example: Thousands of good jobs in Warren, Ohio, and Rochester, New York, depend on sister plants in Mexico to keep their products competitive. A North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] would create thousands more. It would create competitive efficiencies and economies of scale that will help American companies compete in world markets. Free trade with Canada and Mexico will make all of us winners in economic endeavor, but our relationship goes well beyond trade. We share borders that span the continent. We're linked by centuries-old ties of family and culture. I share a warm friendship with Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of Canada, whom I consult frequently. I count President Carlos Salinas also as a dear friend--he and I have been promoting the "spirit of Houston" ever since our summit meeting just after both of us were elected in 1988. Both President Salinas and Prime Minister Mulroney are bold and imaginative leaders, and I am committed to working with them to forge enduring friendship among our countries, based on open trade, cooperation, and mutual respect. Now, you may have heard some suggest that politics will dictate delaying the North American Free Trade Agreement until after the election. Well, let me say this: These voices are not speaking for me. The time of opportunity is now. I've instructed our negotiators to accelerate their work. I believe we can conclude a sound, sensible deal before the election, and I want to sign a good agreement as soon as it's ready. And there will be no delay because of American politics. Now, to other friends here let me say this: The North American Free Trade Agreement is only a beginning. Our Enterprise for the Americas Initiative already has made noteworthy progress to open markets, expand investment flows, reduce official debt, and strengthen the environment throughout the hemisphere. The Enterprise for the Americas Initiative reflects a revolution in thinking. Through this initiative, the United States is not seeking to impose our ideas on our neighbors. Rather, our program is designed to empower them to succeed with free market economic reforms they have chosen on their own, ideas developed in Latin America for Latin Americans. The courageous Latin American leaders who are reforming their economies and breaking down barriers to trade and investment need our support. They are the true liberators of our era. True success will mean opening up statist systems formerly rigged to protect wealthy elites and closed to working people and the poor. Free market reforms will banish burdensome regulations that now prevent the urban poor from starting new businesses or campesinos from gaining access to credit and title to their land. Economic reform must also include honest government. Corruption is the enemy of both growth and democracy. New investment will flow only where the rule of law is secure, the courts are fair, and bidding processes are open to all. To support reformers--to realize the hopeful new vision in Latin America-- the US Congress must meet its responsibility. I asked Congress to take long overdue action, to invest $310 million in this fiscal year under the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative. With this, we could write off more than $1 billion in the hemisphere's official debts and generate millions of dollars to preserve the environment. But, regrettably, Congress has refused to approve any funds for this purpose. Congress apparently doesn't believe in return on investment--but I do. And our truckers and railroad people do. And our auto and electronics makers do, as do our environmental engineers, and many, many more. I've helped persuade our allies in Europe and Japan to contribute nearly two- thirds of a $1.5-billion fund to help Latin American reformers. This fund, administered by the Inter-American Development Bank, would help people privatize old state enterprises at the grass roots, with job retraining and small business loans. But Congress has refused to vote a penny for the US share. I will keep on fighting for these vital programs of the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative until Congress demonstrates the vision and fortitude to provide the support they deserve. If we can invest in the transformation of Eastern Europe and the old Soviet Union--and we must do so--then we can and must invest in the efforts of our closest neighbors on their peaceful road to true liberation and prosperity. The United States' economic destiny is linked to Latin America's. No army of protectionists can change that. When Latin America suffered its debt crisis of the early 1980s, we suffered through a corresponding drop in trade. If you don't believe me, ask Caterpillar workers from Illinois or employees from Cessna in Kansas. Ask them if they suffered when our best customers in Latin America were in crisis. With the rise of democracy and economic reform, US exports to Latin America have surged by nearly one-third in just 2 years, from $49 billion in 1989 to $63 billion in 1991. This is a much faster rate of growth than for our exports to Asia or Europe. It points to the fact that a stable, prosperous Latin America is a natural market for US goods and services. Strengthening our neighbors' economies will result in more exports and more good jobs for people in the United States. When any of us speak with our friends outside the Western Hemisphere, we need to assure them as clearly as possible: There is nothing exclusionary in our vision of open trade and economic integration in our hemisphere. Our aim is simply to lower barriers to economic freedom within and among the nations of the Western Hemisphere--not, I repeat, not to create any barriers between ourselves and the nations of Africa, Europe, and Asia. All of our aims are consistent with the global policies of GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade]--and I would just like to commend the superb leadership of Arthur Dunkel, GATT's Director General, who spoke to you earlier today. I want to assure you, I urgently want to open up global markets through success with the Uruguay Round. We all have a stake, a big stake, in a successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round of the GATT. If the equivocators and the protectionists and the pleaders for special interests want to debate this, bring them on. I will take the case for increased trade to the people in every corner of the United States of America. I'll make this abundantly clear: Free trade means more exports, more investment, more choices, more jobs for Americans. Our great country is the number one exporter in the world--over $422 billion last year. Imagine that, $422 billion. And we intend to pursue trade policies to keep that growth up now and in the future. We'll knock down barriers wherever we find them, to open markets, for instance, for our computer software, movies, books, and pharmaceuticals. We will fight hard against protectionism both at home and abroad. Five centuries ago, a man of courage and vision set sail from Europe searching for new trade routes and opportunities. He defied the timid counsel of those who said the earth was flat. Christopher Columbus' voyage to the Americas transformed human history. Columbus was an entrepreneur, and the risk he took 500 years ago continues to pay off abundantly today. Today, we still have to combat the flat-earth mentality, the mindset that urges us to barricade our borders against competition, to shut off the free exchange of food and machinery and skills and ideas. But the future does not belong to the status quo. It is the legacy of people like yourselves, people with far-sighted vision and then a spirit of enterprise. The future awaiting the Americas is a time of rediscovery; a time for empowering the poor through new investment, trade, and growth; a time for cultural renewal. Our efforts and the efforts of millions of citizens of the Americas can achieve new gains for honest, democratic, limited government. Together, we can usher in a new order of peace--a new time of prosperity--both animated by personal freedom. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 18, May 4, 1992 Title:

Humanitarian Needs In The Former Soviet Union

Armitage Source: Richard L. Armitage, Deputy Coordinator for Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States Description: Statement before the House Select Committee on Hunger, Washington, DC Date: Apr, 27 19924/27/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Eurasia Country: USSR (former), Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Georgia Subject: Development/Relief Aid [TEXT] The dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991 was preceded and followed by conditions of great political, social, and economic uncertainty across the length and breadth of the Eurasian landmass. Twelve new independent states were suddenly faced with the daunting challenge of replacing a centrally controlled, artificial, production-driven economic system which, for many years leading up to its ultimate collapse, had become increasingly inefficient, incomprehensible, and corrupt. The collapse of Soviet communism presented the United States with choices: -- To stand aside as an interested, but essentially uninvolved, spectator, leaving it entirely to the peoples and leaders of the new independent states to try to make the transition from command to market economies and from totalitarianism to freedom; -- To plunge into the problem unilaterally, placing the US taxpayer face-to- face with a virtually bottomless pit of needs generated by 7 decades- worth of economic policy designed principally to concentrate political power in a few grasping hands; or -- To help organize an international response to the needs of Russia, Ukraine, Armenia, and the other states--one which would coordinate appropriate levels of aid while assigning to the new independent states themselves the responsibility and obligation to pursue and enact political and economic reforms. Long before I was recruited to help Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger coordinate US assistance to the new states of the former Soviet Union, the basic policy choice had been made. In his address at Princeton University on December 12, 1991, Secretary of State Baker called upon the United States to "mobilize a coalition in support of freedom . . . [to] pursue a diplomacy of collective engagement." The Secretary made it clear that "the wreckage of communism is too large for any one nation to go it alone or try to do everything. Working in concert, we must make use of the comparative advantages each of us holds." Secretary Baker then announced a major presidential initiative: a US-sponsored Coordinating Conference in Washington which would focus on humanitarian problems occasioned by the onset of winter: problems associated with critical short-term needs in the areas of food, medicine, fuel and shelter.
Washington Coordinating Conference
The Washington Coordinating Conference of January 1992 far exceeded the expectations of its organizers in terms of information-sharing and the creation of action plans for donor states and institutions. Although the conference avoided the creation of intrusive mechanisms designed to dictate the contributions of states and institutions, through its ongoing working group structure, it has instituted transparency of national and institutional efforts and has contributed immeasurably to the body of knowledge extant concerning humanitarian needs in the new independent states. Portugal and the European Community will host a follow-on conference next month in Lisbon, one which will reflect a gradual transition from emergency action to intermediate measures including technical assistance and macroeconomic programs in support of emerging democracies and free markets. By hosting the Washington conference, the United States incurred a special responsibility to exercise sustained leadership in organizing an international assistance effort designed to support transitions to democracy and free market economies to the new independent states. In this regard, the FREEDOM [Freedom for Russia and Emerging Eurasian Democracies and Open Markets] Support Act announced by the President on the first day of this month is crucial, and Congress' rapid and favorable consideration of it is central to our efforts. By acting now to consolidate democracy and free markets, we can secure a peace that will enhance the well-being and prosperity of every American. In particular, the FREEDOM Support Act will: -- Mobilize the Administration and Congress and the US private sector around a comprehensive and integrated package of support for the new states; -- Target our efforts to address military, political, and economic opportunities created by the collapse of the former Soviet Union, while sharing responsibilities with others in the international community; and -- Unlock Cold War restrictions that still hamstring the government in providing assistance and which impede US business from developing trade and investment with the new independent states. Funds authorized to be appropriated by this act would be used for the purposes of promoting democracy, encouraging free market systems, meeting urgent humanitarian needs, fostering demilitarization of the society and economy, defense conversion, promoting development in such sectors as agriculture and energy, and promoting bilateral trade and investment. I hope that the members of this committee will be among the FREEDOM Support Act's strongest advocates. My personal involvement in the area of emergency humanitarian assistance to the new independent states began this year during the first week of January when Mr. Eagle-burger asked me to take charge of US efforts. My initial activities centered on fact-finding. To this end, I was able to facilitate the deployment to Russia of a Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) assembled by the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance in the US Agency for International Development [USAID]. The DART, which arrived in Moscow on January 17 and completed its reporting on April 15, was charged with assessing humanitarian needs and identifying regions and people placed at risk by changed economic and political conditions in the former Soviet Union. Two emergency field assessments were prepared: one covering Russia and the other the five new Central Asian states. I forwarded both reports to this committee on the same day they were provided to me. I will return to these reports later in my statement. Even though I believed it essential that we have as thorough an assessment of food and medical needs as quickly as possible, I do not wish to convey the impression that nothing was happening prior to my arrival. During 1991, the United States shipped 18 mil-lion tons of food to the former Soviet Union in connection with a $3.75-billion CCC [Commodity Credit Corporation] credit guarantee. All of those credit guarantees have now been released, and, as of this month, a cumulative total of 24 million tons of agricultural commodities have been shipped. In December 1991, USDA [US Department of Agriculture] began signing agreements with US private voluntary organizations for the delivery of $165 million in grant food aid. As of this month, $144-million worth of this aid has been contracted, and deliveries are ongoing. The remainder will be made up by the government-to- government butter agreement we are currently negotiating with Russia. This butter will be sold on the local economy. The money raised from the sale of this butter will be used to cover distribution costs as well as to provide assistance to those most adversely affected by the economic changes now underway in Russia, most likely through local and central pensioners' funds. In addition, we are looking at the possibility of monetizing more donated food. When I began to focus on emergency humanitarian assistance, therefore, I did not have to invent something entirely new. I wanted a systematic assessment of actual emergency needs, and I wanted to establish a presence--at least in Moscow--to help articulate those needs. With respect to the former, the DART was dispatched within 10 days of my assumption of duties. In early February 1992, I established an office in Moscow headed by Mr. Robert Watters, a Russian-speaking former military officer loaned to me by our Ambassador to NATO, Will Taft. Mr. Watters' first mission was to establish liaison with Ambassador [to Russia] Bob Strauss and with the Russian Commission for International Humanitarian and Technical Assistance. I would like to emphasize that in January of this year we were not absolutely certain what we were facing in terms of food emergencies in the new independent states. The Washington Coordinating Conference yielded the consensus that, while famine was unlikely, breakdowns in food distribution patterns would probably strain social safety nets in the new independent states [and] that institutionalized people and people relying on mass feeding facilities could be caught short while the more able-bodied stood in food lines or sought alternatives to crumbling state distribution systems.
Operation Provide Hope
Secretary Baker's response to this uncertainty was to take a risk in the direction of action. During the Washington Coordinating Conference, he announced Operation Provide Hope: the airlifting of excess Department of Defense food, medicines, and medical supplies from Western Europe to some two dozen locations in 11 of the 12 new independent states. Only Georgia, which was undergoing serious internal problems, was not reached during Phase I of Operation Provide Hope. This operation was planned in 17 days and executed in the subsequent 17 days. Of the $100 million available in Department of Defense funds for the transportation of humanitarian assistance, $7.3 million was spent to move about 2,000 tons of bulk military rations and 500 tons of medicines and medical consumables by 65 US Air Force missions and two Russian missions. We had American teams on the ground in places which had rarely seen Americans, making surface transportation arrangements with local officials, surveying needy institutions, and monitoring deliveries from airfields to hospitals, orphanages, homes for the elderly, and warehouses such as the St. Petersburg Food Bank. By enlisting local media and engaging local private voluntary organizations, our teams--led for the most part by officers of the On-Site Inspection Agency--helped local officials ensure that none of this donated assistance was stolen or otherwise diverted. We have received no reports of any diversions to the black market. Although Operation Provide Hope was the subject of extraordinarily positive press coverage in general, there was some negative commentary about the symbolic aspects of the endeavor. Most of this commentary came from the US and Western Europe. Its theme was that Operation Provide Hope fell short of feeding 280 million people. Secretary Baker was aware of the fact that 54 airlift missions (later expanded to 67) would not feed millions of people, that 2,000 tons of food would not add significantly to the US food aid already coming in. He wanted, in fact, to accomplish three aims: -- To target assistance precisely to needy institutions; -- To demonstrate in a highly visible and dramatic way America's support for the people of new states undergoing painful transformations; and -- To stimulate the contributions of others. In this last connection, Operation Provide Hope included contributions from Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, India, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Portugal, Qatar, Spain, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom. A summary of Operation Provide Hope's accomplishments is appended to this statement [see box].
Provide Hope Phase II
Operation Provide Hope Phase II is underway as we speak. We are attempting to move 20,000 tons of bulk rations, medicines, and medical consumables from Western Europe to 22 locations in all 12 new independent states. These are the same excess stocks on which [Operation] Provide Hope Phase I was based. They were accumulated in the expectation that Operation Desert Storm might last longer than it actually did. The actual planning for Provide Hope II was performed by NATO. A summary of this operation's objectives are attached. In our efforts to facilitate emergency medical and food deliveries, we have facilitated the work of private US organizations by setting up a mechanism through the Volunteers in Technical Assistance organization to consolidate and organize official requests for US Government transportation of privately donated food and medicine. After inspection and approval of the intended cargoes and distribution plans, these items are moved at US Government expense via airlift or sealift, as appropriate. To date, this has resulted in the following airlift deliveries (a significant number of airlifts have been accomplished transporting Department of Defense excess and USDA-acquired commodities): -- [One] C5-A load of assistance donated in Pittsburgh that was flown to Moscow. -- Airlift of goods from Albany, New York, to Tula, Russia, by US Air Force strategic aircraft as part of a US-Russian military exchange. -- One C-5A mission to Yerevan, Armenia, to deliver high-quality processed milk from Utah donated by the Diocese of the Armenian Church of America. -- One C-141 mission to Vladivostok to deliver foodstuffs from Spokane, Washington, donated through the good offices of Senator Gorton. -- One C-5A delivered foodstuffs from LaCrosse, Wisconsin, to Dubna, Russia. The La Crosse-Dubna Friendship Association, Inc., with assistance from the Defense Department and the State Department, made this humanitarian mission possible. -- In conjunction with the Russian Winter Campaign, an Antonov AN-124 Aeroflot aircraft, with fueling expenses paid by the US Government and coordination accomplished by State and Defense Departments, delivered medi-cal equipment and supplies and foodstuffs from Decatur, Illinois, and Seattle, Washington, to Tashkent, Uzbekistan. -- Under the auspices of the Presi-dential Medical Assistance Initiative, the Defense Department is assisting in the airlift of vital pharmaceuticals to Dushanbe [Tajikistan] and to Ashkabad [Turkmenistan] via one C-141 aircraft for the Project Hope organization. Additionally, the Department of Defense is providing aircraft to airlift critically needed medical supplies to such destinations as Kaliningrad, Donetsk, Yerevan, Kiev, and St. Petersburg with scheduled deliveries from April 10 through June 5. -- Currently, seven more airlifts of privately donated food and medical supplies are scheduled through the end of May. Now that the critical winter timeframe has passed, future airlifts will be limited primarily to high- value medicine, vaccines, and medical sup-plies, except under extraordinary circumstances. Other donors soliciting US Government transportation will have their goods transported by sea and other forms of surface transportation, which is much more cost-effective than airlifts. Fund for Democracy and Development, a not-for-profit voluntary organization, has received funding by the US Government to facilitate and to maxim-ize the transportation of privately donated humanitarian assistance. Having begun operations on February 15, one sea container of family food packages sponsored by the United Methodist Committee on Relief has arrived at the St. Petersburg port in transit to Moscow. Currently, the fund has 24 sea containers en route to the new independent states with an additional 32 sea containers in transit to US ports of embarkation. The fund has 101 sea containers which currently are being coordinated for transit and delivery to the new independent states with US Government funding. Project Hope, a private voluntary organization under the auspices of the Presidential Medical Assistance Initiative, as of February 29 had delivered medicines and medical supplies to seven republics (Armenia, Byelarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan) in a retail value amount that exceeds $28 million. USAID seed money and Defense Department transportation services have enabled Project Hope to optimize the volume of these deliveries. We have agreed to fly between 9 and 15 flights with US Government aircraft to stretch their ability to purchase medicine and medical consumables. In terms of emergency medical assistance, we have accomplished the following:
Defense Department Medical Supplies
. The US Government has shipped Defense Department excess medical supplies to all of the new independent states with the exception of Georgia, which should receive several medical flights later this month. During Operation Provide Hope, approximately 490 tons of medical supplies were delivered to the former Soviet Union. Ten additional medical flights augmented the initial 16 medical missions of [Operation] Provide Hope. Approximately $56.5-million-worth of medical supplies were distributed on 26 medical flights. During Phase II of Operation Provide Hope, approximately 75 tons of additional Defense Department excess medicines and medical consumables will be airlifted to three locations in the Commonwealth of Independent States [CIS]. Over 650 tons of medical consumables will be moved by surface means. The Defense Department is currently planning the shipment of 58 sea containers of critically needed medical supplies to the former Soviet Union, with an estimated value of $42.5 million.
Emergency Medical Program.
The Defense Department is providing the airlift of critically needed vaccines to various locations in the CIS to immunize against life-threatening diseases for vulnerable populations. Medical Airlift. The US Government has provided logistical support of privately donated pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, and medical supplies. Under the auspices of the Presidential Medical Assistance Initiative, the Defense Department has airlifted donated medicines and supplies to such cities as Ashkhabad and Dushanbe. Future airlifts of vital pharmaceuticals and medical supplies will include such locations as Minsk, Donetsk, Yerevan, Kiev, and St. Petersburg. Private voluntary organizations across the United States such as Rotary International and various Sister-City International organizations as well as private citizens have purchased valuable medicines and supplies for distribution in cities throughout the Commonwealth of Independent States. The US Government has assisted these private groups in numerous multi- million dollar medical airlifts. USAID has made available $5 million in medical assistance grants in 1991. USAID estimates that this money has leveraged private donations with over $25-million-worth in medical supplies sent to the former Soviet Union and the Baltics--including some of the Project Hope shipments alluded to above. The rest of these funds will be expended in FY 1992, including delivery of an on-the-ground vaccine program for children in the CIS.
Technical Assistance Program
In conjunction with emergency humanitarian deliveries, we are moving ahead to implement technical assistance programs in the health and agriculture sectors that are designed to change the situation on the ground between now and next winter. As we implement these short- to medium- term programs, we are also seeking to address longer-term issues such as policy reform. In particular, our technical assistance programs in medical and agriculture are as follows: Medical. There are three components in our health sector initiatives project: -- First, we will facilitate the creation of hospital partnerships between US hospitals and indigenous hospitals throughout the new independent states. We expect to have the first nine partnerships identified and in the field by the end of August. One of the first partnerships will be US/USSR Children's Health Center, which we expect to begin program implementation in mid-May. -- In addition to these partnerships, the second component will be to seek to promote trade and investment in the medical sector. We will do this by providing additional funding to the Commerce Department, the Trade and Development Program, and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation specifically for activities in this sector. All three of these interagency agreements are due to be signed by the end of this week. -- The third component is geared toward (1) bringing the former Soviet Union up to full production to meet their own needs, but not to previous export levels, for the next 12-18 months in measles, DPT, and polio vaccines; and (2) providing technical assistance primarily in the area of quality control. Agriculture. We will implement programs in the agriculture sector that are designed to increase the availability of food supplies from their own resources for next winter and beyond by providing technical assistance and training to accelerate the emergence of private food marketing systems. USAID and USDA programs will address the objectives described above. USDA will be implementing several programs. These include the creation of a model farm outside St. Petersburg, support for wholesale markets in Moscow and Kiev, a loaned executive program, and an agricultural extension service program in Armenia. Through the Farmer-to-Farmer program, we plan to place approximately 1,800 volunteers throughout the new independent states. These volunteers will work with newly privatizing or privatized agribusiness enterprises. I alluded earlier to the Emergency Field Assessments of Russia and the five Central Asian republics provided to me by the Disaster Assistance Response Team on April 15. I sent these reports to the committee immediately, so, instead of repeating and reiterating the findings, I would confine myself to the following very general observations: -- The assessments tend to confirm the impression derived from Provide Hope that malnutrition and famine are not real considerations at present. Provide Hope II will, like its predecessor, concentrate on institutions in an effort to strengthen social safety nets. In response to the team's recommendation that additional food supplies not be sent to Central Asia, we asked our diplomatic posts to check with humanitarian affairs officials in each state. They were told that the prospective shipments were needed and welcome. -- The assessments definitely confirm a key find[ing] of Provide Hope that medical needs are deep and widespread across the board. Nevertheless, as is the case with food, no dire emergencies exist. I believe that these assessments will help guide our actions over the coming months. As I indicated in my transmittal letter to this committee, some of the conclusions and recommendations found in the assessments may be subject to modification over time as our baseline of knowledge becomes stronger. I would conclude by saying that this has been a very intensive learning experience for all concerned. Those of us involved in trying to meet pressing humanitarian needs under conditions of great social, economic, and political turmoil in the new independent states have undoubtedly made mistakes. We most definitely have our limits in terms of knowledge, wisdom, and energy. We have, however, been faithful to the American taxpayer and to the American tradition of trying our best to meet the needs of people who require help. Using these guidelines, I believe we have done and are continuing to do our very best.
Operation Provide Hope: Flight Summary
Operation Provide Hope summary of flights during the period 10 February to 27 February [1992]. A total of 67 missions flew into 24 separate locations in 11 republics, delivering approximately 2,500 tons of food and medical supplies. These include: Yerevan, Armenia (7 missions) -- Medical supplies: 25 tons -- Food: 540 tons Baku, Azerbaijan (4 missions) -- Medical supplies: 57 tons -- Food: 21.5 tons Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan (3 missions) -- Medical supplies: 31.5 tons -- Food: 21 tons Ashkhabad, Turkmenistan (4 missions) -- Medical supplies: 45 tons -- Food: 45 tons Minsk, Byelarus (2 missions) -- Medical supplies: 25 tons Tashkent, Uzbekistan (4 missions) -- Medical supplies: 17.5 tons -- Food: 52.5 tons Dushanbe, Tajikistan (4 missions) -- Medical supplies: 50 tons -- Food: 50 tons Kishinev, Moldova (3 missions) -- Medical supplies: 35 tons -- Food: 17.5 tons Kiev, Ukraine (2 missions) -- Medical supplies: 61.5 tons Kharkov, Ukraine (1 mission) -- Food: 24 tons L'vov, Ukraine (2 missions) -- Food: 42 tons Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan (4 missions) -- Medical supplies: 28 tons -- Food: 34 tons Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan (3 missions) -- Medical supplies: 28 tons -- Food: 143.5 tons In the Russian Republic: Moscow (4 missions and Aeroflot AN-124) -- Food: 395 tons St. Petersburg (7 missions and AN-124) -- Medical supplies: 50 tons -- Food: 475 tons Novokuznetsk (1 mission) -- Food: 17 tons Kemerovo (1 mission) -- Food: 17 tons Perm' (1 mission) -- Food: 22.5 tons Yekaterinburg (1 mission) -- Medical supplies: 25 tons Chelyabinsk (2 missions) -- Food: 40 tons Arkhangel'sk (1 mission) -- Medical supplies: 25 tons Ulan-Ude (1 mission) -- Food: 19.5 tons Chita (1 mission) -- Food: 8 tons Irkutsk (2 missions) -- Food: 5 tons (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 18, May 4, 1992 Title:

US Embassy Opens in Georgia

Tutwiler Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler Description: Statement, Washington, DC Date: Apr, 23 19924/23/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Eurasia Country: Georgia Subject: State Department, Development/Relief Aid [TEXT] The US Government is pleased to announce the formal opening of its embassy in Tbilisi, Georgia. State Department personnel have been in Tbilisi since April 15. Embassy Charge d'Affaires Carey Cavanaugh raised the US flag at a ceremony today that marked the formal opening of US Embassy Tbilisi. Attending the formal opening were the Chairman of the Georgian State Council Eduard Shevardnadze, other leaders of the Georgian Government, members of the American community in Georgia, and visiting Senator Alan Cranston. The US Embassy currently occupies offices at the Metekhi Palace Hotel. The establishment of a US Embassy in Tbilisi is a historic event for both nations. It is a key step in the continuing development of strong ties between Georgia and the United States. With the opening of Embassy Tbilisi, the United States has now established embassies in each of the capitals of the new states of the former Soviet Union. I would note as well that flights from Phase II of Operation Provide Hope will arrive in Georgia next week. These flights will be staged through Ankara. The shipments will come to about 150,000 pounds and will include vaccines and other medical supplies for the largest women's and children's hospital in Georgia. American doctors and nurses will be traveling with the shipments. State Council Chairman Shevardnadze has been personally involved in helping arrange these shipments. On the US side, we are working with a private voluntary organization: the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Additional humanitarian assistance will arrive in the weeks ahead. As you know, Georgia has been the only one of the newly independent states which has not yet received such supplies. We're very glad to open our embassy in Tbilisi and, at the same time, to be able to take humanitarian assistance to the people of Georgia. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 18, May 4, 1992 Title:

US-Japan: Paper Market Access Agreement

Bush Kuriyama Source: President Bush, Japanese Ambassador Kuriyama Description: Remarks given at the White House, Washington, DC Date: Apr, 23 19924/23/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: East Asia Country: Japan, United States Subject: Trade/Economics [TEXT]
President Bush:
May I thank Ambassador Kuriyama for being here with us today--Japan's ambassador to the United States--and also [Acting US Trade Representative Ambassador] Mike Moskow up here. Everybody knows him, and we're grateful to him for his participation in all of this. Today does mark a milestone for both the United States and Japan--a ceremony representing another step toward our two countries becoming equal partners in trade. The agreement I sign today is an important, positive development stemming from our January trip to Japan. I am pleased that, since January, American companies have begun to enjoy a more positive atmosphere for doing business in Japan. The broader commitment, which Prime Minister Miyazawa and I made during my visit, was the Tokyo Declaration. An important part of that was the Global Partnership Plan of Action, an agreement to strengthen trade between our two countries--all part of our efforts to make the relationship between us a true partnership. This is a very important relationship. That all will ensure that US firms have the same degree of access to the Japanese market that Japanese firms enjoy in the United States. The Paper Market Access Agreement will increase opportunities in sales for foreign firms exporting paper products into Japan. Hereafter, the Government of Japan will encourage its paper distributors, converters, printers, and major corporate users to increase imports of competitive foreign paper products. That official encouragement will open the way for America's paper industry to export its prod-ucts into Japan's $27-billion market. Today's action is good for all concerned--good for the Japanese consumer, good for American industry, and good for the American worker. It is also an important step forward in our large, global trading system. As William McKinley said back in 1897, "Good trade ensures goodwill." The partnership between the United States of America and Japan ensures that the hallmark of the new globalization of trade will be world-class quality, competitive pricing, and, of course, excellent service. This alliance also recognizes that interactive partnerships like this one strengthen each of us and fire up the engine of economic growth. At the same time, it strengthens the relationship between us and makes the world a better, friendlier place for our children and our grandchildren. So, I'm delighted to be here, and I welcome all of you from industry and from the diplomatic corridors. Let me just say, in conclusion, I view this relationship between the United States and Japan as very, very important. I will do my level best as President of the United States to keep it on a stable, forward-looking basis. It is essential, and it is in our best interest that it remain strong. So, Mr. Ambassador, you are entitled to equal time. Why don't you go ahead?
Ambassador Kuriyama:
Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, I'm most pleased to be here to witness the first concrete result of our joint efforts on the common agenda which is included in what we call the Action Plan of the Tokyo Declaration, which was issued--as you, Mr. President, mentioned-- during your visit to Tokyo in January. The measures to increase market access in Japan for foreign paper producers are the fruit of rather intensive consultations undertaken by officials of the two governments, and I would like to pay my deepest respects to those who put so much time and effort in bringing about this document which Ambassador Moskow and I are about to sign. My personal tribute goes to Ambassador Moskow and your colleagues who have made very important contributions to the further strengthening of our economic relations. Mr. President, you may rest assured that the Japanese Government will implement in good faith the measures which are contained in this document. I'm confident that this will be fully reciprocated by the American side as well. With such mutual efforts, which include efforts by the industries in the respective countries, [it] will help us realize the objective of this document, which is to achieve a substantial increase in the market access in Japan for foreign paper producers, which, in turn, undoubtedly will contribute to further strengthening our mutually profitable trade relations, which is an important component of our partnership. Thank you, Mr. President.
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 18, May 4, 1992 Title:

US-Japan: Paper Market Access Agreement

Fitzwater Source: White House Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater Description: Released by the White House, Office of the Press Secretary. Date: Apr, 23 19924/23/92 Category: Fact Sheets Region: East Asia Country: Japan Subject: Trade/Economics [TEXT] The President today participated in a White House signing ceremony for an agreement between the United States and Japan on measures to open to foreign suppliers Japan's $27-billion market for paper and paperboard products. The agreement was formalized in an exchange of letters between Ambassador Michael H. Moskow, the Acting US Trade Representative, and Ambassador Takakazu Kuriyama, Embassy of Japan. The paper agreement resulted from commitments made during the President's January 1992 trip to Japan. As part of the Global Partnership Plan of Action, President Bush and Prime Minister Miyazawa announced, on January 9, that the two governments would intensify negotiations regarding measures to substantially increase access by foreign firms to the Japanese paper market with the goal of completion by early spring.
Key Elements of the Agreement
The agreement requires the Government of Japan to encourage Japanese paper distributors, converters, printers, and major corporate users to: -- Increase imports of competitive foreign paper products; -- Develop long-term buyer-supplier relationships with foreign producers; -- Establish and implement open and non-discriminatory purchasing practices; and -- Prepare and adopt company-specific, written purchasing guidelines, applicable to both domestic and foreign suppliers. In addition, the Government of Japan will encourage major Japanese producers, distributors, converters, and printers to establish and implement Anti-Monopoly Act compliance programs. The Japanese Government affirmed its commitment to effectively enforce the Anti-Monopoly Act with respect to the paper market. Of particular importance, the Government of Japan has agreed to focus its efforts on major users of paper products, including companies that are members of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry's (MITI) Import Expansion Program, as well as other major users in the food processing, cosmetics, pharmaceutical, and publishing industries. More than 164 companies participate in the Import Expansion Program, including those in the automotive, electrical, electronics, machinery, airline, communications, iron and metal industries, chemicals, textiles, printing, and other sectors. As part of the agreement, the Japanese Government will conduct a number of surveys on conditions in the Japanese paper products market and on the efforts of various paper consumers to use competitive foreign paper products. The US Government will have an opportunity to review the survey questions and discuss methodology with the Japanese Government. An important feature of the 5-year agreement is that the Government of Japan is committed to making ongoing efforts to implement its measures. Both governments will review jointly on a semiannual basis progress made in implementing the measures in the agreement, taking into consideration changes in the level of imports, changes in the level of import penetration, efforts by Japanese companies and by US paper companies, efforts of both governments to implement the measures, and other factors. For its part, the United States will continue to make existing export promotion programs available to US exporters of paper products and will work closely with US companies in their effort to achieve greater access to the Japanese market.
Key Statistics
The American Paper Institute (API) has estimated that the Japanese market for primary paper and paperboard products is $27 billion (1990 data) and the value of the entire Japanese paper industry (including pulp, paper, and paper product manufactures), measured by total value of shipments, is $65 billion (1989 data). API estimated that the total foreign share of the Japanese paper and paperboard products market was 3.7% in 1991, with the US share of the Japanese market amounting to 1.7%. The US share for printing and writing papers was 0.3%. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 18, May 4, 1992 Title:

US-Japan: Cooperating To Build A Global Market Economy

Quayle Source: Vice President Quayle Description: Address before the Council on Foreign Relations, New York City Date: Apr, 27 19924/27/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: East Asia Country: Japan Subject: Trade/Economics [TEXT] I have come here today to discuss an issue of fundamental importance to the entire world as it approaches the 21st century: the future of US-Japan relations and the challenges and opportunities before us in forging a new partnership. Rarely in history have two nations with such differing histories, cultures, and traditions developed such an extraordinary relationship. Half a century ago, we went to war; today, we are the closest of allies. Together, the United States, Japan, and our NATO allies won the Cold War, and we could not have done so without the contributions of Japan. In security matters, I can tell you that, having won the Cold War, we will not retreat into isolationism. The US-Japan security relationship will remain the vital linchpin of peace and security throughout Asia and the Pacific. In economic matters, the remarkable interdependence of the world's two largest and technologically advanced economies will continue to grow, and I can assure you that Japan and the United States are working together to implement the Tokyo Declaration's pledge to make the economies of Japan and the United States the most open and competitive economies in the world. Our shared security concerns and diplomatic collaboration are critical to stability in Asia and beyond. Indeed, I cannot imagine meeting the global economic and political challenges of the post-Cold War world without a cooperative US-Japan relationship. Yet, in recent months, we have heard a misguided war of words, with degrading insults hurled back and forth across the Pacific. Japan's investments in the United States, be they in baseball teams, golf courses, or office buildings, are treated sensationally under story lines such as "Are the Japanese buying up America?" There is an implicit demonization that is going on here that does not get applied to other foreign investors. Emotional outbursts and stereotyping must stop. Japan-bashing, like America-bashing, demeans those who resort to it. This acrimony harms America and American interests as much as it harms Japan and Japanese interests. But why is it happening? There are many factors contributing to the sour rhetoric. First and foremost, the United States, since the 1970s, has been fundamentally restructuring its economy to make it globally competitive. Although this restructuring has been successful in rapidly expanding our exports and maintaining the US share of global manufacturing, the restructuring has been painful and is not yet complete. Second, we are at the end of a long recession, and economic hard times historically have magnified the tendency of some Americans to blame others, preferably people from faraway lands. Third, lapses in responsible political leadership, on both sides of the Pacific, also contribute directly to sourness in trans-Pacific rhetoric. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War seem to have removed some of the constraints on criticism on both sides of the Pacific. I would contend that it is unacceptable for legislators, on either side of the Pacific, to curry public favor by condemning a whole people as lazy or a whole people as predatory. When political elites on both sides of the Pacific engage in ethnic stereotyping, this encourages a process of demonization at the popular level.
Revising the Revisionists
There is a fourth source of negative rhetoric about US-Japan relations. It is called the revisionist school of US-Japan relations, and its popularity has provided an intellectual framework for stereotyping Japan as a predatory, economic juggernaut that must be stopped before it buys up America. The Japan of the revisionists is a monolithic economic animal, impervious to normal economic forces, incapable of change, and unforthcoming in ordinary negotiations. But how do theories stand up to reality? The first premise of the revisionists is that Japan is radically different, that its corporations are not subject to normal market forces, [and] that, in their relentless quest for market share, they will inevitably become dominant. One can understand why books published 5 years ago might have expressed such thoughts. However, in the intervening time period, the trade gap with Japan has fallen from $57 bil-lion to $43 billion. In addition, the United States has become the world's largest exporter, and Japan has become America's second largest customer. How does the gloom and doom crowd explain this? US exports to Japan have risen since 1985 while Japanese exports to the United States have remained more or less flat. Also, the character of US exports to Japan has changed. Not only have US manufactured exports to Japan tripled--yes, tripled--but a full 64% of US exports to Japan are manufactured goods. Who says US firms cannot compete in Japan? In reality, when we look at Japan, the marketplace is becoming increasingly open. A walk down the street in Tokyo is sufficient to measure the rather massive change that has come about during the last decade in consumer preferences, which include an increasing appetite for foreign goods. When we look at those sectors in which there have been serious negotiations, the revisionists may be somewhat disappointed by breakthroughs achieved by foreign products. For example, as a result of trade negotiations in the mid- to late 1980s, barriers were lowered on American aluminum, automobiles and parts, leather footwear, medical equipment, satellites, semiconductors, and telecommunications equipment. This increased US exports of these items by over $4 billion, an increase of 275% between 1985 and 1990. The revisionists are wrong; trade negotiations do achieve results, not only because of outside pressure but because Japanese society is changing from within. Japan is responding to the increasing demands of consumers who are also voters. Where are the gurus now who used to tell us that Japanese corporations are not subject to the same market forces as American or European companies? The close relationship with the banks is supposed to mean that losses can be covered indefinitely to attain or maintain market share. According to this view, Japanese investors are willing to accept low or practically non- existent dividends. Events over the last year in Tokyo cannot be explained readily by revisionist theories. The value of shares on the Tokyo stock market has dropped by more than 50%. This has created new circumstances for the banks, which have seen their portfolios--in both stocks and real estate--decline rapidly as the bubble economy yielded to economic reality. In the future, banks and corporations will find themselves paying higher dividends to attract investors, and Japanese companies will no longer have unlimited access to capital. Obviously, the adjustments that we are seeing in Japan have a long way to go. Akio Morita, the chairman of Sony, says that it is time to turn toward higher profits, higher wages, and higher dividends and way from market share alone as a criterion of success. Perhaps Mr. Morita is responding to economic pressures from within as well as to current political friction with the outside world. Perhaps the revisionists should also note that times have changed. Another indication of Japan's normalcy is that Japan, in 1991, became a capital importer. The pundits who were telling the American people that the Japanese were going to buy up all of America now appear to be rather foolish on two counts. First, the worry about "too much Japanese investment" has recently been replaced by worry about "too little." Second, high-visibility Japanese investments in real estate have now gone sour; Japanese investors, in several prominent instances, have lost very large amounts of money. Clearly, the Bush Administration was correct when, at the high tide of Japanese capital exporting, it refused to accede to the panic of the pundits and allowed the ebb and flow of normal economic forces to regulate Japanese investments. During the President's recent trip to Japan, while the press was, as usual, preoccupied with the sensational and superficial, Prime Minister Miyazawa made some profound decisions. In issuing the Tokyo Declaration with President Bush, he committed his country to building a global partnership of political, economic, and security cooperation with the United States. An essential element of that partnership is a more balanced economic relationship. In the Tokyo Declaration, both the United States and Japan pledged to make their economies the most open and competitive in the world.
US-Japan: Adjusting to Structural Change
Clearly, it is the so-called revisionist school that needs revision. Let me propose another view that squares more with reality. The discord and dissonance we see are a byproduct of global trends at work--the birth pangs of a new relationship and a new world order taking shape. Particularly, this phenomenon is the result of global economic integration, driven by accelerating technological change. In this case, it is the intertwining of two great economies and societies in ever-closer mutual dependence. Over the past 2 decades, we have experienced a fundamental structural change in the nature of US-Japan relations. Change is never easy or predictable; the process of adjustment is always a difficult one. From the mid-1970s, Japan began to emerge as a major economic player. This emergence exploded in the mid-1980s with the revaluation of the yen as a result of the Plaza Accord. Japan's assets soon doubled in value. The surge of Japanese investment--the Rockefeller Center, the Sony-Columbia pictures, and other showcase investments--were a product of this so-called bubble economy. But now that bubble has burst. Japan's economy is not 10 feet tall. Major companies like Sony and Ricoh are, for the first time, operating at losses. Japanese banks which thrived on real estate now look a lot less robust. The point is that, like all economies, Japan's has its strengths and its weaknesses; the post-Plaza Accord adjustment process is playing itself out. At the same time, the past 2 dec-ades have witnessed the emergence of an integrated global economy. The production process has become globalized, and America has become more competitive. The line between domestic and foreign economies is even more blurred. We have Hondas made in Ohio and Dodge Stealths made in Japan; we have Komatsu tractors made in Illinois and John Deere tractors made in Japan. Although there is a great deal of concern about the Japanese and other Asians having a large share of our markets in autos or VCRs, we should not forget the American companies competing successfully in Japan. Whether it is Motorola, Caterpillar Tractor, IBM, General Electric, Boeing, or McDonald's, American firms have had no small share of success in Japan and other Asian markets. The problem is not that Japan or other foreigners invest in America. As Honda workers in Ohio or Nissan workers in Tennessee will tell you, foreign investment means jobs, technology, and management skills. It increases America's value added. The issue is not whether Japanese firms buy Rockefeller Center or the Seattle Mariners. It is whether US firms have equal access to buy Nomura securities or the Seibu Lions. Problems of equal access demand our attention and will continue to receive it until they are resolved.
Challenges and Opportunities
The trade tensions with Japan continue not just because we have a $43- billion deficit but because the deficit reflects a lack of reciprocal access to Japan's markets and a continuing demand for Japanese products by American consumers. Most of the formal barriers to trade have come down, but informal impediments have been more resistant to change. However gradually, though, Japan has been opening its markets, and it is in the best interests of consumers and producers in both societies that this opening-up process should accelerate. Through sectoral market-opening talks, bilateral trade instruments, and our Structural Impediments Initiative--or SII--we are making progress in redressing unsustainable imbalances. The President's trip produced market access gains in sectors such as computers, glass, Japan's $27-billion paper products market, and auto parts. But much more remains to be done. The formula for future global prosperity is an expanded open trade regime. We would like to see Japan leading the drive for a successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round [of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade--GATT] and a renovated world trading system for the 21st century. Japan today is too rich and too powerful to leave the responsibility for shaping this vital pillar of the post-Cold War system to others. If America's experience is any guide, some patience is in order. By the beginning of this century, the United States became the world's largest economic power, but we accepted a global leadership role only reluctantly. In fact, it was not until after World War II that the United States fully accepted its global responsibilities. My point here is that Japan, in the period since World War II, has emerged only slowly and reluctantly from its own self-imposed political isolation. Japan has steadily increased its role in the world, beginning in East Asia and presently reaching far beyond. In project after project, Japan is contributing diplomatic support and substantial resources. Japan has been a major donor to the multilateral aid fund for the Philippines, the Mexican debt agreement, [and] the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, not to mention G-7 efforts to aid Eastern Europe. I am confident that Japan will continue to do more in Eastern Europe and elsewhere to support democracy and free markets. I am also confident that, once the Northern Territories issue is satisfactorily resolved, Japan will play a major role in the former Soviet Union. Make no mistake, Japan is a dependable ally, a truly global partner of the United States. In Asia, Japan's cooperation has been essential to resolving regional conflicts such as Cambodia. That Mr. Akashi is leading the UN peace effort in Cambodia and Mrs. Ogata has become the UN High Commissioner for Refugees are appropriate signs of the times. We are coordinating closely with Japan to end the threat of proliferation on the Korean Peninsula and gain international inspection of North Korea's nuclear program and the dismantling of its reprocessing activities. Moreover, our security alliance remains the bedrock of stability in East Asia. While the doom and gloomsters accuse Japan of "free riding," the facts say otherwise. Japan is committed to assuming 72% of the non-salary costs [of] maintaining our 50,000 soldiers, sailors, and Marines in their country. By 1995, this will amount to a $3.7-billion contribution--more than 50% of our total costs for forward deployment in Japan. Given the role of the US-Japan alliance in undergirding stability in the most economically dynamic region of the world, I would say this is a real bargain for both of us. It is a low-cost insurance policy for the security and prosperity of both nations. This does not mean that we have solved all of the problems, but it does mean that policy-makers in both Washington and Tokyo have worked at least as successfully with one another as they have with any other nation. In fact, in the economic arena, I would contend we have engaged in more intrusive negotiations with more substantial results than any other pair of nations, with the possible exception of the United States and Canada. What are the challenges ahead? Japan's basic challenge is external-- defining an equitable relationship with the world; for the United States, it is largely internal--sustaining our global competitiveness. Let me explain. Last year, Japan doubled its current account surplus to $73 billion. The resulting trade tensions are as much with the EC [European Community] and the rest of Asia as with the United States. To deal with a problem of this magnitude, Japan must complete the transition from an export economy to an internal demand-driven, consumer- oriented society. Anyone who has spent an evening strolling the Ginza can confirm that this process is already underway. No one expects sweeping changes overnight. But, clearly, Japan's economic and political realities suggest that Japan will continue to change, and the crucial, outstanding question is whether the rate of change will be sufficient to continue to enhance Japan's stature in the world. For the United States, Japan has become a mirror for judging our success or shortcomings. I would argue that if we meet the challenge of global competitiveness, the rancor in US-Japan relations will fade. But that means making the President's Education 2000 plan succeed; it means boosting our domestic savings and investment rates, dealing with our budget deficit, increasing our productivity, and better commercializing new technologies. I believe the President's program puts us on this course for renewing American vitality. But these changes in the United States and Japan require an open trading system to sustain prosperity. For this, success of the current Uruguay Round is crucial, and Japan must play a forthcoming role. A truly open trading system, together with the internal economic adjustments I have mentioned for both Japan and the United States, can provide the basis for a successful US-Japan global partnership.
This brings me to the potential contributions of the US-Japan global partnership over the next several decades. The political changes of the last 3 years have made possible the creation of the first truly global market economy since the Russian Revolution. With communism dead or dying virtually everywhere and market economics triumphant almost universally, potential growth for the world economy is limited chiefly by our ability to organize it. Whole populations previously excluded from the consumer society of the late 20th century have been emancipated politically and will now enter the economic race. With 40% of the world's GNP between us, no two nations can play a greater role in building the future than the United States and Japan. The reality is that neither nation can achieve its foreign or domestic objectives without a cooperative relationship with the other. The United States and Japan, as world economic leaders, have a special responsibility for ushering the world economy into an era of open trade and prosperity that may produce truly extraordinary levels of wealth. It is for this reason that Japan and the United States must behave as global partners, expanding the international marketplace while simultaneously leveling the playing field between us. We must adjust to new realities in accord with our own culture, traditions, and habits of mind. If we begin talking to each other rather than at each other, if we begin harmonizing our policies to meet the challenges of the times, we will grow more comfortable with our shared destiny. It will be a future of stability and prosperity. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 18, May 4, 1992 Title:

Fact Sheet: Japan

PA Source: Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public Affairs Date: May, 4 19925/4/92 Category: Fact Sheets Region: East Asia Country: Japan Subject: Trade/Economics, History, Security Assistance and Sales [TEXT]
US-Japan Relations
Japan is America's most important ally in East Asia, its second-largest trading partner, and its foremost economic and technological competitor. The United States and Japan share global and regional interests and cooperate extensively on international political, economic, and security issues. The two countries pursue bilateral and multilateral efforts to create a more open global trading system. The United States and Japan are the world's two largest economies, with a combined gross domestic product (GDP) estimated at $8.5 trillion in 1991, almost 40% of world output. Trade. Japan is America's' second largest market after Canada and its best agricultural customer. Almost all the growth in US-Japan trade in recent years can be attributed to an increase in US exports to Japan, up 8% from 1989 to $48.1 billion in 1991. US imports from Japan also have decreased, down 2% from 1989 to $91.5 billion in 1991. US exports to Japan include agricultural and forest products, aircraft, and data processing equipment. The United States is Japan's largest market. Japanese exports to the United States consist primarily of vehicles (33% of the total), non-electric machinery (24%), and electronic products (22%). The US trade deficit with Japan, about $43 billion in 1991 (66% of the US total), has been a highly visible sign of bilateral trade and economic problems. Macroeconomic factors, such as different rates of savings and investment as a percentage of GDP, are often cited as the major reasons for the external imbalances of the United States and Japan. US trade officials are negotiating to further open Japan to imports of goods and services and to foreign investment. In 1990, the two countries agreed on market access on supercomputers, satellites, wood products, and amorphous metals. They are working to implement the Structural Impediments Initiative, aimed at removing structural barriers to market access and balance-of-payments adjustments. The US Government wants to improve the competitiveness of US industry and is increasing export-promotion activities in Japan. Several official and semi-official Japanese studies, most notably the "Maekawa Report," have recommended that Japan make structural changes in its economy to reflect its more advanced level of economic development. The studies indicate that growth no longer should depend on exports but more on domestic demand. In fact, domestic demand in Japan during 1985- 90 grew faster than external demand. The Japanese Government also is responding to domestic and foreign requests for deregulation of its economy. The Japanese consumer, who faces high prices for local consumer goods, has become more active in calling for changes in the Japanese economy. Working through multilateral forums, the United States and Japan are trying to successfully conclude the Uruguay Round of international trade talks. The US Government has been disappointed with Japan's failure to open its rice market.
The United States and Japan coordinate policies on security in Asia, support for emerging democracies and market economies, and on foreign aid. Although a military role for Japan in international affairs is precluded by its constitution and government policy, Japanese cooperation through the US-Japan security treaty has been important to peace and stability in East Asia. Japanese governments in the post-war period have relied on a close relationship with the United States as the foundation of their foreign policy and on the mutual security treaty for strategic protection, signed in 1955. Recently, Japan has diversified and expanded its security ties with other countries. The Japanese public is becoming more aware of security issues and increasing support for the security treaty and the country's self-defense forces. After the Persian Gulf war, for example, the Japanese Government in April 1991 dispatched military assets (mine sweepers) overseas for the first time since World War II to help clear Iraqi mines from the Gulf. Nonetheless, a strong underlying antipathy remains toward military matters, primarily the result of Japan's experience in World War II.
Domestic Politics
Japan is a politically stable democracy, governed for more than 35 years by moderate and conservative political interests. Japan has a cabinet form of government, headed by a prime minister. Control of the parliament (the Diet) is split, with the Liberal Democratic Party in the majority in the more important Lower House and the combined opposition parties in control of the Upper House. Japan's judicial system, based on the model of Roman law, consists of several levels of courts. The Supreme Court has final judicial authority and the right of judicial review. The Japanese constitution includes a bill of rights similar to the US Bill of Rights, and the Supreme Court has the right of judicial review. Japanese courts do not use a jury system.
Foreign Relations
Japanese foreign policy aims to promote peace and prosperity by working with the West and by strongly supporting the United Nations, of which it has been a member since 1956. Japan maintains diplomatic relations with most countries. Japan has pursued a more active foreign policy in recent years, recognizing the responsibility that accompanies Japan's economic strength. Japan has expanded its ties with the Middle East, which provides most of its oil. It also has been increasingly active in Africa and Latin America and has extended support to multilateral and bilateral development projects in both regions. Japan is now the largest bilateral aid donor in the world. Japan's primary interests traditionally have been in Asia, and good relations with its neighbors continue to be of vital interest to Tokyo. After Japan and China signed a peace and friendship treaty in 1978, ties developed rapidly. Before the June 1989 events in Tiananmen Square, the Japanese extended significant economic assistance to the Chinese. Although Japan has no diplomatic relations with Taiwan, it has maintained strong economic ties. Japan also has established a strong trading relationship with South Korea. The Japanese have sought to improve relations with the countries of the former Soviet Union. However, relations between Tokyo and Moscow never have been close, because the latter continues to occupy the Northern Territories, small islands off the coast of Hokkaido that the Soviet Union seized at the end of World War II. Discussions on this issue have intensified in recent months because of Russia's need for Japanese economic assistance.
'Land of the Rising Sun'
-- Japan's 377,765 sq. km. (145,856 sq. mi.) are mostly rugged, mountainous islands. With a population of 125 million, Japan is among the more densely populated countries in the world--almost 318 persons per square kilometer (823 persons per sq. mi.). The annual growth rate has stabilized at about 0.5%. -- Japan's labor force consists of about 60 million workers, 40% of whom are women. About 12 million workers (27% of the non-agricultural labor force) belong to unions. -- Although highway construction lags, Japan has a well-developed public transportation system centered on the government-owned rail network. In less than 3 hours, super express "bullet trains" travel between Tokyo and Osaka, a distance of 520 kilometers (325 mi.). -- Buddhism is important in Japan's religious life and has influenced fine arts, social institutions, and philosophy. Most Japanese still consider themselves members of one of the major Buddhist sects. Shintoism is an indigenous religion founded on myths and ritual practices of the early Japanese. Most Japanese observe Buddhist and Shinto rituals, the former for funerals and the latter for births, marriages, and other occasions. Confucianism, more an ethical system than a religion, continues to have a pervasive influence on Japanese thought. About 1.5 million people are Christians. -- Japan provides free schooling for all children through junior high school. About 94% of students go on to 3-year senior high schools, and those who pass the difficult entrance examinations enter 4-year universities or 2- year junior colleges. -- Although Japan's mass media are highly competitive, four national daily newspapers dominate. The Yomiuri, the Asahi Shimbun, the Mainichi, and the Nihon Keizai Shimbun each has a circu-lation of 4-14 million. Each publishes weekly magazines and has radio and television interests. -- The government conducts a broad range of modest and successful social welfare programs. All major political parties are committed to providing more effective social welfare services. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 18, May 4, 1992 Title:

US-Germany: Partners in Leadership

Bush Von Weizsaecker Source: President Bush, German President Von Weizsaecker Description: Remarks at arrival ceremony, Washington, DC Date: Apr, 29 19924/29/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Europe Country: Germany Subject: Trade/Economics, Democratization [TEXT]
President Bush
: President and Mrs. [Richard] von Weizsaecker, Minister and Mrs. [Hans-Dietrich] Genscher, distinguished members of the German delegation, on behalf of the American people, let me warmly welcome you to the United States and to Washington on this beautiful spring day. Barbara and I hope you have a productive and an enjoyable visit, and we're especially happy that you'll spend a few days in our home town of Houston, Texas. Your presence doubly honors us. Not only is this your first state visit here, but I'm told that it is your first state visit to any country since the triumphant reunification 11/2 years ago. Your presence here is testimony to the enduring ties that exist between our lands and our people. The German-American relationship has grown even stronger through Cold War and post-Cold War cooperation, drawing our two peoples even more closely together. You come at a pivotal time for our two countries and, indeed, the entire world. Forty-five years ago, at an equally pivotal time, some in the United States said that we should turn inward, turn our backs on our defeated adversaries. We did not. Instead, we committed ourselves to democracy's success, helping Europe, helping Germany and its fledgling democracy. What a wise decision that was--committing ourselves to a continuing global role and making an investment in German democracy. Today, we see the fruits of that decision--united Germany, a model of democracy for the whole world, and certainly, a reliable friend and partner for the United States of America. Today, Germany and the United States face a similar decision as the peoples of Russia and the other new states seek to follow the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in building democracy in free markets. Germany and America in partnership are committed to supporting those who are struggling with the legacy of a defeated communist system and making an investment in their democratic future. Those who would ask why this is the right course need only look at a united Germany. Once our adversary, now our close friend, now our partner in leadership. Three years ago, I accompanied Chancellor [Helmut] Kohl on a visit to your beautiful Rhineland city of Mainz. There I spoke of how, together, we could build a Europe, whole and free, at peace with itself, because lasting security comes not from tanks, troops or barbed wire; it is built on shared values and agreements that link free people. I believed that in Mainz, and I believe it just as firmly today. United Germany is a key partner for the United States in promoting democracy and economic reform in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. You are our partner in building a more united and cooperative Europe. In that spirit, we strongly welcome German involvement in global affairs. Strong German-American cooperation is fully compatible with development of a more unified Europe; a goal that the United States has consistently supported over the years, just as unequivocally as we supported a united Germany. As our world looks ahead to the coming century, I want to state this point as clearly as I can: The United States is firmly committed to remaining a world leader. We will play an active role in securing peace, security, and prosperity in Europe and in our transatlantic community. We must work together to overcome differences, to drive down barriers to free and fair trade, to achieve in the GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] negotiations agreements that will secure for all nations a new prosperity. You, sir, have played a vital role in this. You've made it your task to help reconcile former adversaries, to overcome the antagonisms of the past, and to heal the wounds of division and strife. In a time of upheaval and rapid change, you've provided your countrymen with firm, moral leadership. You've helped them come to terms with the twin catastrophes of dictatorship and division that befell Germany this century. Now, the German nation is at peace with itself, steadfastly committed to democracy and human rights. Germany and the United States are guided by the words of your great national anthem: "May our path by peace be lighted." As we walk down that path of peace together, may God bless our two great nations and the lasting friendship that unites the people of Germany and the United States of America.
President Weizsaecker:
Mr. President, Mrs. Bush, thank you for your warm, warm welcome. At a time when your global responsibilities and your domestic requirements demand your full attention, the fact that you have found time for this meeting should, by no means, be taken for granted. I am, therefore, all the more grateful to you for having made our visit possible and for having given it that unforgettably beautiful surrounding this spring morning. The message underlying your invitation came through loud and clear. The United States has stood by Germany in times of trouble and danger. This close cooperation between friends has now been rewarded. It has led to the successful end of the Cold War. For the first time in history, an American President is able to extend an invitation to the President of the peacefully united Germany. Through this visit, I wish to express to America, its President, and its people that Germany will never forget the untiring and generous assistance we have received from all of you throughout the past few decades. In the light of new tasks and challenges, we are determined to continue and to trust in the pursuit of our reliable partnership. It is our task and our challenge and responsibility to unite our possibilities, to come from the end of the Cold War to a democratic peace. I look forward with expectations and confidence through my talks with you, Mr. President, with Secretary Baker, with members of Congress, and with other citizens of your great nation. Thank you for your invitation. Thank you for this lovely morning. Thank you all. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 18, May 4, 1992 Title:

US and Germany: Uniting The World in a Democratic Peace

Baker Source: Secretary Baker Description: Remarks at a luncheon in honor of German President von Weizsaecker, Washington, DC Date: Apr, 29 19924/29/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Europe Country: Germany Subject: Democratization [TEXT] Mr. President and Mrs. von Weizsaecker, Foreign Minister and Mrs. Genscher, distinguished guests: Susan and I are honored to join this room full of your friends and admirers in welcoming you to the Department of State, Mr. President. We also welcome again our good friend Hans-Dietrich [Genscher]. This, unfortunately, will be his last visit here as Foreign Minister, and we will all miss him very much in that capacity. But I want him to know that he will always be welcome here--for his counsel, his friendship, and his unmatched sense of humor and great stories. Hans-Dietrich, let me now say, as someone doubly proud to know you as a friend and colleague, that your accomplishments over 18 years of service to your country as Foreign Minister are as extensive as they are unequaled. And I want you to know that, in all of my years of public service, the honor of working with you to achieve the unification of Germany in peace and freedom--achieving Freiheit und Einheit--ranks at the top of the scale. I can only hope that what you said in your resignation statement applies to us as well as to Germany: that your resignation as Foreign Minister does not mean your departure from public life and that we "may--no, we will--have to reckon" with you in the future. As a Texan, I "reckon," Hans-Dietrich, that "reckoning" with you will remain a promise and a pleasure. So come back and see us again--soon and often. Now, ladies and gentlemen, at the outset of our luncheon honoring President and Mrs. von Weizsaecker, I think it's especially appropriate to note that we are gathered in a room named for Benjamin Franklin, for he was an early and eloquent advocate for the democratic values that today infuse the domestic and foreign policies of our two great nations. Mr. President, you represent a great democracy--a great friend and ally of the United States. That fact alone makes your visit an important event for all Americans. But this visit takes on even greater significance because it comes at a time of transition in the world, in Europe, and in German- American relations. And it's a transition that our two nations, as great democracies, friends, and allies have worked and sacrificed for over 4 decades to achieve. So comfortable is the world today with the notion of a single, unified Germany that it hardly seems possible it was less than 2 years ago--in peaceful consummation of an entire generation of concerted effort by Germans, Americans, and our NATO allies--that your dream, our dream--was realized. I can only imagine how deeply honored you are to serve as the first President of a Germany reborn united, within a Europe whole and free. America was proud to stand with the German people throughout half a century of cruel division. So now, at this time of hopeful change, we are proud to stand united with you as "partners in leadership" for the sake of a better world in the century to come. Mr. President, I have no doubt that the history of this century will be kind to you and to the Federal Republic that you so ably represent. Having known dictatorship and injustice, you have worked tirelessly to ensure the triumph of democracy and human rights at home and abroad. Having seen hunger and poverty, you have acted with the unshakable conviction that only the enterprise of free men and women can overcome these challenges to human dignity. Having known the horror of war, you have done everything possible to promote peace and reconciliation, both within Europe and within Germany itself. Having lived in a Europe torn asunder by hatred, mistrust, and aggressive nationalism, you have championed tolerance and European integration. And you have been a stalwart supporter of the transatlantic ties that serve as a bedrock for Europe's and America's security. Throughout your career, Mr. President, you have consistently and faithfully pursued the very democratic ideals which now animate political change in the new states of Central and Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, and, indeed, in nations throughout the world. These are promising times for great democracies such as ours. Together, we worked to meet the challenge of restoring a Europe half-free to wholeness. And together, we must now deal with, perhaps, the even greater challenge of meeting the concerns of a community of free nations that is not yet wholly stable, prosperous, nor secured in democracy. Certainly, the collapse of communism has thrown problems at home into relief, and it has brought other problems to the fore. But I have no doubt--and I know that President Bush is equally convinced-- that the problems we face can be tackled successfully. Together we share a deep sense of purpose. The values that we hold in common are far stronger that any of our differences. I believe that our peoples fundamentally recognize that the answers to the problems of this interdependent world can only be solved through engagement and not through isolationism. Our democratic values of respect for human rights, human enterprise, tolerance, and the peaceful settlement of disputes gave us the strength to meet the challenges of a divided Europe. So, too, can these same democratic values give us the strength to meet the challenges of a world made new by the spread of those values--the strength to build a democratic peace. Mr. President, I began my comments by noting the aptness of gathering here in the Benjamin Franklin room. I understand that toward the end of his long and productive life, Franklin wrote: God grant that not only the Love of Liberty but a thorough knowledge of the Rights of Man may pervade all the nations of the earth so that a Philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say, "This is my country." Mr. President, when I visit your united Germany, I have that same sense of coming home. In that spirit, I say: May our two great democracies continue to work in partnership, so that, someday, we may realize Franklin's dream of an entire world united in a democratic peace. Ladies and gentlemen, I would now ask that you join me in a toast to our distinguished guests, President and Mrs. von Weizsaecker, and to ever stronger ties of partnership between Germany and the United States of America. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 18, May 4, 1992 Title:

Fact Sheet: Germany

PA Source: Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public Affairs Date: May, 4 19925/4/92 Category: Fact Sheets Region: Europe Country: Germany Subject: Democratization, History, Trade/Economics [TEXT]
US-German Relations
When Germany was reunified on October 3, 1990, President Bush hailed it as the "culmination of a year of change that, indeed, transformed a continent." Since then, the US and Germany have been close partners in developing a post-Cold War trans-Atlantic architecture aimed at ensuring security through democracy and free markets. Germany is a key member of the major trans-Atlantic organizations through which the US believes these goals can be achieved--notably NATO and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE)--as well as the European Community (EC) and other strictly European organizations that will play a major role in the transformation of the continent. The former World War II allied powers relinquished their residual post-war rights in Germany at a ceremony held on the fringes of the first-ever CSCE ministerial talks in New York just 2 days prior to formal unification. A joint US-German statement signed by Secretary of State Baker and German Foreign Minister Genscher in Washington, DC, in October 1991 said that "CSCE has a unique role in both widening and deepening the reach of democracy throughout Europe." Since the break-up of the Soviet Union in December 1991, the US and Germany have sought to extend that view to the former Soviet republics as well. To that end, Germany was a key participant in the Coordinating Conference on Assistance to the New Independent States held at the State Department in January 1992. The US-German partnership extends beyond the trans-Atlantic community. Germany was a key player in the most dramatic example of the new international unity -- the UN-led coalition that drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. Germany sent military forces to help protect Iraq's northern neighbor Turkey (allowed under the post-war German constitution because Turkey is a NATO member). In addition, Germany helped defray some $10 billion in Gulf war expenses incurred by the US, UK, Israel, Turkey, and the US-led Gulf Crisis Financial Coordinating Group. The US and Germany also cooperate closely in such areas as the reduction of conventional military forces in Europe under the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty and in efforts to stop terrorism. The US Ambassador to Germany is Robert M. Kimmitt.
The Extension of Democracy To Former East Germany
When East and West Germany reunited, Germany's bicameral legislature extended its representation throughout the 16 states. On December 2, 1990, all-German elections were held for the first time since 1937. Germany's major political parties are the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the Christian Social Union (CSU), the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the Free Democratic Party (FDP), and the Greens. Smaller parties include Alliance 90 and the Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS). Parties represented in the present government are the CDU/CSU and the FDP, which Chancellor Helmut Kohl and Vice Chancellor/Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher represent in the coalition government. The constitution emphasizes the protection of individual liberty and divided power in a federal structure. The chancellor (prime minister) is elected by the 662-member lower house of the German parliament and heads the executive branch. Germany is a key participant in the EC, working toward economic-monetary and political union. The EC seeks consensus for joint action on international political issues and has taken increasing responsibility in areas such as environmental and narcotics policy, formerly reserved to individual members. Since mid-1989, it has played a key coordinating role for Western assistance to Central and Eastern Europe and the new independent states.
Economic and Trade Issues
Germany, with a 1991 GNP estimated to be $1.7 trillion, is among the world's most important economic powers. It has the second largest economy among Western industrial nations. Upon unification, it retired the currency of the former East Germany and bore the expense of integrating into its market economy the economic activity of those 5 states, where productivity had been far lower than that in the 11 states of the former West Germany. The economy of the unified country grew more than 3% in 1991. Along with problems of expansion, the country is coping with environmental damage and inadequate infrastructure in the formerly communist area. Today, Germany continues to export much of its national output, 79% of it to other industrialized countries, which buy chemicals, motor vehicles, iron and steel products, manufactured goods, and electrical products. Outside the EC, the United States, Austria, and Switzerland are Germany's major trading partners. In 1990, the United States accounted for almost $29 billion, or 8%, of German exports, and developing countries for about 16%. Imports include food, petroleum products, manufactured goods, electrical products, automobiles, and apparel. The United States supplied 6% of German imports, other industrialized countries, 78%, and developing countries, 19%. German imports from the United States in 1991 are estimated to have been $23.6 billion, including cost, insurance, and freight charges. US direct investment flows to Germany amounted to $818 million in 1990, 36% in manufacturing (primarily automobiles) and 25% in petroleum. German direct investment flows to the United States during 1990 amounted to $950 million because the outflow of funds from existing German investments in the United States exceeded the inflow of new German investment. Total German foreign direct investment in the United States as of December 31, 1990, was $27.8 billion, while total US foreign direct investment in Germany as of that date was $27.7 billion. Total US- German trade in 1991 is estimated to be about $51 billion. Germany has a deep-seated commitment, shared with the United States, to an open and expanding world economy.
Germany at a Glance
Berlin, once again the capital, prepares for the move from Bonn of the bicameral parliament, the offices of the president and the chancellor, and several major ministries over the next few years. Germany aims to provide productive employment for the work force of 39 million, nearly half of the 1990 population estimate of 79 million. The country's 99% literacy rate and comprehensive health and social services contribute to a high standard of living/quality of life that reflects the strength of its economy. Education is compulsory for 10 years, and a large proportion of the population pursues higher degrees in the universities and in trade and technical schools. Germans are enthusiastic tourists and participants in exchange programs, particularly with the United States. More than 7 million Germans have immigrated to the United States over the last 3 centuries; nearly 25% of all US citizens have some German ancestry. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 18, May 4, 1992 Title:

Soviet Non-compliance With Arms Control Agreements: Transmittal Letter and Report

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Text of a letter from President Bush to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, Washington, DC Date: Apr, 9 19924/9/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Eurasia Country: USSR (former) Subject: Arms Control [TEXT]
Transmittal Letter
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:) Enclosed are classified and unclassified copies of the annual Report on Soviet Non-compliance With Arms Control Agreements. Last year the Soviet Union ended and we have every reason to hope that this will lead to a new era of compliance with arms control agreements. The report I am forwarding covers actions taken in 1991 by the former Soviet Union, not the newly independent states which have succeeded it. We have already seen an improvement in the willingness of these new governments to adhere to arms control obligations. For our part, the United States will continue to expect scrupulous compliance with all arms control obligations. Such compliance is especially important as we build new and better relations and as conventional and nuclear forces are dismantled. Sincerely, George Bush
Report on Soviet Non-compliance With Arms Control Agreements
Annual report released on March 30, 1992. This past year has brought tremendous change to many parts of the world, especially the demise of the Soviet Union. While we welcome most of these changes, we note that the situation remains in turmoil and still bears watching. We will continue to do so. This report examines arms control compliance cases that resulted from conditions created by actions undertaken by the former Soviet Government. In that sense, the conclusions drawn in this report should be viewed in light of the changed political relationship with the new republics of the former Soviet Union and the apparent willingness of the new governments to adhere to arms control obligations. This and previous non-compliance reports indicate clearly to all new arms control partners taking the place of the former Soviet Union that we will demand the same high compliance standards as in the past. We will continue to be guided by the principle that arms control treaty obligations must be observed scrupulously and equally by all parties to the treaty in question. This report also indicates areas of concern to be pursued as appropriate with the new states of the former Soviet Union. In 1984, President Reagan submitted the report on Soviet non-compliance prepared by the independent General Advisory Committee on Arms Control. Reports, mandated by Congress, include those dated January 1984, February and December 1985, March and December 1987, March 1988 (which only addressed Soviet actions with respect to the Threshold Test Ban Treaty), December 1988, and February 1990. The most recent report was submitted in February 1991. Previous reports documented Soviet violations of major arms control treaties and agreements. These included the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, SALT I and II, the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons, the Helsinki Final Act, the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), the Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT), and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Past evidence suggested that the Soviet Union also violated the Threshold Test Ban Treaty (TTBT).
Scope of the Report
As required by law, this report includes a summary of the current status of Soviet non-compliance with existing arms control treaties and agreements. Updates of issues associated with the INF Treaty and the ABM Treaty are included, as are analyses of issues related to the INF Treaty, the ABM Treaty, the Limited Test Ban Treaty, and the Ballistic Missile Launch Notification Agreement.
The START Treaty
Our analysis of the data provided by the Soviet Union under the START Treaty and certain START-related activities is not completed. Our work will continue and the Administration will be providing a report of this analysis and our conclusions as soon as possible.
Conventional Arms Control Issues
In November 1990, two conventional arms control agreements were completed. The Vienna Document 1990 on Confidence- and Security-Building Measures (CSBMs), a political agreement augmenting the Stockholm Conference on Disarmament in Europe (CDE) agreement, went into effect on January 1, 1991. The Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, although not yet ratified by all States Parties, has had a number of measures in provisional application since Treaty signature on November 19, 1990. In both agreements, there have been questions with regard to Soviet compliance. CFE. A full report on CFE was signed by the President on December 24, 1991, and submitted to the Congress in accord with Condition 6 to the CFE Resolution of Ratification. The Report concluded, with regard to analysis of Soviet compliance, that: (l) The United States Government has determined that the Soviet Union had under-reported Treaty Limited Equipment (TLE) in the CFE zone of application as of Treaty signature and thus violated its obligation to provide accurate data. The extent of under-reporting remains uncertain; and the US Government will continue to seek a satisfactory resolution to this issue in appropriate fora. (2) The US Government has determined that, in violation of their CFE obligations, the Soviets failed to report all Objects of Verification (OOV). Discussions will continue in order to resolve this issue. Vienna CSBMs Document 1990. On April 15, 1991, under the provisions of the Vienna Document 1990 [see Dispatch Supplement, Vol. 2, No. 2, March 1991], the USSR exchanged information on its conventional armed forces in Europe effective May 1, 1991. While most of the combat units declared by the Soviet Union in the CFE data exchange appeared in the Soviet CSBM declaration, because the USSR had apparently adopted a narrower interpretation of the Vienna Document, the Soviet Union omitted some units which had been reported in its CFE data. Applying this narrow interpretation of the Vienna Document, the Soviet Union did not report naval coastal defense forces, special purpose (Spetsnaz) forces, reserve and rear area security units, or training units. In several subsequent discussions of the CSBM military information exchange, the Soviet Union defended its interpretation of the Vienna Document to exclude such units. In October 1991, Soviet military representatives to the CSBM negotiations in bilateral discussions indicated a willingness to include coastal defense forces and training units, but not to include Spetsnaz brigades, in future military information exchanges. Subsequently, in bilateral discussions, the Soviets agreed to include all but Spetsnaz units in future data exchanges. In addition, at the November 1991 First Annual Implementation Assessment Meeting in Vienna, the Soviet Union indicated that its CSBMs data would, in the future, conform to Western interpretations and understandings of the requirements of the CSBMs agreement. Moreover, the Soviet data submitted at the CSBM military information exchange on December 15, 1991, did, generally, conform to our understanding of CSBM requirements.
The INF Treaty
The 1987 Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, commonly referred to as the INF Treaty (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces), requires elimination of the Parties' ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, launchers and associated support structures and support equipment within 3 years after the treaty entered into force (June 1988). Actions of the former Soviet Union inconsistent with the INF Treaty are violations of a legal obligation. SS-23 Missiles. The most serious remaining concern related to implementation of the INF Treaty during 1991 has been the question of SS- 23 missiles. Two reports in 1991 addressed this issue. This report provides an update on the SS-23 missiles in Eastern Europe since the transmittal of the supplemental report in September 1991 and addresses the issue of whether SS-23 missiles were produced beyond those declared or accounted for and reaffirms our previous finding that Soviet failure to inform the United States of the existence of SS-23 missile systems in the GDR [German Democratic Republic], Czechoslovakia, and Bulgaria, during the negotiations and in the interim period preceding the GDR announcement, constitutes bad faith. The United States also reaffirms its belief that understandings existed, at least with one of the Eastern European countries, that, within the common meaning of the term, constituted what amounted to an undisclosed program of cooperation, and that the Soviet Union probably violated the Elimination Protocol of the treaty by failing to eliminate, in accordance with treaty procedures, re-entry vehicles associated with and released from programs of cooperation. On the subject of SS-23 missiles in Bulgaria, the United States will continue to assess associated evidence of the equipment received by Bulgaria and the relationship of the Bulgarians to the Soviet Union in this regard. On the subject of unaccounted-for SS-23 missiles, the report states the conclusion that the former Soviet Union did not provide sufficient evidence to resolve this issue. Undeclared SS-4 Support Equipment. The February 1991 report examined the question of undeclared SS-4 support equipment. This report reexamines this issue. During 1990, the United States became aware of three SS-4 launch stands and eight missile transporter vehicles (MTVs) that were not included in the MOU [Memorandum of Understanding]. The Soviet Union destroyed three launch stands and five MTVS on October 24, 1990, in the presence of US inspectors. However, three SS-4 MTVs remain unaccounted for, and the MOU has not been updated as required by the treaty. None of the locations where this support equipment was located is a declared INF site. The United States has raised the issue of these undeclared items with the Soviet Union and sought specific Soviet actions to resolve the issue. Some, but not all, of the necessary steps toward resolution have been taken. This report reaffirms the US Government's February 1991 finding that the presence of non-operational SS-4 MTVs and launch stands at locations not declared under the INF Treaty constituted violations of the provisions of the INF Treaty. While the Soviet elimination of some of this equipment has moved the Soviet Union towards resolution of this violation, more remains to be accomplished. The United States continues to be concerned about this matter and what it implies about the accuracy of Soviet declarations. Undeclared SS-5 Support Equipment. Since June 1990, the United States has obtained evidence that there are several SS-5 missile transporter vehicles (MTVs) at undeclared locations in the former Soviet Union. This report examines the issue of whether the SS-5 MTVs should have been declared as INF support equipment and eliminated under the INF Treaty. The report states that during the INF Treaty negotiations, the Soviet Union denied the existence of SS-5 support equipment and, hence, a category for SS-5 support equipment was not included in the treaty. The United States subsequently discovered the existence of SS-5 support equipment. The report states the US judgment that this support equipment should have been declared and eliminated under the INF Treaty. The United States will continue to ask that all remaining SS-5 support equipment be destroyed in a verifiable manner. Soviet Cruise Missile Tests. As noted in the February 1991 report, an issue arose regarding Soviet cruise missile tests. This report examines the issue of whether the cruise missiles test fired in late 1990 were of a type limited by the INF Treaty. Related to this issue were the questions of whether the launcher used for the flight tests was a fixed land-based launcher used only for test purposes and whether it was distinguishable from GLCM [Ground Launched Cruise Missile] launchers. The report concludes that the United States does not have evidence to indicate that the test flights involved prohibited INF GLCMs or that they were conducted in a manner inconsistent with INF Treaty provisions. Nonetheless, the United States will continue to seek additional details on the tests and will continue to monitor cruise missile tests closely for indications of possible non-compliance with the treaty.
The ABM Treaty
The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and its 1974 Protocol ban deployment of ABM systems except that each party is permitted to deploy one ABM system around the national capital area or, alternatively, at a single intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) deployment area. The ABM Treaty is in force and is of indefinite duration. Actions not in accord with the ABM Treaty are, therefore, violations of a legal obligation. The Krasnovarsk Radar. The US Government has reaffirmed its previous finding that the large phased-array radar deployed near Krasnovarsk constitutes a significant violation of a central element of the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. Its capability, coupled with its associated siting and orientation, are prohibited by this treaty. Soviet dismantlement of the Krasnovarsk radar continued during 1991. This dismantlement has not been as rapid as the Soviet Union had promised, and the Soviet Union did not fulfill its commitment to dismantle the radar completely by the end of 1991. Mobility of ABM System Components. With regard to the Flat Twin radars, no new information has been received in 1991 that would change the US judgment that these radars can be moved relatively quickly from one area to another as demonstrated by the redeployment of a Flat Twin radar to Kamchatka and the relocation of major parts of another Flat Twin radar to Gomel. In these moves, the Soviets demonstrated a capability to transport and redeploy the radar in a matter of weeks or months. The two Flat Twin radars, as currently constructed and tested, cannot be said to be truly mobile, but neither can they be considered to be immobile. Concurrent Testing of ABM and Air Defense Components. This report reiterates the previous US Government finding that the Soviet Union has in the past conducted concurrent activity of air defense and ABM components prohibited by the 1978 Agreed Statement. ABM Capability of Modern SAM Systems. This report again concludes that the evidence of Soviet actions with respect to SAM upgrade is insufficient to assess compliance with the Soviet Union's obligations under the ABM Treaty. Soviet Large Phased-Array Radars (LPARs). LPARs have always been considered to be the long lead-time element of a possible territorial defense. Krasnovarsk would have been only one radar of a network of nine such radars. Because they have an ability to track large numbers of objects accurately, these radars, depending on location and orientation, have the inherent technical potential to contribute to ABM defense. The US Government judges that it is probable that Soviet Pechora-class LPARs support the Moscow ABM system with handover data suitable for target acquisition by the Pill Box engagement radar. The US Government believes that these data are sufficiently precise to reduce significantly search volume and the search time required for target acquisition by the Pill Box. The ABM Treaty is not explicit with regard to this activity. Nevertheless, this Soviet activity is clearly not consistent with the way the United States has interpreted its own compliance under the ABM Treaty. Consequently, the Soviet activity raises questions of, at least, inequitable application of treaty limitations and, potentially, of a significant violation of fundamental treaty provisions. ABM Territorial Defense. Throughout the late 1980s, the United States judged that the aggregate of Soviet ABM and ABM-related activities-- including violation of the ABM Treaty--suggested that the Soviet Union may have been preparing an ABM defense of its national territory. In addition to evidence on this issue amassed earlier, the United States now believes that it is probable that Soviet LPARs provide handover data to the Moscow ABM system, and that they are capable of doing so for a future system designed for widespread deployment. This underscores our concern that the Soviet Union designed and constructed the LPAR network to create an option for a nationwide ABM deployment. Over the past 2 years, the Soviet Union has taken certain actions which reduced US concerns. Furthermore, in light of recent political, economic, and military developments, it would now be far more difficult for the former Soviet military establishment to deploy a territorial defense in violation of international obligations. Nonetheless, as long as the ABM Treaty remains in force, the ABM and ABM-related activity undertaken in the past by the former Soviet Union will remain a potential cause for concern and will require continued monitoring.
Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT)
Since first addressed in the February 1985 President's report to Congress on Soviet non-compliance, the United States has reiterated its finding that, as a result of the Soviet Union's underground nuclear test practices, Soviet tests have vented radioactive debris outside the Soviet Union's territorial limits in violation of its legal obligation under the LTBT. The United States has noted that the Soviet Union has failed to take the precautions necessary to avoid such venting despite repeated US requests for corrective action. The February 1991 report stated that the Soviet Union conducted only one underground nuclear test in 1990, and, that following this test, nuclear debris was detected outside the Soviet Union, but the United States had not completed its analysis of this test. This report examined the question of whether the Soviet Union's October 1990 underground nuclear test resulted in the presence of nuclear debris beyond its territory. The report states that the United States believes that the Soviet Union has again violated the LTBT.
Threshold Test Ban Treaty (TTBT) and Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty (PNET)
The Threshold Test Ban Treaty was signed in 1974 but not ratified in its original form because of concerns about effective verification of the 150- kiloton yield limit set by the treaty. The Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty was signed in 1976 but not ratified in its original form for the same reason. On June 1, 1990, the United States and the Soviet Union signed verification protocols to the TTBT and PNET. The US Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification of the TTBT, PNET, and their Protocols on September 25, 1990. The Supreme Soviet took comparable action on October 9, 1990. The treaties entered into force on December 11, 1990, upon exchange of the instruments of ratification. The Soviet Union did not announce that they had conducted any nuclear tests in 1991. The Soviet Union did not announce any peaceful nuclear explosions in 1991. The last peaceful nuclear explosion announced by the Soviet Union was in 1988.
Chemical, Biological, and Toxin Weapons
The 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) and the 1925 Geneva Protocol are multilateral treaties to which both the United States and the Soviet Union are parties. Actions not in accord with these treaties and customary international law relating to the 1925 Geneva Protocol are violations of legal obligations. The United States has determined that the former Soviet Union's extensive ongoing offensive biological warfare (BW) program violates the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. It is unclear what effect the recent formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States may have on the future of this program. The United States has determined that the Soviet Union has maintained an active offensive program since the 1930s and continues to be in violation of the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC). The United States judges that the Soviet capability may include advanced biological and toxin agents of which the United States has little or no knowledge, and against which the United States has no defense. The issue of whether the Soviet Union violated the 1925 Geneva Protocol and related rules of customary international law and the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention by its involvement in the production, transfer, and use of lethal and incapacitating chemical and biological agents, including trichothecene mycotoxins, for hostile purposes has been addressed in previous reports. The United States first found the Soviet Union to be in violation of these agreements in the January 1984 President's report to Congress on Soviet non-compliance. Since the January 1984 report, the United States has had no additional evidence of use of lethal agents that could be confirmed according to established standards of evidence, i.e. two or more corroborating reports from different sources. In reviewing the issue in the December 1987 report, the United States found no basis for amending its previous conclusion that the Soviet Union had been involved in the production, transfer, and use of trichothecene mycotoxins for hostile purpose in Laos, Cambodia, and Afghanistan in violation of its legal obligations under international law as codified in the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972.
The Ballistic Missile Launch Notification Agreement
The February 1991 report addressed Soviet actions with respect to the Ballistic Missile Launch Notification Agreement. This report addresses the issue of whether the Soviet Union, by failing to provide proper notification of ballistic missile launches, violated the Ballistic Missile Launch Notification Agreement. The report states the US Government conclusion that the Soviet Union, although it provided goodwill notifications, by failing to provide notifications of launches of ballistic missiles consistent with the procedures agreed in the Ballistic Missile Launch Notification Agreement, violated that agreement. Since December 1991, proper launch notifications for the type of launches at issue have been provided to the United States.
Reciprocal Advance Notification of Major Strategic Exercises Agreements.
The United States and Soviet Union agreed in September 1989 that each side would notify the other annually of one of its major strategic exercises involving heavy bomber aircraft. While concerns have arisen regarding the Soviet Union's failure to provide any notification of exercise activity under this agreement in 1990, and provision in 1991 of a negative notification, our analysis of this issue is not complete. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 18, May 4, 1992 Title:

Strengthening Democracy To Promote Human Rights

Blackwell Source: Ambassador J. Kenneth Blackwell, US Representative to the UN Human Rights Commission Description: Address before the Black Law Student Association, Harvard University Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts Date: Apr, 11 19924/11/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Subsaharan Africa Country: South Africa, Zaire, Benin, Cape Verde Subject: Human Rights, Democratization [TEXT] A historian of the French Revolution, Count Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote more than a century ago that each generation is a new people. Today, we live in a time when contemporary events are not only reshaping political boundaries and ideological debates but a time when a new people and a new generation are emerging. This new generation is one for which the lessons of history have reaffirmed the knowledge that all men and women are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To be sure, these are the words written in the US Declaration of Independence. Moreover, they are universal principles, the basic tenets of democracy and human rights laid down by our Founding Fathers more than 200 years ago. Their universality was affirmed and stated in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations. They are the principles around which peoples worldwide have been provided into taking action--principles which have guided our nation in the international arena. Within the last 2 years, popular movements around the globe adopting these universal principles have come to power and are now engaged in the process of creating new government orders. We need only look at the captive nations of the former Soviet Union, East European nations, countries throughout Latin America and Africa for proof that dictatorial rule is being buried and replaced by democracy and pluralism. Mankind is, indeed, fortunate that the democratic experiments which are taking root around the globe today can rely on the experiences and progress of established democracies so as to avoid some of the pitfalls of the past. A new generation of leaders has emerged. The number dedicated to those universal principles which benefit all people of the world is, today, by far, the largest. For most of the 20th century, the principal ideological challenge to the cause of democracy and respect for human rights has come from the doctrines laid down and the movement created at the beginning of this century by Vladimir Lenin. The horrors of World War II, devastating as they were to those directly affected, were, as to their impact, limited in time and place. It was Lenin and communism which cast the longest shadow, by far, influencing developments across the entire globe decade after decade. Yet, far from its place of birth, Leninism, though in decline, still is the faith in whose name people are being repressed. As a foreign import, it survives in China, where it controls the lives of one-fifth of humankind, and in four other countries: North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos. The faith that once inspired the movement is now long gone. Communism is, today, more a system for the exercise of power by aging ruling elites, which are increasingly out of touch with the thinking of their subjects but still try to use the power which they possess to suppress all independent thought. Repressive government is, however, not limited to the countries which still espouse Leninist principles. Dictatorships offering unique ideologies of their own, or no ideology at all, continue to exist. Burma and Iraq come to mind. These are merely two examples of a category of countries in which, either in the name of a religious or a secular ideology or without any ideological commitment, all opposition to the state and all independent institutions are repressed through a pervasive secret police or domestic spy apparatus which instills fear in the citizenry. Between the totally repressive dictatorships, on the one hand, and the democracies, on the other, there is a vast array of authoritarian regimes-- regimes which do not seek to control all forms of social interaction in their countries but which will carefully guard their position and prerogatives against any group that seeks to replace it. The number of regimes in this category is in decline, particularly in Africa, where multi-party democracy and free elections have, in a growing number of countries, replaced one-man rule and rigged elections. Gone now are the Marxist-Leninist governments on that continent, apartheid is on its way out, and gone are a number of authoritarian rulers. Only a year or two ago, multi-party democracy was rejected as unsuitable for Africa or as an idle dream both by autocratic rulers and by those experts who thought they had a realistic understanding of the continent. Today, it is a reality in some African countries, is in the process of being introduced in others, and is, indeed, seen as the wave of the future. In the 20 years in which we in the United States have systematically followed human rights developments worldwide, our focus has been principally on Eastern Europe, Latin America, and South Africa. Relatively little attention was paid to human rights conditions in other parts of Africa. The heroes of the hour were the advocates of democracy under conditions of repression: [Soviet dissident Andrei] Sakharov, [Polish President Lech] Walesa, [Czechoslovak President Vaclav] Havel, and [South African Bishop Desmond] Tutu. The villains were the communist regimes of Eastern Europe, the military dictatorships in Latin America, and the apartheid Government of South Africa. The neglect of human rights problems in Africa was not accidental. There were those who, to use a currently popular term, did not deem it to be "politically correct" to criticize governments of countries which had recently emerged from colonialism. There were others whose racist bias caused them to suggest that Africa was not ready for democracy. Apologists for African dictatorships also offered the same contention, arguing that economic development had to precede the institution of democracy and respect for human rights. Unfortunately, there were African leaders, themselves, who subscribed to the notion that multi-party democracy would only lead to tribalism. Yet, in spite of this neglect of human rights conditions in Africa, one can today note a ferment for democracy and human rights across the entire continent. One of the most interesting phenomena is the tendency of the countries which once espoused one- party governments influenced by Marxist tenets to lead the way toward democracy. Democracy has, thus, come to Benin, Cape Verde, and Zambia and is on its way to being established in the Republic of Congo, Togo, Ethiopia, Niger, and Mali. Beyond that, Cote d'Ivoire and Gabon appear to be opening up their systems. Angola has ended its bloody 17-year civil war and will hold elections this year, and neighboring Namibia celebrated its first year as an independent state under a democratic constitution. There is increasing recognition on the continent that economic development and an open political society go hand in hand. There are still African nations where a one-party political system continues to restrict sharply the rights of its citizens based on ethnicity and religion--among them Tanzania, Mauritania, and Sudan. The worst human rights abuses in the region, by far, are today committed by the Governments of Mauritania and Sudan. In Mauritania, these abuses have significant overtones of racial repression. The majority Moorish population, an Arabic ethnic group, have in the past attacked and forced members of the Sub-Saharan African Senegalese minority to flee the country. In Sudan, the oftentimes volatile mix of race and religious differences are major factors in the long-term civil conflict. This war has pitted the Islamic northern Arabic population against southern Sub-Saharan Africans professing traditional and Protestant religions. With regard to South Africa, in 1991, the government there knocked out some of apartheid's most vital legal supports: the Land Acts of 1913 and 1936, the Group Areas Act of 1966, and the Population Registration Act of 1950. We all witnessed the historic vote in South Africa on March 17. Despite this, the process of dismantling apartheid remains far from complete. The De Klerk Government and the nation's various opposition groups must still carefully negotiate a constitution extending equality to that country's black majority. Our government is fully committed to doing all we can to advance the process leading to a non-racial democracy. It appears that freedom and democracy are contagious in both national and global terms. The fall of dictators in Eastern Europe and the republican democratic orientation of the constituent nations of the former Soviet Union have had a catalyzing effect on a new generation of African leaders. These changes will undoubtedly influence political and social policy throughout the continent in the near future. These new adjustments, however, can quickly become concerns if not nurtured and sustained by newly elected governments. In accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, Dr. Martin Luther King, [Jr.] spoke of "the need for man to overcome oppression without resorting to violence," and herein lies his special claim on the attention of the world today. Dr. King taught that meeting violence with violence and hatred with hatred would only perpetuate the tragic cycle of history and of man's inhumanity to man. While the world map has recorded promising developments in recent years, we are also in a dangerous era of political disintegration and an increased spread of weapons of mass destruction. As Dr. King said the day before he died, "It is no longer a choice between violence and non-violence in this world, it's non-violence or non-existence." Across the globe, we see the effects of tensions between various ethnic groups and minority populations. Inter-ethnic disputes as well as politically motivated killings have moved to the forefront as the principal cause of human rights violations. Rajiv Gandhi was only the most prominent victim of the tragic struggle which has beset Sri Lanka for the last 8 years. Ethnic tensions in Yugoslavia have led to war between Croats and Serbs. In Nagorno-Karabakh, a similar struggle has engaged Armenians and Azerbai- janis. Throughout the world today, thousands, if not millions, of young people are still being taught hate. In these circumstances, the world can only profit from the example of Dr. King and from the tragic history of race relations in the United States. As a people, we are no better or worse than others, no more or less racist. Two things, however, set us apart. First, we have involved in a unique experiment which has brought together disparate groups whose fundamental beliefs are as contrasting as the colors of our skin. And, second, we are part of a nation founded upon the ideas and ideals--especially the ideal of democracy--and not blood ties or race. It is undeniable that reality has often mocked those ideals throughout the course of our history. But the struggle between our baser instincts and our higher ideals has been the glory of this country. If Dr. King could struggle against the legacy of slavery without hatred, then there is hope for a world otherwise enslaved to history's legacy today. Let me now spend a few minutes on some of the shared solutions to which we can contribute. Although democracy provides the foundations on which a system of government respectful of human rights can be built, the mere fact that the executive and legislative leaders of a country are chosen in free and fair elections does not necessarily guarantee that the fundamental freedoms and human rights of all citizens will be fully protected. This is particularly true in the absence of an independent judiciary capable of safe- guarding the rights of citizens against actions by the executive or legislative branches which are in conflict with internationally recognized human rights standards. The ascendancy of democracy throughout the world is unquestionably good news for human rights. We must note, however, that even democratically elected governments can be guilty of serious human rights violations. The most common human rights violation is the use of undue pressure or even torture to obtain confessions from persons suspected of having committed serious crimes, particularly those accused of terrorism. We have learned the more serious the terrorist threat, the greater the number of incidents of police abuse. In the absence of an independent judiciary and solidly rooted democratic popular instincts in the new democracies, recent advances around the globe are by no means secure. The danger of relapses into authoritarian rule are greatest where the expectations for early economic improvements have been disappointing. The challenge of the world's established democracies is to help those new to the fold to sustain themselves. But the challenge is not one for governments alone. I would submit that the greatest contribution to the institutionalization of respect for human rights can come from individuals and young lawyers such as yourselves. With constitutions being adopted clearly spelling out the fundamental rights of the individual citizen and statutes passed amplifying those rights and creating a framework for institutional implementation, assistance is needed in helping these countries bring these laws to life. Citizens need to be educated on their rights. Police forces need to not only provide effective protection against crime, but they also need to be mindful of respect for the civil rights of all citizens and know the limits of their authority. It is in this area that those trained in the law can enlist in the effort to strengthen the rule of law worldwide. Your training, education, and background will provide you with ample knowledge to assist some of these young democracies in bringing their laws to life. Dr. Martin Luther King taught us to "make real the promises of democracy," and he would have urged the same on a democratizing world today. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 18, May 4, 1992 Title:

Syrian Travel Restrictions Lifted

Tutwiler Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler Description: Statement, Washington, DC Date: Apr, 27 19924/27/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: MidEast/North Africa Country: Syria Subject: Travel [TEXT] We are very pleased to have obtained official confirmation from the Syrian Government of the lifting of discriminatory restrictions on travel and disposition of property for the Syrian Jewish community. As you may know, the status of Syria's Jewish community has been a part of our dialogue with the Syrian leadership. President Bush discussed Syrian Jewry with President Assad in their meeting in Geneva in November 1990, and Secretary Baker has raised this issue on several occasions with President Assad in Damascus. Indeed, during the course of one of Secretary Baker's eight visits to Damascus to discuss the peace process and other issues, he discussed the status of Syrian Jewry for over 1 hour with President Assad. These discussions have focused on the release of the Soued brothers, granting exit visas for unmarried Jewish women, and reuniting divided families. Further, Edward Djerejian and his successor, Christopher Ross, Ambassadors to Syria, have continued this dialogue. Following President Assad's recent meeting with the leaders of the Syrian Jewish community, including Rabbi Hamra and Dr. Hasbani, the Soued brothers were released from prison; and in the case of travel, all members of the Syrian Jewish community will now be accorded the same rights as those afforded to all other Syrian citizens. This means that Syrian Jews will now be allowed to travel abroad as a family, on business, and for vacations. Further, the Syrian Government has removed difficulties encountered by its Jewish citizens with regard to the sale and purchase of property in Syria. We have been told by the Syrian Government that these measures have already been put into effect. We welcome this policy decision by President Assad and his government. Further, we are pleased that our high-level dialogue with Syria has contributed not only to the Syrian decision to join the peace negotiations but also to this decision on the rights of Syrian Jews, and we look forward to its full implementation. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 18, May 4, 1992 Title:

Former Soviet Republics Admitted To IMF and World Bank

PA Source: Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public Affairs Date: May, 4 19925/4/92 Category: Focus on Emerging Democracies Region: Eurasia, E/C Europe Country: USSR (former), Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Georgia Subject: Development/Relief Aid, Democratization, Trade/Economics [TEXT] Russia and nine other new independent states were officially admitted to membership in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank on April 27, 1992. As full members, the former republics now will be eligible to receive more than $24 billion in IMF, World Bank, and bilateral assistance. The admission of Azerbai-jan to the IMF and of Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan to the World Bank will be reviewed in May. The IMF must approve a comprehensive economic reform program in each state based on free market principles prior to allocating funds. This infusion of capital is conditioned on the development of structural reform policies, including the institution of a price system, the gradual elimination of subsidies to inefficient state-owned enterprises, and reform of the agricultural and energy sectors--measures designed to increase production, acquisition of foreign exchange reserves, and import capacity. These steps, added to efforts to promote private sector growth being introduced, most notably in Russia, will increase opportunities for US companies to invest in the former republics and to compete in their markets. The multilateral aid package includes a $6-billion currency stabilization fund, intended to help support parity of the ruble. The Russian Federation hopes to establish a convertible currency by July 1992, thus improving the climate for foreign business investment. Secretary Baker Urges Passage Of the Freedom Support Act In testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on April 30, 1992, Secretary Baker urged members to take advantage of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to enhance America's future peace and prosperity by enacting without delay the Administration's Freedom for Russia and Emerging Eurasian Democracies and Open Markets (FREEDOM) Support Act. With the FREEDOM Support Act, announced by President Bush on April 1, 1992, the Administration has requested congressional authorization of US participation in the multilateral aid program being organized by the IMF, the World Bank, and the Group of 7 industrialized countries. Among provisions of the act aimed at stimulating economic growth and development in the new independent states are those easing existing government regulations regarding high-technology transfer (former restrictions of the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls , COCOM). Other provisions will eliminate certain legal impediments to trade. The act also calls for the US to allocate an additional $1.1 billion in commodity credit guarantees to be used by the new independent states for the purchase of American agricultural commodities. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 18, May 4, 1992 Title:

Operation Provide Hope: Policy for Donor Groups

Tutwiler Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler Description: Statement by Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler, Washington, DC Date: Apr, 27 19924/27/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Eurasia Country: USSR (former), Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Georgia Subject: Development/Relief Aid [TEXT] The United States has completed the first stage of Operation Provide Hope, and the first crucial winter timeframe has passed. Now we must look toward the coming winter and beyond as we plan our continuing humanitarian assistance program. The lack of medicines, medical supplies, and quality medical care remains a pervasive problem throughout the new independent states. For this reason, our top priority during Phase II of Operation Provide Hope will be cost- effective, selective targeting of medical assistance and the orderly transport of food in anticipation of next winter. The majority of food assistance, donated or government-acquired, will be shipped by sea from US ports or overland from Europe. Airlift operations, which are prohibitively expensive and inherently inefficient for bulk cargoes, will be limited to high-priority, high-value cargoes, such as vaccines and medicines. On certain high-value shipments of commodities involving specific nutritional needs such as infant formula, decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis. The American people deserve to have their contributions and tax dollars used as efficiently as possible. In anticipation of next winter, the US Government intends, to the maximum extent possible given fiscal constraints, to continue its program of funding the shipment of donated food and very limited shipments of clothing by sea. This will be done through the most cost-effective measure, such as consignment to the fund for democracy and development. Our highest priority will remain the transportation of appropriate assistance to where the need is greatest. Donors are being asked, where possible, to avoid requiring US Government transportation to specific locations from in the NIS [new independent states]. The US Government will do its utmost to ensure delivery to the most needy recipients and areas. Additionally, people and organizations may wish to consider direct monetary donations to those private voluntary organizations which operate in the NIS. Donated goods require costly transportation and sometimes prove incompatible with another countries habits and traditions. Cash donations permit American private voluntary organizations to build up local self-help mechanisms. The spirit and dedication of private organizations and donors have made it possible to deliver thousands of tons of vitally needed humanitarian assistance. This same spirit can also ensure the success of our follow-on efforts as we forge a new relationship with the peoples of the former Soviet Union. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 18, May 4, 1992 Title:

What's in Print - Foreign Relations of the United States

PA Source: Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public Affairs Date: Apr, 22 19924/22/92 Category: Features Region: Southeast Asia, MidEast/North Africa Country: Vietnam, Israel, Egypt, Libya, Morocco Subject: History, Military Affairs, Regional/Civil Unrest [TEXT] The "Foreign Relations of the United States" series has been published since 1861, comprising more than 300 volumes to date. It constitutes the official documentary record of the foreign policy of the United States and is the most extensive collection of diplomatic papers in the world. The Office of the Historian has prepared a detailed summary of each of the following volumes. For further information, call Glenn LaFantasie, General Editor of the Foreign Relations series, at 202-663-1133.
Vietnam, 1964
On April 22, 1992, the Department of State released Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964-1968, Volume I, Vietnam, 1964. This volume presents the official documentary record of US policy toward Vietnam for 1964. Events such as the North Vietnamese attacks on US destroyers, subsequent US counter-strikes, and passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in Congress are placed in historical context. Key documents from the files of the Departments of State and Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Johnson Library, as well as private papers of Gen. Maxwell Taylor, W. Averell Harriman, and Gen. William Westmoreland are included. Copies of Volume I, 1964 (GPO Stock No. 044-000-02312-1, 1108 pp.) can be purchased for $39 (domestic postpaid) from the Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office (new orders), PO Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954.
Arab-lsraeli Dispute, United Arab Republic, North Africa, 1958-60
On April 17, 1992, the Department of State released Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960, Volume XIII, Arab-lsraeli Dispute, United Arab Republic, North Africa. This volume presents previously classified Department of State and White House documents that delineate major US policies toward the Arab-lsraeli dispute, Israel, the United Arab Republic, and the countries of North Africa during 1958-60. Documents presented in the volume cover subjects such as the questions of Palestine refugees, Jerusalem, US recognition of the United Arab Republic, and US military bases in Morocco and Libya. The Historian's Office placed primary emphasis on papers from the National Security Council, the White House, and upper levels of the Department of State. Copies of Volume XIII, 1958-1960, (GPO Stock No. 044-000-02313-0, 928 pp.) can be purchased for $35 (domestic postpaid) from the Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office (new orders), PO Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 18, May 4, 1992 Title:

Vietnam: Humanitarian Exceptions to the Embargo

Tutwiler Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler Description: Statement, Washington, DC Date: Apr, 29 19924/29/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Southeast Asia Country: Vietnam Subject: Human Rights, Refugees, POW/MIA Issues, Trade/Economics [TEXT] The United States is today taking two additional steps in the context of our policy toward Vietnam. The first is to grant an exception to the economic embargo with Vietnam to permit com-mercial sales to meet basic human needs. The Commerce Department's Bureau of Export Administration and the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control will begin accepting license applications for such transactions immediately. The second is to lift restrictions on projects by non-governmental and non-profit organizations in Vietnam. The Treasury and Commerce Departments will begin immediately the actions necessary to issue general licenses permitting transfer of funds and commodities for such projects. The decision to take these two steps is in response to Vietnam's strengthened commitments to take positive actions on POW/MIA [prisoners of war/missing in action] issues and its support of the UN political settlement process in Cambodia. It is in keeping with the established US policy of a step-by-step process for normalizing relations with Vietnam. It also responds to discussions held during Assistant Secretary [for East Asian and Pacific Affairs] Richard Solomon's recent trip to Hanoi regarding the need for assistance in addressing humanitarian needs of the Vietnamese people. We look to Vietnam to sustain its support for the Cambodian peace process and to intensify efforts to achieve the fullest possible accounting for all our missing Americans. In this context, we will consider additional steps of our own. (###)