US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 3, No 19, May 11, 1992
Title: Achieving National Consensus on the FREEDOM
Support Act
Armitage
Source: Richard L. Armitage, Deputy Coordinator for
Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States
Description: Statement before the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations
of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Washington, DC
Date: May, 6 19925/6/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Eurasia
Country: Papua New Guinea, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
Ukraine, Uzbekistan
Subject: Development/Relief Aid, Trade/Economics,
Arms Control, Science/Technology
[TEXT]
I am very grateful for the opportunity to appear before this particular
subcommittee, whose work is so central to the successful conduct of
foreign policy. I have benefited from your wisdom and advice in previous
incarnations and will, no doubt, so benefit again.
Permit me at the outset to identify, as I see it, the nub of the challenge we
Americans now face in the wake of communism's collapse. Our central task
is to unite--in an election year which finds many Americans worried about
their own economic prospects--behind a strategy designed to bury forever
the Cold War; a game plan which can survive the turbulence of a partisan
political campaign and prevail as a matter of bipartisan national consensus
irrespective of November's verdict.
It seems to me that the beginning of wisdom in this matter is to have a
sense of the parameters likely to beset by the American people for this
endeavor. The members of this subcommittee are far more expert than I on
this score, but, for what it is worth, I believe that Americans, in general,
would agree on the following:
-- That the downfall of communism does, indeed, represent, as President
Bush has said, "a defining moment of history;"
-- That having won the Cold War at a cost of tens of thousands of lives and
trillions of dollars, we should not simply turn our backs on 280 million
people who are willing to bury communism once and for all;
-- That this predisposition to help stems partly from genuine, humanitarian
impulses and partly from the sense that it will [be] less expensive for us in
the long run if former enemies actually become allies; and
-- That this country is in no position to embark on an open-ended foreign
aid program designed to use taxpayer funds to compensate for 70 years of
communist malfeasance and mismanagement.
I believe that within these parameters we can achieve a strategic consensus
that transcends partisan politics here in this country. I believe that the
FREEDOM [Freedom for Russia and the Emerging Eurasian Democracies and
Open Markets] Support Act announced by the President 5 weeks ago
encapsulates this consensus. I believe the FREEDOM Support Act should be
enacted prior to the arrival of [Russian] President [Boris] Yeltsin on June 16.
Each of you has read this bill. With the aid of your capable committee staff
you have parsed it line-by-line. You have undoubtedly found language you
could have drafted better. No doubt, you have uncovered provisions you
would have written differently.
I will be very frank with you. There are many things contained in the
FREEDOM Support Act which we could--and if necessary, will--accomplish
without the formal authorization that would be conveyed by its passage.
But to proceed very far into this process without your explicit, conscious,
and willing collaboration would rob us of the single greatest
accomplishment we could attain: the creation of a national strategic
consensus that will transcend the vicissitudes of partisan political
fortunes.
Let's be clear about what it is we want, both as a general matter and in
terms of the FREEDOM Support Act. We want to pre-empt a new Cold War
and bury the old one by channeling the creative energies of our former
enemies away from trying to sustain an economy dominated and driven by
the production of military weaponry and equipment.
The process of helping to wean our prospective allies away from a command
economy devoted to militarism will take years and decades. Even though
our own security will be decisively affected by the outcome of this process,
our ability to shape the outcome through expenditures of public funds is
finite. We can help, and we can make a difference, but only in concert with
the other industrial democracies and only by making the way clear for the
American private sector to become, if it chooses, fully engaged. I would
hasten to add that we will not wean away from authoritarianism, statism,
or militarism anyone who does not wish to be so weaned. I cannot imagine
any sustained Western assistance effort to any state resisting the
imperatives of democratization and economic reform. This will entail great
sacrifice and great patience in the new independent states. Setbacks and
temporary back-tracking are inevitable. In the end, however, no matter how
unfair this may seem, it is the victims of communism's rapacity who bear
the burden of achieving success or failure. Russia is not ours to win or lose.
Key Features of the Act
Instead of reciting the provisions of the FREEDOM Support Act, I would like
simply to highlight those features of it which strike me as key. In
terms of our own security, it would authorize a broader use of the $500
million appropriated last fall to the Department of Defense for
denuclearization and the transport of humanitarian aid. The act would
authorize the use of these funds for demilitarization, defense conversion,
the withdrawal and relocation of military forces, and non-proliferation.
It would authorize the establishment of a science and technology center in
Ukraine comparable to the one being established in Moscow. These centers
will seek to employ, for peaceful purposes, weapons scientists who might
otherwise contribute to the proliferation of the systems and devices they
have created.
These activities will have direct and measurable effects on our national
security. Our longer term objective, however, is to help foster the
development of economies no longer dependent on military spending. US
involvement in this transformation presents unparalleled opportunities for
American businesses and workers to benefit by helping Russians and others
develop in environmentally sound ways what may well be the world's largest
untapped market, one based on an extraordinarily impressive repository of
human talents and natural resources.
We want American companies to be able to compete all across the Eurasian
landmass. Not only can we develop markets for US exports, but, in
partnership with indigenous enterprises, we can develop alternatives to
military production--alternatives which redirect the enormous talents of
Russians, Ukrainians, and others toward peaceful, productive purposes. We
are working hard with the governments of these new states to create laws
and procedures which will facilitate and protect trade and investment.
Although we cannot force US businesses to compete with others to profit
from these emerging opportunities, we can make it easier for them to do so.
The FREEDOM Support Act would authorize:
-- Expanded increases in export and investment guarantees and insurance
through the Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) and the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation (OPIC). Additional US exports mean additional US
jobs;
-- Support for continued US food exports under the Commodity Credit
Corporation;
-- The removal of Cold War obstacles and bars to US investment;
-- The creation of a resident program of US business advisers through
"America Houses" and American business and management centers; and
-- US participation in international efforts to stabilize the ruble and make
IMF [International Monetary Fund] loans available, all subject to continuing
democratization and reform.
The FREEDOM Support Act also calls upon the United States to provide cost-
effective technical assistance in the form of people-to-people know-how
for the creation of democratic institutions and free markets. I will return
to a more detailed account of our technical assistance initiatives, but
permit me to say that none of this adds up to an old-style foreign aid
program. All of it encourages, but, ultimately, depends upon the leaders and
citizens of these new states reforming in ways which attract international
partners who will work with them to convert military-based economies to
ones which are peaceful and productive. Nothing in this act commits the US
taxpayer to massive, up-front capital investments in infrastructure
projects. The FREEDOM Support Act is not a $24 billion foreign aid bill.
In sum, the FREEDOM Support Act provides a sound basis for a national
consensus in the face of communism's collapse. It strikes balances in four
areas by:
-- Reflecting the inclination of the American people to be helpful, for
reasons rooted in our own national security, but fiscally prudent in support
of reformers in the new states;
-- Codifying a dynamic balance between reform in the new states and
assistance from the United States;
-- Establishing an international division of labor among the industrial
democracies for macroeconomic support; all of which is contingent on
sustained reform processes in the new states; and
-- Targeting official US technical assistance at democratization and the
opening of opportunities for our private sector.
Although humanitarianism runs strong and deep in this country, I believe it
is important for Americans, Russians, Ukrainians, Armenians, and others to
understand that our approach has nothing to do with charity or giveaways.
In concert with private voluntary organizations, we are, indeed, engaged in
humanitarian activities designed to help these new states preserve social
safety nets for the elderly, for children, and for the infirm during a period
of great upheaval. The peoples of these new states are, however, eager to
provide for themselves and anxious to get on with the business of building
democracies and free economies. With this in mind, I would like to describe
our approach to technical assistance.
US Technical Assistance Programs
Although we had to focus at the outset on meeting humanitarian needs, we
also saw a requirement to provide the expertise and know-how required to
help those in need today to be able to help themselves tomorrow. As we
provide food and medicine, we must also help create the infrastructure of a
democratic, free-market society.
This is exactly what we are doing. While Operation Provide Hope, the
President's medical initiative, the USDA [US Department of Agriculture]
grant food aid, and other emergency programs are underway, we are also
working on developing and implementing technical assistance programs.
These programs represent our effort to teach the fishermen to fish rather
than providing the fish. Through these programs, we hope to create, or
recreate, the indigenous capacity to carry forward in a prosperous,
democratic society.
I am quite proud of our progress to date in this area. Our humanitarian
assistance has received quite a lot of press coverage, and I am happy about
that. But our technical assistance programs have gone relatively unnoticed,
to date. Let me cite a few examples of the programs that are moving ahead
quickly.
-- We have already sent two defense conversion advisers to Nizhniy
Novgorod and will be sending two more to Kharkov by the middle [of]
this month;
--We have placed a housing adviser in Moscow and expect to have long-term
advisers in Moscow , Yekaterinburg, Novosibirsk [Russia], Alma-Ata
[Kazakhstan], Kharkov [Ukraine], and Yerevan [Armenia] by the end of August;
-- Our energy efficiency teams have completed audits in six cities and will
be installing energy-saving equipment in district heating plants before the
onset of winter;
-- The Norfolk/Moscow Children's Health Center partnership will begin its
first activities later this month;
-- The first agricultural extension team will arrive in Armenia in June;
-- Our first wholesale market teams will arrive in Moscow and Kiev in mid-
May; and
-- The first batch of loaned executives under the USDA program are due to
go out in June.
As you can see, we have made considerable progress in beginning to
implement our initial technical assistance programs. We will continue to
have these programs come on line as quickly and effectively as possible. We
are pushing all agencies to implement their programs as a matter of top
priority. This does not mean that we are not thinking through each of the
programs, but that we are driving the process as quickly and as prudently as
we can.
Placing Americans on the ground to help promote reform strengthens the
position of today's democratic leaders and shapes the thinking of coming
generations of leaders; it also creates a new foundation for enduring
political and economic ties. We firmly believe that we can best support our
diplomatic efforts by having in place assistance programs that are visible.
Technical assistance should be aimed at creating conditions in which the
private sector can thrive. This paves the way for increased private
investment--the real engine of growth for these new market economies. We
will devote significant resources to programs that will promote US trade
and investment which, in turn, will help restart these crippled economies
and transfer know-how and resources.
US Private Sector Investment.
An extremely important part of the
US Government technical assistance program focuses on fostering US
private sector investment and participation in the privatization of the
economies in the NIS [new independent states]. The US Government offers a
range of programs to provide incentives for potential US investors. Among
the most effective of these programs are those run by OPIC, Eximbank, and
the Trade Development Program. Each of these entities is in the process of
implementing programs newly developed for the new independent states.
The most important factor in encouraging Western investment is the
commitment of the new governments to put in place the legislation and
regulations which create an environment acceptable to Western investors.
US Government activities through the Trade Development Program provide
funding for feasibility studies for potential US investment projects. The
Eximbank provides credits for US companies interested in investing in the
former Soviet Union. OPIC provides insurance and financing coverage that
increases the incentive for US business participation.
In addition, the Department of Commerce is planning and executing a series
of programs updating East European data bases of potential investors and
companies in the host country to cover the NIS and providing internships for
managers of NIS companies in American companies through the Special
American Business Initiative. The managers are provided a 3-6 month
internship at appropriate host US companies, and the US Government pays
the airfare and a small stipend for each NIS intern, while the host American
company pays other costs, including insurance and training. This program
has been expanded to include scientists from the NIS who will intern with
American scientific and research companies.
Finally, the decision of Congress to repeal the Byrd-Stevenson restrictions
in the FY 1992 continuing resolution will prove critical in removing
obstacles to Eximbank's provision of export credits essential to encouraging
US trade and investment in the NIS. The participation of Eximbank is a
crucial part of the overall focus and the ultimate success of our assistance
program.
In designing our technical assistance programs, we seek to promote "islands
of success" that can serve as models for cities and regions in the
new independent states. Our choice of target areas for our programs will
depend, in part, on the local leadership's commitment to reform. By
concentrating our efforts--both geographically and by sector--we can
demonstrate that leaders who support democracy and market reform can
deliver. In particular, we are concentrating technical assistance on
eradicating the underlying causes of current shortages such as production,
distribution, and transportation bottlenecks.
At the Washington Coordinating Conference in January [1992], all agreed
that each donor should focus on areas where it has a comparative advantage.
US technical assistance will focus primarily on the private sector, with
emphasis placed on needs which are critical and returns can be quickly
achieved. This includes agriculture and food distribution, energy efficiency
and oil and gas extraction, and restarting the pharmaceutical industry.
US Strategic Interests.
US assistance must focus on our strategic
interests: dismantling weapons of mass destruction, converting the defense
industry to civilian production in the private sector, and combating the
"brain drain" of scientists who could proliferate nuclear, biological, and
chemical weapons.
In this connection, permit me to mention briefly the science and technology
centers we are establishing in Russia and Ukraine. These centers
will serve as clearinghouses for projects to help weapons scientists and
engineers redirect their talents to peaceful, civilian pursuits.
Later this month, the founding members--United States, Japan, the European
Community, and Russia--will sign the agreement establishing the
International Science and Technology Center in Russia. At that time, the
members of the initial governing board will also meet informally for the
first time. The board will discuss the expansion of board membership,
approve a site for the center, and adopt project proposal format and
guidelines. We will publicize the proposal guidelines and format as soon as
possible so that we can solicit high-quality, well-focused project proposals
from government agencies and private and non-profit firms. We have
already received close to 200 unsolicited proposals.
We have identified senior executive staff for the international center, and
those candidates will be part of these meetings in Moscow. Because of the
urgency of the center's mission, we are taking action to have it operational
by June.
We are also moving quickly to establish a separate independent science and
technology center in Ukraine. Robert Gallucci will be heading a US
delegation which will travel to Kiev again this month for substantive
negotiations on an international agreement establishing this center.
Representatives of other nations, including Japan and Canada so far, plan to
participate in these negotiations as founding members. We expect the
center in Ukraine to be open by early summer.
As part of our overall assistance program, the Administration proposes to
establish an independent Eurasia Foundation for Democracy, Free Enterprise,
and Training in Leadership and Management. This foundation would promote
and strengthen market economies and institutions concerned with
representative government and the protection of human rights. Working
with US private voluntary and non-governmental organizations, the
foundation will provide help in privatization and management training.
Central Asia.
In the meantime, we must not miss this opportunity
to consolidate our democratic and market values in the new independent
states of Eurasia. As the President stated in his opening remarks to the
[Washington] coordinating conference, we must ". . . commit ourselves,
individually and collectively, to an opportunity that may not come our way
again in our lifetime. The prospect that our former adversaries may become
our friends and our partners--this is in the national interest of every
country. . . ."
The most important contribution the US Government can make to enabling
the former Soviet Union to shift a significant portion of its resources from
defense to civilian production is to encourage the flow of American private
capital and know-how into the former Soviet Union. The transition of the
economies of these new states from command to market will require that
state-owned enterprises--and especially defense facilities--restructure
their operations to focus on production of civilian goods for which there is a
clear market either domestically or internationally. In addition to the
funding required for such a shift, technical assistance will also be needed in
areas such as marketing, accounting, management, and production
efficiency.
The US Government is undertaking several projects to address these needs.
The first, which I alluded to briefly in my overall description of the
program, involves the placement of defense conversion advisers--retired US
executives from defense-related fields--into several key cities. These
executives will serve as advisers to the local governments and to factory
managers on issues related to defense conversion and investment promotion.
The first two teams of advisers will go to Nizhny Novgorod, Russia, and
Kharkov, Ukraine; they will be in place by the middle of May. We are in the
process of selecting additional cities for advisers, including one in Central
Asia.
In addition to the advisers, the US Government will be establishing
Western-style business centers in several cities throughout the new
independent states to provide facilitation services for American
businessmen. We will also be calling on several existing USAID [US Agency
for International Development] contracts with American accounting and
consulting firms to provide assistance in discreet activities relating to
privatization, such as asset valuation and management consulting.
Another fundamentally important area requiring major reform is the
financial sector and, especially, the banking systems of the new states.
Without a capability for Western businesses to transfer hard currency into
and out of these places, commercial promotion efforts will meet only
minimal success. We are addressing this issue through an activity with the
Department of Treasury aimed at providing advisers to the central banks and
ministries of finance in several of the new republics. These advisers will
provide assistance in areas including budget management, banking reform,
and tax policy.
In the general area of privatization, we have begun discussions with the
International Finance Corporation to support auctions of small- and
medium-sized retail facilities in several cities throughout the new
independent states. These auctions will be modeled after the very
successful auction
effort recently completed in Nizhny Novgorod, which has already transferred
50 retail enterprises from state to private ownership.
Conclusion
I would like to conclude by reiterating my gratitude for having been afforded
the opportunity to appear before this body. I cannot overstate my strong
belief that passage of the FREEDOM Support Act is absolutely essential. We
need to chart a basic course for a journey of many miles and many years. We
need to do it together, because this journey will see Presidents and
Congresses, Republicans and Democrats, come and go. I believe the FREEDOM
Support Act charts a course which the American people support. Its passage
will not only codify our own national consensus, but it will make it clear to
the leaders and peoples of the new independent states that democracy and
economic reform are the prerequisites for a lasting partnership.(###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 19, May 11, 1992
Title: Strong Foundation Laid for Expanded US-Ukraine
Cooperation
Baker
Kravchuk
Source: Secretary Baker, Ukrainian President Kravchuk
Description: Remarks at a luncheon in honor of President and Mrs.
Kravchuk, Washington, DC
Date: May, 7 19925/7/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Eurasia
Country: Ukraine
Subject: Democratization, Human Rights, State Department
[TEXT]
Secretary Baker:
Mr. President, Mrs. Kravchuk, Foreign Minister
Zlenko, and distinguished guests, Susan and I are honored to welcome you to
the Department of State and to the Benjamin Franklin Room on this very
special occasion--the first official visit by the freely elected President of
an independent Ukraine.
Your visit marks an important moment in the rapidly evolving relations
between Ukraine and the United States. Our agenda is a full one, as befits
discussions between nations that share a commitment to democracy and a
commitment to human rights and to world peace. We have concluded several
important agreements, including ones to promote trade and investment
between our two countries. But more than this, we have laid a strong
foundation for expanded cooperation on a wide range of security, political,
and economic issues that will serve the interests of our peoples and the
international community at large.
In short, Ukraine and the United States have begun to forge a partnership
for peace. This will not be the imperfect peace of the Cold War, uneasily
maintained in a divided Europe--maintained by the balance of terror.
Rather, we must create what President Bush has called a democratic peace:
a lasting peace, based upon shared democratic values such as the rule of
law, the protection of human rights, and the free market. Your
visit constitutes a cornerstone for the democratic peace that we hope to
build together.
I'm told that the Ukrainian national anthem begins with the moving words,
"Ukraine has not yet died." Ukraine today is most assuredly--and vibrantly-
-alive. You have taken your rightful place in the community of nations.
You have put decades of totalitarian rule behind you, and you have begun to
chart an independent and democratic destiny. And by bold and broad-ranging
reforms, you have the opportunity to bring prosperity again to your gifted
people and your rich lands.
The philosopher Montesquieu--whose thought inspired Benjamin Franklin and
America's other Founding Fathers--once wrote, "Countries are well
cultivated, not as they are fertile, but as they are free." Countries that are
both fertile and free--like Ukraine and the United States--are, indeed,
fortunate. God has been generous to both our nations with nature's bounty,
and, yet, Ukraine endured a cruel "harvest of sorrow" at the hand of
totalitarianism. So, together, we must never forget how very precious
freedom's harvest is. And together, we must reap the full benefits of a
democratic peace for ourselves and for generations of Ukrainians and
Americans to come.
So, ladies and gentlemen, please join me in a toast to President and Mrs.
Kravchuk, to a free and independent Ukraine, to its rich past--and to its
even richer future.
President Kravchuk:
Mr. Secretary, Mrs. Baker, ladies and
gentlemen, friends, I am very pleased that we could find time in our very
tight schedule to meet with you in such [an] informal atmosphere.
This enables me to give a preliminary assessment of some results of our
visits and talks and share my thoughts and feelings about the first days of
[my] stay in your country. To start with--and I hope and I think other
members of our delegation will agree with me--the major and most
significant result is that we will lay the necessary contractual and legal
foundation for a further development of our bilateral relations in the
political, economic, and humanitarian fields and raise them to a
qualitatively new, higher level.
With special pleasure, I would like to emphasize that, today, Ukraine and the
United States made extremely important and--without exaggeration--
unprecedented steps toward mutual trust. I am speaking about our joint
actions for strengthening international security and providing the necessary
conditions for the activity of our diplomatic and consular institutions.
Without underestimating the significance of the recently signed
agreements, I wish to say that I was especially impressed by the spirit of
mutual respect, sincerity, and openness which persisted [in] our relations
with President Bush, and you, Mr. Secretary, and other members of the US
Administration.
Today, we can indicate that the mutual aspiration of our governments and
peoples is to solve all problems in a civilized manner and in the spirit of
equality and constructive cooperation. Taking this opportunity, I would like
to assure you and all present here that the foreign policy of the independent
Ukrainian state will be devoted to a practical implementation of these goals
to the advancement of good and mutually beneficial relations with all
countries of the world with a special emphasis on relations with the United
States.
That is why I would suggest to raise this toast to the new nature of
relationships between Ukraine and the United States of America--to the
friendship between our peoples. To your health, Secretary of State and Mrs.
Baker, to the health of everybody present. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 19, May 11, 1992
Title: Declaration on US-Ukrainian Relations: Building a
Democratic Partnership
Baker
Kravchuk
Source: Secretary Baker, Ukrainian President Kravchuk
Description: Declaration released by the White House, Office of the
Press Secretary, Washington, DC
Date: May, 6 19925/6/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Eurasia
Country: Ukraine
Subject: Arms Control, Trade/Economics,
Security Assistance and Sales, Science/Technology
[TEXT]
Today's talks mark a historic step in the development of relations between
our two great nations. For the first time, an American President has met
with the freely elected President of a sovereign Ukraine. The Ukrainian
people are now building their own state, one whose independence and
commitment to democracy can make a vital contribution to the creation of a
new Europe truly whole and free. The United States places special
importance on the consolidation of Ukraine's democracy and independence.
Toward this end, we are agreed that we must work together as friends and
partners for the mutual benefit of both our peoples and in the interests of
international peace and stability.
Politically, we will strive to protect and promote the values that bind us
together in the democratic community of nations, including free and fair
elections, freedom of emigration, the rule of law, and respect for human
rights--including the rights of all minorities, regardless of their
nationalities and beliefs. The United States takes special note of Ukraine's
commitment to establish its independence in full accordance with these
principles and its efforts to build a just and stable society where
fundamental freedoms of all peoples are guaranteed.
Economically, we will work to advance the values of economic freedom
without which democracy and prosperity cannot flourish. Ukraine will
accelerate efforts to move toward a market economy through appropriate
macroeconomic stabilization policies and structural/microeconomic
reforms to promote recovery, market development, and growth. The United
States, through its technical assistance programs in areas like defense
conversion and food distribution, will help Ukraine in these efforts and
encourage the international community to do likewise. Together, we will
take steps to promote free trade, investment, and economic cooperation
between our two countries and peoples as well as within the world economy
at large. A critical feature of this cooperation will be a special effort by
Ukraine to lower barriers to trade and investment in order to allow greater
access for American firms. Ukraine and the United States will establish
joint business development committees to achieve this objective and build a
foundation for expanded commerce. We have concluded a trade agreement
which will confer most-favored-nation tariff treatment on Ukraine and an
OPIC [Overseas Private Investment Corporation] agreement to make
available investment insurance for American firms investing in Ukraine. We
have also agreed to expedite negotiations on bilateral investment and tax
treaties that will further promote private trade and investment as well as
on cooperation in shipping and civil aviation.
In the area of security, the United States and Ukraine will cooperate to
promote a democratic peace across Europe. We are agreed that international
security can no longer be achieved through the efforts of individual states
to acquire ever-increasing amounts of weaponry. Rather, security must be
based on reduced levels of armaments among all nations and on a
multilateral commitment to uphold shared principles, especially democracy,
the inviolability of borders and territorial integrity, and peaceful resolution
of disputes. Working together in multilateral institutions like CSCE
[Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe] and the North Atlantic
Cooperation Council will be an important means of promoting these goals
and values throughout the new Europe. Also important will be the
development of a regular, bilateral dialogue on questions of peace and
security that would address questions of common interest. We will use
bilateral military and defense contacts to provide advice and assistance in
the development of civil- military institutions.
As a matter of special urgency and concern, we also will work actively to
prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and associated
technologies. In this regard, the United States applauds Ukraine's
leadership, manifested in its agreement to ratify and implement the START
[Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty] and CFE [Conventional Armed Forces in
Europe] treaties and its commitment to renounce nuclear weapons and join
the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapons state at the earliest
possible time. Consistent with these commitments, Ukraine reaffirms its
decision to complete the removal of all tactical nuclear weapons from its
territory by July 1, 1992, and all remaining nuclear weapons in accordance
with her relevant agreements and during the 7-year period of time as
provided by the START Treaty and in the context of the statement of the
Verhovna Rada (parliament) on the nuclear status of Ukraine. The United
States will assist Ukraine in these efforts by utilizing a portion of the $400
million appropriated by the US Congress. The United States will also
allocate part of this $400 million for the establishment of an International
Science and Technology Center in Ukraine. This center will help former
weapons scientists and engineers in developing long-term civilian career
opportunities that will strengthen Ukraine's scientific research and
development capacity. In addition, the United States will continue its
support of Ukrainian and international efforts aimed at minimizing the
tragic aftermath of the Chernobyl catastrophe.
By agreeing to cooperate to advance these common political, economic, and
security interests, the United States and independent Ukraine have laid the
foundation for a strong and special partnership. For, while relations
between our governments may be new, the ties that connect our peoples are
deep and long-standing. We will seek to broaden these contacts through
expanded people-to-people exchange programs such as the Peace Corps
agreement we have signed to provide Ukraine with assistance in small
business development and other areas such as education. Working together
and with others who share our principles, we will expand this partnership in
pursuit of an enduring, democratic peace that can fulfill the aspirations of
our two nations and the entire world. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 19, May 11, 1992
Title: Fact Sheet: Ukrainian President Visits
Washington, DC, May 5-7, 1992
PA
Source: Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public
Affairs
Date: May, 11 19925/11/92
Category: Fact Sheets
Category: Country Data
Region: Eurasia
Country: Ukraine
Subject: Democratization, Human Rights, Trade/Economics,
History
[TEXT]
Ukrainian President Leonid M. Kravchuk made his first official visit to
Washington, DC, May 5-7, 1992. He met with President Bush, Secretary
Baker, Secretary of Defense Cheney, and other government officials. They
discussed the full range of political, economic, and security issues between
the two countries.
US-Ukrainian Relations
On December 25, 1991, the United States officially recognized the
independence of Ukraine. The United States moved quickly to establish
diplomatic relations, upgrading its consulate in Kiev to embassy status. The
success of the political and economic reforms being undertaken in Ukraine
is of vital importance to the United States. President Bush has pledged to
support its transition to a free, democratic society and efforts to develop
free market institutions. Speaking in Kiev in December 1991, Secretary
Baker praised Ukraine as being "at the forefront of those republics that are
embracing those principles and values" laid down by President Bush as
guidelines for recognition: self-determination, respect for borders, support
for democracy, safeguarding of human rights, and respect for international
law.
The United States has received assurances from Ukraine that it will adhere
to responsible security policies and democratic principles. To assist
Ukraine in the process of transition to a free market economy, the United
States is part of an international effort to provide technical and financial
assistance. US initiatives also have included efforts through Operation
Provide Hope to provide emergency humanitarian aid in the form of
shipments of food, clothing, and medical supplies.
In the area of arms control, the United States and Ukraine have discussed
the importance of enhancing stability for both sides by assuring ratification
of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and the Conventional Armed
Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty. Secretary Baker has praised Ukraine's
decision to remain part of a single, unified command pending transfer of all
nuclear weapons from its territory. The United States has dispatched
experts to consult on issues of nuclear weapons safety and dismantlement.
The Freedom for Russia and the Emerging Eurasian Democracies and Open
Markets (FREEDOM) Support Act proposed by President Bush on April 1, 1992,
would expand the range of US assistance. The act would authorize funds for
projects relating to demilitarization, defense conversion, non-proliferation,
relocation of Soviet forces, and the development of increased trade and
investment opportunities. It would establish an international science and
technology center in Ukraine, similar to one already designated for Russia,
to assist scientists and engineers in the development and funding of non-
military projects. It also would authorize the United States to continue its
role in the multilateral aid and currency stabilization program currently
being organized by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank,
and the Group of 7 industrialized countries. Although initially aimed at
Russia, the program eventually will be extended to Ukraine as it
consolidates its reform program.
Consolidating Democracy
Following free elections held on December 1, 1991, Leonid M. Kravchuk was
elected President of Ukraine. A referendum on independence was approved
by more than 90% of the voters, winning majorities even in areas with large
numbers of ethnic Russians. By agreement on December 8, 1991, the former
Soviet republic became a member of the Commonwealth of Independent
States.
Political groupings in Ukraine include former communists, Rukh/Narodna
Rada nationalists (the largest and best organized of the popular fronts), and
a new opposition group, "New Ukraine," combining economic reformers and
environmentalists.
The Government of President Leonid Kravchuk is committed to continuing
the process of reform necessary for economic recovery and full
democratization. Ukraine has stated its intention to observe and implement
the provisions of the CFE and START Treaties. It has indicated its
willingness to transfer all tactical nuclear weapons on its soil to Russia by
July 1, 1992, and all strategic nuclear weapons by 1994.
Ukraine joined the United Nations in 1945 as one of the original members,
following a compromise with the Soviet Union, which had asked for seats
for all 15 republics. On January 31, 1992, Ukraine joined the Conference
on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), and on March 10, 1992, it
became a member of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC). Through
contacts with the countries of the West, Ukraine seeks to increase
consultation and cooperation in areas such as defense planning; the
conversion of defense production to civilian purposes; and scientific,
economic, and environmental issues.
Economic Conditions
Ukraine is important as an agricultural and industrial region. It is a major
producer of grain and sugar and possesses a broad industrial base, including
much of the former USSR's space industry. Although oil reserves are largely
exhausted, it has important energy sources, such as coal and natural gas,
and large mineral deposits.
This year, Ukraine has liberalized prices and introduced a privatization plan
designed to move toward a free market economy. Fuel, electricity, and food
shortages have affected the country, in large part due to deficiencies in the
country's transport system. Faced with these problems, Ukraine welcomes
technical and financial assistance from the international community to
rebuild its agricultural and industrial sectors. A farmer-to-farmer program
to increase farm production and income will provide training in US-style
farm technology and agricultural cooperatives. Projects currently are
underway to upgrade oil and gas pipelines, modernize sugar mills and sugar
refineries, and upgrade coal and electricity production.
On April 27, 1992, Ukraine became a member of the IMF and the World Bank.
Subject to approval by the IMF of a comprehensive economic reform
program, it will be eligible for IMF and World Bank assistance. (###)
Principal Government Officials
President: Leonid M. Kravchuk
Foreign Minister: Anatoliy Zlenko
Capital: Kiev
Ukraine at a Glance
Ukraine's population of 52 million traces its origins to the 9th-century Rus.
In 1392, the Grand Duke of Lithuania seized the territory of Ukraine, and, in
1569, Lithuania merged with Poland. Ukrainian peasants who fled Polish
efforts to force them into serfdom came to be known as Cossacks and
earned a reputation for a fierce fighting spirit. In 1667, Ukraine was
partitioned between Poland and Russia. In 1793, it was reunited as part of
the Russian Empire. Despite a proclamation of independence in 1917,
Ukraine was incorporated into the Soviet Union in December 1919. Between
the two World Wars, a nationalist movement remained active and,
unsuccessfully, attempted to restore an independent republic after the
German invasion in 1941. During the war, Ukraine and its capital, Kiev,
were heavily damaged. On August 24, 1991, Ukraine declared its
independence.
The territory of Ukraine is 233,080 square miles, slightly larger than that
of France. It is primarily a vast plain bounded by the Carpathian Mountains
in the southwest and by the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov in the south. The
Dnieper River has long been a trade route linking the Baltic coast countries
with the Black and the Mediterranean Seas.
Ukraine is a land rich in natural resources. It has a major ferrous metal
industry, producing cast iron, steel, and steel pipe. Its chemical industry
produces coke, mineral fertilizers, and sulfuric acid. Its manufactured
goods include metallurgical equipment, diesel locomotives, and tractors.
Conservation of natural resources is a high priority. Ukraine established its
first nature preserve, Askanyia-Nova, in 1921 and has a program to breed
endangered species.
As of January 1990, the population of the Ukraine was 51.8 million, about
18% of the population of the former USSR. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 19, May 11, 1992
Title: US-Ukrainian Agreements
PA
Source: Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public
Affairs
Date: May, 6 19925/6/92
Category: Fact Sheets
Category: Country Data
Region: Eurasia
Country: Ukraine
Subject: Trade/Economics, International Law,
Science/Technology, Democratization,
Media/Telecommunications, Environment,
Development/Relief Aid, Resource Management,
State Department
[TEXT]
Fact sheets released by the White House, Office of the Press Secretary,
Washington, DC, May 6, 1992.
Agreement on Trade Relations Between the United States and
Ukraine
The trade agreement signed by President Bush and Ukrainian President
Leonid Kravchuk provides for reciprocal most-favored-nation (MFN) tariff
treatment to the products of each country. A trade agreement was
originally concluded with the Soviet Union in June 1990 and approved by the
[US] Congress in November 1991. The United States and Ukraine recently
reached agreement on technical adjustments to that agreement to reflect
the establishment of an independent Ukraine. Congressional reapproval is
not required.
The agreement will permit Ukrainians to export goods to the United States
at substantially lower tariff rates. We expect that this agreement will
create commercial opportunities for emerging Ukrainian enterprises and
promote the development of a market-based economy in Ukraine, and at the
same time will lay the ground for enhanced opportunities for US business.
In addition to providing MFN for both parties, the agreement:
-- Provides improved market access and non-discriminatory treatment for
US goods and services in Ukraine and also calls for step-by-step provision
of national treatment for US products and services;
-- Facilitates business by allowing free operation of commercial
representations in each country and by per- mitting companies to engage and
serve as agents and consultants and to con- duct market studies; and
-- Offers strong intellectual property rights protection by reaffirming
commitments to the Paris Convention and the Universal Copyright
Convention; obligating adherence to the Berne Convention for the Protection
of Literacy and Artistic Works; providing copyright protection for computer
programs and data bases and protection for sound recordings; giving product
and process patent protection for virtually all areas of technology; and
providing comprehensive coverage of trade secrets.
US-Ukraine OPIC Agreement
President Bush and Ukrainian President Kravchuk signed the US-Ukraine
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) agreement today. Under
this agreement, OPIC will mobilize US private capital, technology, and
know-how for investment in Ukraine. These investments will support
Ukraine's transition to a free market economy while creating American jobs,
increasing US exports, and enhancing US global competitiveness.
OPIC is a US Government agency that operates in more than 120 developing
countries and emerging economies throughout the world. This agreement
will enable OPIC to provide investment insurance, project financing, and a
variety of investor services to US private investors for sound business
projects in Ukraine.
-- Investment insurance will be available against the risks of
expropriation, political violence, and currency inconvertibility. In addition
to equity investment, loans, leases, bid and performance bonds, contract
settlement, and in-country assets may be insured.
-- Project financing will take the form of direct loans to projects
involving smaller US businesses and cooperatives and US Government loan
guarantees for larger projects. As part of the FREEDOM [Freedom for Russia
and the Emerging Eurasian Democracies and Open Markets] Support Act, the
Bush Administration has proposed that OPIC be authorized to offer equity
financing for projects in Ukraine and elsewhere in the new independent
states that replaced the USSR.
-- Investor services include investment missions, an on-line joint venture
matching service, one stop for investment climate information, finance
packaging and sourcing, business planning, pre-feasibility studies, and other
advisory and consulting services.
All of OPIC's insurance and guaranty obligations are backed by the full faith
and credit of the United States of America, as well as by OPIC's own
substantial reserves, which stood at over $1.6 billion at the end of FY 1991.
OPIC, which has its roots in the Marshall Plan for the rebuilding of Western
Europe after World War II, began operations in 1971. It has earned a net
positive income for every year of operations, and its FY 1991 operations
reduced the federal deficit by over $150 million.
Science and Technology Center in Ukraine
President Bush and Ukrainian President Kravchuk have agreed to establish a
science and technology center in Ukraine. The center will serve as a
clearinghouse for projects that will provide opportunities for weapons
scientists and engineers in Ukraine, including those specializing in the area
of ballistic missile design and production, to redirect their talents to
peaceful civilian work.
The United States already has committed $10 million to the Ukraine Science
and Technology Center from the $400 million appropriated under the Soviet
Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of 1991 for assistance in eliminating weapons
of mass destruction of the former Soviet Union. Other nations also have
indicated an interest in participating in the center's operation and in
providing a significant financial contribution.
Ukraine will host a meeting in Kiev later this month when representatives
of the United States and other prospective founding members will negotiate
an agreement to establish the center and discuss projects that could be
funded by the center.
Presidents Bush and Kravchuk agreed that every effort should be made to
have the center operational early this summer.
Technical Assistance
Support for Democratic Reform
Democracy Program. The United States will provide funding for the
International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute for
programs on political party building and civic education programs in
Ukraine.
Rule of Law Program. This program will strengthen the judiciary branch by
providing opportunities for judges to participate in workshops and gain
first-hand experience in the operation of an independent judiciary. It will
host three judges from Ukraine for 1 month in Washington, DC, in July.
The United States also has offered to host a judicial conference in Kiev at
the end of May to bring together judges from the United States, Europe, and
Canada for a discussion of judicial reform with the Justice Ministry.
American Bar Association Program. The United States will fund ABA
programs which assist in the elaboration and implementation of a new legal
system. This includes:
-- Teams of long-term resident advisers to train judges, assist in law
school curriculum development, and conduct seminars for parliamentarians
on constitutional law; and
-- Short-term legal resource advisers who will travel to Ukraine to assist
with the drafting and implementation of new laws and regulations on a
range of issues from constitutional reform, division of responsibilities
between state and local governments, criminal law, and legal reform.
Independent Media. The United States will fund on-the-ground assistance
toward the establishment of a news distribution system and independent
broadcasting stations, as well as exchanges through Internews and the
Independent Media Fund.
Government-to-Government Experts Exchanges. USIA [US Information
Agency] will expand its International Visitors Program to provide
opportunities for Ukrainian policymakers to visit the United States to gain
practical insights into the functioning of government and business at
national, state, and local levels.
Support for Economic Reform
Emergency Response Legal Assistance. The United States will fund an ABA
program to provide advice to Ukraine on legal issues concerning economic
reform and establishment of commercial legislation and regulatory regimes.
Financial Sector Advisers Program. The United States, led by the US
Department of the Treasury, is initiating a program to place advisers in the
Ukrainian Ministry of Finance to provide expertise on economic reform,
creation of a new currency, tax policy, and budget management. The United
States currently is reviewing possibilities for placing financial and banking
advisers in the Ukrainian Central Bank.
The IRS Tax Administration Advisory Service Program. This program will
assist Ukraine in the development of effective tax systems, from
legislation to efficient tax collection mechanisms.
Privatization. The Government of Ukraine can draw on the expertise of US
accounting and consulting firms for assistance on privatization, through the
US-funded privatization umbrella project. In addition, if a city in Ukraine
expressed strong support for privatization, the United States and the
International Financial Corporation could undertake a privatization auction
modeled on the successful auction in Nizhniy Novgorod.
Health Partnership Program. The United States will support the
establishment of a long-term health partnership program between a health
center in the United States and one in Ukraine.
Defense Conversion Resident Advisers. The United States has placed three
long-term defense conversion advisers in Kharkov. They will assist the
local government in identifying and removing barriers to Western
investment, assist local defense enterprise managers in adopting Western
management and marketing practices, serve as catalysts for US business,
and alert the United States to programs which may be most productive in
assisting the conversion process (OPIC, TDP [Trade Development Program]
Eximbank, management training, privatization.)
Farmer-to-Farmer Program. The United States is funding a program to send
American agribusiness advisers to Ukraine in 1992. They will assist
Ukraine in acquiring Western agribusiness expertise and technologies, with
particular focus on improving the food processing and distribution systems.
USDA Wholesale Markets Program. Since December 1990, the US Government
has been working with authorities in Ukraine to develop wholesale markets
in Kiev both as a boost to market reform and as a means to increase the
efficiency of food distribution.
Energy Efficiency Program. The United States has developed a multi-faceted
energy efficiency program to assist Ukraine in better utilizing and
conserving its scarce energy resources.
In April, an audit of the Kiev district heating system was conducted and will
be followed up with the installation of equipment to increase Kiev's energy
efficiency. Other elements of the Energy Efficiency Program--nuclear
power plant safety; improvements of coal, gas, oil, and electricity
production and delivery systems; and strategic planning--will also be made
available to Ukraine.
Housing Resident Adviser Program. The United States will place two
resident housing advisers in Kharkov by the end of August to provide
expertise to private indivi-duals and public sector institutions to develop a
private sector housing market.
Business Centers. The United States plans to locate an American business
center in Kiev to facilitate expanded commercial relations between
American and Ukrainian businessmen. The center will provide advice on
local business opportunities, translation services, and seminar and
conference facilities.
Business Development Committees. The United States and Ukraine have
agreed to establish a joint Business Development Committee to promote
expanded commercial relations by identifying and then helping to remove
barriers to bilateral trade and investment.
Eurasia Foundation. The Eurasia Foundation will provide a forum for cultural
exchange and learning and a mechanism for on-the-ground expertise in the
areas of management training and privatization.
Peace Corps. The new Peace Corps agreement will allow the Peace Corps to
launch--by the end of 1992--a 60-volunteer program focused primarily on
small business development and the environment.
SABIT Programs. Through two separate Special American Business
Internship and Training (SABIT) programs--one for management and a second
for scientists--the US Department of Commerce will provide the
opportunity for Ukrainian managers and scientists to work in American
businesses for 3- to 6-month periods.
International Executive Services Corps (IESC). The IESC, which is in the
process of establishing a permanent presence in Ukraine through a regional
office in Kiev, will provide quick response, in-depth know-how to local
business and government managers through its network of more than 13,000
retired US executives.
The IESC has already sent management experts to Kharkov and Tlumach.
Agreement Regarding Humanitarian and Technical Economic
Cooperation
Fact sheets released by the Office of the Assistant Secretary/Spokesman,
Washington, DC, May 7, 1992
This agreement provides certain important legal protections in connection
with the assistance program contemplated by the United States for Ukraine.
In particular, the agreement provides for a series of customary
arrangements, including:
-- Tax and customs exemptions for US personnel and property involved in
the assistance program;
-- Immunity for personnel involved in providing assistance from the
criminal jurisdiction of local courts and from the civil jurisdiction of those
courts for official acts; and
-- Standard procedures needed for inspections and audits under the
assistance program as well as commitments by Ukraine to utilize items for
the purposes for which furnished.
It is contemplated that more specific agreements may be negotiated in
connection with the provision of assistance under particular projects, but
this agreement provides the essential foundation and framework for
cooperation between the two countries in this area.
Agreement on Cooperation in Environmental Protection
This agreement provides a framework for environmental cooperation
between the United States and Ukraine. For nearly 20 years, Americans and
Ukrainians cooperated on environmental issues under the auspices of the
US-USSR Environmental Agreement signed 20 years ago. Today's signing of
this agreement with independent Ukraine recognizes the need for a new
framework which reflects our emerging bilateral partnership and allows the
United States and Ukraine to build on earlier achievements in environmental
protection.
Under this agreement, the United States and Ukraine would cooperate on a
wide variety of environmental problems including air, soil, and water
pollution; control of toxic substances; monitoring of environmental quality;
radiation exposure and monitoring; and environmental emergencies.
Ukraine has significant environmental problems, but it also has a political
leadership with a strong interest in solving these problems and a
considerable base of knowledge in the field of environmental protection.
This agreement will encourage the growth of cooperation in this vital area
and make possible the development of initiatives which will benefit the
people of both nations.
Memorandum of Understanding on Unrestricted Diplomatic Travel
Before the dissolution of the USSR, travel by American and Soviet
diplomatic and consular officials was severely restricted. Many areas in
the USSR, including areas in Ukraine, were closed to travel by foreign
diplomats. As a reciprocal measure, the United States closed areas of the
United States to travel by Soviet diplomats. Even when diplomats were
traveling to "open" areas, they were required to request permission in
advance.
With the signing of this memorandum of understanding, the United States
and Ukraine signify their intention to do away with these travel
restrictions. Diplomats will no longer have to file a request for permission
to travel, and the system of closed areas will be eliminated. Military bases,
sensitive installations, or other facilities normally closed to the public in
all countries will not, of course, be open to travel by diplomats.
Unimpeded travel is essential if diplomats are to carry out their duties
effectively. The removal of these travel restrictions is an indication of the
desire of both the United States and Ukraine to establish a relationship
based on mutual trust and a sense of partnership. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 19, May 11, 1992
Title: Peace Corps Program for Ukraine
Fitzwater
Source: White House Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater
Description: Statement released by the White House, Office of the
Press Secretary, Washington, DC
Date: May, 6 19925/6/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Eurasia
Country: Ukraine
Subject: Development/Relief Aid, Trade/Economics
[TEXT]
President Bush and Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk signed an agreement
today establishing a Peace Corps program in Ukraine. The agreement is part
of an extended Peace Corps initiative in the new independent states of the
former Soviet Union.
The focus of the Peace Corps program in Ukraine will be small enterprise
development. The Peace Corps volunteers selected will have expertise in
such areas as business planning, privatization, economics, management, and
credit and banking.
The Peace Corps will send 60 volunteers to Ukraine under the program this
year. Fifty-eight of the volunteers will serve in municipalities, including
regional centers, where they will work with Ukrainian colleagues to:
-- Provide technical assistance in leasing, property appraisal, and land
valuation to facilitate privatization efforts;
-- Develop management and operations systems and financing programs
through which local banks can extend credit to entrepreneurs; and
-- Identify business sites and facilitate small business start-ups by
assisting in their institutional development through training and advice to
would-be business owners and
managers.
Two volunteers will assist the chairman of the new State Committee for
the Promotion of Small Business and Entrepreneurship in formulating policy,
providing policy analysis, and developing information systems. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 19, May 11, 1992
Title: Continued Aggression in Bosnia-
Hercegovina
Kornblum
Source: John C. Kornblum, US Permanent Representative to
the CSCE
Description: Statement to the plenary session of the Helsinki
Follow-up Meeting of the Conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), Helsinki, Finland
Date: May, 6 19925/6/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: E/C Europe
Country: Serbia-Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Yugoslavia (former)
Subject: Regional/Civil Unrest, Military Affairs, CSCE
[TEXT]
We are gathered together for the third time in 3 weeks to discuss the
tragic situation in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
This proud state is a microcosm of the problems which have torn apart the
fabric of the former Yugoslav Republic. As my authorities have made clear
from the beginning of the crisis, these problems have no single cause. There
is no single guilty party, and there is no single solution to the disaster
which has befallen the peoples of this proud and historic part of Europe.
The United States renews in the strongest possible terms the demand that
all parties to the conflict end the violence and work honestly and diligently
to help the peace process begun by the European Community (EC) to succeed.
All humanity is suffering from your actions. The killing must stop.
Recognition of the complexity of the conflict does not relieve those guilty
of aggression from responsibility for their acts. We have spent hundreds of
hours over the past year debating events, assessing causes, and seeking to
reach those who can stop the killing.
There has been enough talking. We understand the nuances of the situation.
We also understand that innocent persons continue to die. Historic cities
and precious icons of Western culture continue to disintegrate in the rubble.
Our task today is to focus attention on those who are primarily responsible
for this tragedy. We must seek again to help end the violence by registering
in the strongest terms our collective outrage at the callous disregard for
CSCE commitments and standards of human decency displayed by those who
continue to commit aggression.
Amidst the complexities, one simple fact has emerged: The role of the
leaders of Serbia and of the so-called Yugoslav National Army (JNA) remains
constant. There is a repeated pattern of behavior. Each time another
national link of the former Yugoslav state has been severed, Serbian and JNA
leaders have resorted to force to pursue political ends. Each time a historic
conflict has risen to the surface, the JNA, Serbian irregular forces, and
Serbian resources have appeared on the scene. The goal has been to create
political facts by force rather than negotiation.
The United States expresses its deepest sympathy for all victims of this
tragedy. We grieve for the many Serbian victims of the conflict. We bear no
grudge against the Serbian nation or its people. To the contrary, our links to
Serbia are long-standing. Tens of thousands of our citizens trace their
heritage to Serbia. We have also honored the role played by Serbians as part
of Yugoslavia's active participation in the CSCE process.
Our concept of CSCE has always been inclusive rather than exclusive. The
United States continues to believe that CSCE best serves the cause of peace
by being a forum for judging behavior according to the standards established
by the [Helsinki] Final Act. The CSCE is a place of dialogue. Violators
should be able to take part in CSCE's ongoing tradition of review and
recommendation.
Despite this tradition, 3 weeks ago, my government was the first to suggest
that Serbia should be suspended from participation in the CSCE if its role in
the conflict continued. We did this because the severity of the violations of
CSCE commitments had reached truly tragic levels. We believe that the
CSCE should be heard. We could think of no stronger way of sending a direct
message to the Serbian leadership. A shock treatment was required.
For a time, it seemed that our message might have been heard. Last week,
we witnessed several statements of good intention. We debated
implications of a new state proclaimed by Serbia and Montenegro. My
government reserved its ultimate position on the status of this new
republic. But we agreed that, if Bosnia-Hercegovina could also participate
in the dialogue by being admitted immediately to full CSCE membership, it
would be useful to allow Serbian representatives to remain, despite the
uncertain legal foundation for their presence here.
But at the meeting of the Committee of Senior Officials on May 1, all
participating states noted their collective determination to intensify
consultations and detailed review of the situation in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
We stated our express intention to utilize this review to impress upon those
guilty of aggression our collective determination to bring it to a halt.
This is our job here today. Actions since May 1 have earned the leaders of
Serbia and the JNA our statement of censure. There can no longer be doubt
about the clear, gross, and uncorrected violations of the Final Act
committed by these leaders. The bombing of Sarajevo from the air, shelling
from the mountains, and the hostage-taking of the President of Bosnia-
Hercegovina by the JNA have raised the conflict to an even more severe
level.
While there are conflicting reports about who started the battles this
weekend and while there are other armed forces in the area, the JNA is the
preponderant military force. JNA and Serbian leaders have it within their
power to make a positive contribution to peace. If they had taken their
promises seriously, they would have begun long ago to help enforce a cease-
fire [in] Bosnia-Hercegovina. Instead, a pattern of support for violence and
the use of force has been intensified.
Our responsibility for dealing with this situation is clear. The Helsinki
Follow-up Meeting should continue the discussion of details of the Yugoslav
crisis which my delegation proposed in working groups this week.
Unfortunately, we were, in most cases, a lonely voice. Those who claim to
support dialogue as CSCE's main tool should participate. Otherwise, this
tool will become irrelevant.
But this dialogue should also be put to practical use. We should continue to
use this review as a foundation for collective action in the Committee of
Senior Officials.
In the CSCE meeting this afternoon, we should accept responsibility for the
task which has been thrust upon us. We should demonstrate that the CSCE
can, indeed, become the body for management of change which we wish it to
be. If we fail to accept the challenge today, no fancy web of new structures
and mechanisms, let alone visions of complex and mandatory legal
procedures, can make up for our political timidity.
At this afternoon's meeting, the United States will propose adoption of a
statement which concludes, finally, that a pattern of clear, gross, and
continuing violations of CSCE commitments has been established. Recent
events leave no doubt about the existence of such severe violations. To step
back from the responsibility of stating this simple fact would be to call
into question the credibility of the entire process.
This conclusion should be incorporated in a statement which includes the
following demands:
-- An immediate end to the violence and respect for a cease-fire by all
parties;
-- An immediate end to support for all paramilitary forces by the neighbors
of Bosnia-Hercegovina;
-- Immediate withdrawal from Bosnia-Hercegovina or submission to
legitimate Bosnian governmental authority by the JNA;
-- Provision of humanitarian aid to the population of Bosnia-Hercegovina
and to refugees in the immediate area;
-- Establishment of safe land, sea, and air corridors to assure that critical
food and essential medical supplies, including those provided by
humanitarian assistance donors, are allowed to reach populations at risk;
and
-- Honest participation in the peace process instituted by the European
Community and strong support for the UN peace-keeping mission and the EC
monitor mission. In this connection, the United States extends its deepest
condolences to the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium on the death of a
Belgian member of the EC mission. He was truly a servant of peace.
Once this message has been formulated clearly, we must also take the next
logical step. Simply repeating demands for action has not proven sufficient.
A further shock treatment is needed. Words will not be enough. The time
has come for participating states to demonstrate that they will not sit still
in the face of aggression. We must go beyond our April 15 and May 1
statements and implement sanctions against Serbia.
We continue to believe that suspension of participation in CSCE would
constitute the clearest evidence of our determination. The old Yugoslavia
has disappeared. The state which now lays claim to its name and to its seat
in the CSCE can in no way be described as meeting CSCE standards or
commitments.
Until it does, we do not believe that even the provisional participation
agreed [to] on May 1 is any longer justified. Serbian representatives should
be excluded from all CSCE activities until we reach consensus that they
should be readmitted.
Hopefully, our message will be heard. Our review should continue, both at
the follow-up meeting and at the meeting of the Committee of Senior
Officials scheduled to take place before May 18. If matters improve, we
should say so. If they do not, we should consider even more drastic action.
These are tragic and disappointing days for those who believe in the
principles of the CSCE. It has become clear that the end of military and
ideological confrontation in Europe has not removed the danger of severe
conflict. Each minute that the Yugoslav crisis continues is a tragedy for all
of us. Each day of conflict weakens the vision which remains the main hope
for lasting peace in Europe.
We must not let that hope erode. We must not sit by while our principles
are clearly and grossly violated. The CSCE cannot solve these problems
alone. Its means are limited. But we are the keepers of the hopes and the
values which can make us strong. This, too, is an important role. Let us not
neglect it at this moment of crisis. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 19, May 11, 1992
Title: Situation in Bosnia-Hercegovina
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Statement released by the Office of the Assistant
Secretary/Spokesman, Washington, DC
Date: May, 4 19925/4/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: E/C Europe
Country: Serbia-Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Yugoslavia (former), Slovenia
Subject: Regional/Civil Unrest, Military Affairs, CSCE
[TEXT]
The United States is deeply concerned about the continued fighting in
Bosnia, including in Sarajevo. Destruction to the city is enormous both in
human and material terms. The United States condemns perpetrators of
violence in Bosnia on all sides, including the Serbian side and the "Yugoslav"
army, which clearly bear the heaviest blame for continued fighting in Bosnia
and have the greatest responsibility for working to obtain a cease fire. We
call on the JNA [Yugoslav National Army] and the Governments of
Serbia-Montenegro to fully respect the territorial integrity of Bosnia-
Hercegovina.
The US condemns the JNA's seizure of Bosnian President [Alija] Izetbegovic
against his will on Saturday. We note that active efforts by the United
Nations and the European Community, as well as by our Ambassador in
Belgrade, played a significant role in arranging his release.
The United States is also dismayed that Bosnian armed forces engaged in
actions in Sarajevo over the weekend which are not conducive to dialogue or
negotiation. We especially condemn the attack on a JNA column departing
Sarajevo on Sunday under a safe conduct agreement negotiated by UNPROFOR
[UN Protective Force]. We strongly urge the Government of Bosnia-
Hercegovina to exercise restraint and to abide by its agreements with
UNPROFOR. We also strongly urge the Yugoslav military command to
exercise restraint and avoid further actions contributing to a spiral of
violence.
We will continue to work closely with the European Community in support of
its efforts to negotiate a peaceful settlement in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
GRAPHIC: The New Balkan States
CUTLINE:
On April 7, 1992, the United States recognized Bosnia
and Hercegovina, Croatia, and Slovenia as sovereign and independent states.
The United States has begun consultations to establish diplomatic relations
with these states. The United States also has announced that it would
continue to work with the European Community and its members states for
the expeditious resolution of issues between Greece and the Republic of
Macedonia, thus enabling formal recognition of the independence of the
republic as well.
On April 27, Serbia and Montenegro (the only two republics of Yugoslavia
that had not declared themselves independent) announced the formation of a
new state: The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The US Government has not
yet recognized this formation.
The boundaries that Bosnia and Hercegovina, Croatia, and Slovenia possessed
as constituent republics of Yugoslavia now form their international
boundaries. (Map to be printed in "Geographic Notes," Volume 2, Number 2,
Summer 1992, available through the Government Printing Office.)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 19, May 11, 1992
Title: Narcotics Activities in Panama: Mutual Legal
Assistance Treaty Needed
Smith
Source: R. Grant Smith, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for International Narcotics Matters
Description: Statement before the Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Narcotics and International Operations of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, Washington, DC
Date: May, 6 19925/6/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Central America
Country: Panama
Subject: Narcotics, International Law
[TEXT]
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to discuss the status of trafficking
and counter-narcotics activities in Panama and to brief you on the proposed
mutual legal assistance treaty. We welcome this forum.
Noriega's Legacy
Before getting into a discussion of how things stand in Panama today, it
would be useful to review where Panama was only 2 1/2 years ago. The
[Manuel] Noriega regime sanctioned drug trafficking and money-laundering.
The recent verdict in Miami proves that Noriega himself was an active
participant in these activities. And the corruption was not just at the top--
it permeated every level of government. In the months before the US
military action, the regime's contempt for Panama's drug laws became so
pronounced that all of the elements needed to set up a cocaine processing
lab were found in a government office building by US forces during Operation
Just Cause.
In December 1989, Panama's new government took office. At that time, the
government consisted only of President Endara and his two vice presidents.
They had no cabinet, no functioning bureaucracy, and in many cases, no desks
or office equipment in the looted shells of government buildings. The Endara
Administration also inherited a heavy foreign debt burden, high
unemployment, and a bloated public sector.
Accomplishments of the Endara Government
Today, Panama is free and democratic. The print and electronic media,
representing various ideologies, is open and critical and operates without
fear of intimidation. The current government was chosen in honest and fair
elections. Vigorous competition among political parties has replaced the
repression of the military era. A new civilian-controlled police is being
trained to replace the military force which ruled and looted Panama.
Economic recovery is well underway--Panama's GDP [gross domestic
product] grew by 9.3% in 1991 and 4.6% in 1990. Unemployment has been cut
in half. Panama has joined Central American efforts to achieve political and
economic integration and has normalized relations with all other Latin
American nations.
Narcotics Trafficking
Like all of the other hurdles the Endara Government has faced, the struggle
against illegal narcotics trafficking has not been easy. Panama's proximity
to Colombia, the major cocaine-producing nation, makes it an attractive
target for the traffickers who use Panamanian land, air, and sea routes. The
government's inability to patrol adequately its extensive coast line (similar
in length to the east coast of the United States), its lack of adequate radar
coverage, and a weak inventory of enforcement resources are also
vulnerabilities. Panama's role as a commercial and financial crossroads to
the world and its dollar economy make it highly attractive to drug money-
launderers.
Despite these problems, Panama has made progress in the war on drugs. Its
achievements are a direct result of the Panamanian Government's political
will. Having suffered through a narco-dictatorship, this government is
committed to the war on drugs. It cooperates with us in fighting the
traffickers instead of cooperating with the traffickers.
Panama is taking important steps to counter narcotics trafficking.
Interdictions have increased substantially: In 1991, Panamanian authorities
seized nearly 10 metric tons of cocaine, double the amount seized the
previous year (itself a record) and almost twice what was seized in the
entire 10 years before that. Marijuana seizures were up from 100 kg
[kilograms] in 1990 to over 9,800 kg in 1991.
Activities for 1992 have kept pace. In the first quarter of this year, over
700 kg of cocaine have been seized, and over 200 drug-related arrests have
been made. These figures include seizures and arrests from five operations
carried out by the anti-narcotics section of the Judicial Technical Police in
March and April. All five of these operations were independently planned
and carried out and demonstrate the increasing professionalism and
effectiveness of Panama's police and their growing competence as partners
in the war on drugs. In the past months, Panamanian customs found and
confiscated two shipments containing $10 million in cash entering Panama
illegally.
There are other indications that Panama is taking its anti-narcotics
responsibilities seriously. New personnel have replaced most Noriega
holdovers in narcotics control agencies in Panama, which helps to ensure
integrity. The Maritime Service is benefiting from increased training and
joint operations with our Coast Guard. It has begun to plan and conduct
independent operations. Demand reduction activities are underway with the
enthusiastic support of Panama's private sector.
The Legislative Assembly has created an ad hoc narcotics committee. It is
considering draft legislation to strengthen Panama's narcotics laws. The
committee's staff is discussing the draft bill with the attorney general's
office. Among other things, the bill provides for stiffer sentences for drug
offenses, creates procedures for the civil forfeiture of drug proceeds, and
establishes statutory procedures for drug destruction.
Narcotics Money-Laundering
Narcotics money-laundering through Panamanian banks and the Colon Free
Zone continues to be Panama's most serious narcotics control problem. We
have no accurate figures on how much money was laundered under the
former regime or how much is being laundered now; thus, it is impossible
for us to make quantitative comparisons of money-laundering levels in
Panama. Our experts believe that peak volumes of money-laundering
occurred in the mid-1980s under the Noriega regime. By the end of 1989,
however, money-laundering had declined significantly along with all other
economic activity in Panama.
In 1990, the volume of money-laundering may have increased to the
comparatively low levels which existed immediately prior to Operation Just
Cause. Money-laundering may have picked up further in 1991 as economic
and banking activity which could disguise it also picked up.
Panama's Government has taken a number of progressive steps to counter
drug money-laundering. The Panamanian Supreme Court has upheld the
attorney general's authority to subpoena bank records and to freeze bank
accounts when related to an ongoing criminal investigation. Since late
December 1989, the Government of Panama has frozen several hundred bank
accounts associated with suspected drug money-laundering. The funds from
many of these accounts remain frozen, although some of the accounts have
been unfrozen due to a lack of evidence, lack of funds in the account, and
loopholes in Panama's laws. The initial freezing of some of the funds
disrupted narcotics money-laundering patterns. During this period, the drug
secretary's office has provided to the US Department of Justice and other US
law enforcement agencies substantially all bank account documents
requested for use in US Government prosecutions in five large (over 100
bank accounts) and six small (under 10 accounts) narcotics or narcotics
money-laundering requests.
The National Banking Commission (CBN) has implemented a series of
regulations requiring banks to maintain currency transaction records (CTRs)
and to identify customers in transactions of $10,000 or more. Bank
inspectors report that compliance with these regulations is good, although
their review of the CTR forms has been limited. The CBN recently initiated
a new regulation that requires banks to submit monthly reports to the
banking commission reconciling their cash activities. In addition, the CBN
and the attorney general's office have pledged to assist each other in
pursuing money-laundering transactions. This accord has not yet led to
significant practical cooperation. This is partly because the CBN has not
yet fully developed mechanisms to pursue suspicious activities in a way
that law enforcement authorities can use. In addition, it is because of a
lack of trained personnel and other resources in the attorney general's
office. We understand the Government of Panama is taking steps to improve
coordination.
US-Panama Cooperation
Despite these strong measures, much remains to be done on the counter-
narcotics front in Panama. The Government of Panama's limited resources
are restricting its ability to fight drug-trafficking and money-laundering.
Panama lacks trained personnel to implement its statutes and decrees. Its
law enforcement agencies remain plagued by a need for modern equipment.
Our program is designed to address these needs.
In addition to the mutual legal assistance treaty which is before you today,
the United States and Panama have signed other important law enforcement
agreements, including an agreement for the control of essential chemicals,
a ship-boarding procedures agreement, and the ship-rider agreement. Under
the latter, the United States and Panama have jointly patrolled Panama's
coast and [are] taking cooperative law enforcement actions against
traffickers
The United States is providing critically needed training and commodities to
Panamanian officials:
-- The Justice Department's ICITAP [International Criminal Investigative
Training Assistance Program] program has provided over 5,000 weeks of
student training for national police, Technical Judicial Police, judiciary
officials, and officials from the attorney general's office, customs, and
Maritime Service, using Foreign Assistance Act funds.
-- ICITAP is helping the Panamanian police develop and implement
procedures to store and destroy seized drugs.
-- The US Coast Guard trained 71 Panamanian maritime officials, using INM
[US Department of State's Bureau of International Narcotics Matters] funds.
-- An excess Coast Guard cutter was donated to Panama's Maritime Service,
and the Navy donated an excess 58-foot minesweeper. In addition, INM funds
purchased a Boston Whaler for the service.
-- US Customs has trained 19 Panamanian officials on basic drug
enforcement training.
-- DEA [US Drug Enforcement Agency] has trained 27 special anti-narcotics
police with INM funding.
-- USAID [US Agency for International Development] and USIS [US
Information Agency] funded a trial advocacy and court administration
program for approximately 200 prosecutors, defense bar lawyers, and
judicial officials.
-- Several US Government agencies cooperated to provide anti-money-
laundering training, seminars, and workshops to bank officials and officials
from the banking commission, Technical Judicial Police, the attorney
general's office, and the judiciary.
US Government agencies are taking other measures to enhance Panama's
counter-narcotics abilities. USAID is providing Foreign Assistance Act
funding, approximately $250,000 over 2 years to fund drug demand reduction
and awareness programs. The US Southern Command set up a Tactical
Analysis Team to provide intelligence analysis and sup- port for the
embassy, including joint US-Panamanian operations. DEA and Customs
conduct joint operations with Panamanian law enforcement institutions to
interdict illegal narcotics. US legal experts are providing technical
assistance to the Government of Panama to strengthen their narcotics
statutes. We are also working to get the Panamanian Government linked into
the Caribbean Basin Radar Network.
The State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics Matters is
providing Panama with $660,000 this year for counter-narcotics equipment
and training (provided by DEA, Customs, and the Coast Guard). Last year, we
provided over $690,000. By mutual agreement, some of these funds will be
used to establish a Joint Information Collection Center (JICC) to process
intelligence about suspected narcotics activities in Panama. A temporary
JICC location has been identified, and equipment is being shipped for it.
Also, the Panamanian Cruz Blanca, a private sector demand reduction
organization, received INM money for programs to increase public awareness
about drug abuse and to rehabilitate drug users.
Need for Additional Actions
Our efforts in Panama and those of their government must be sustained for a
long time to come. In spite of our progress, many problems remain.
Security in the Colon Free Zone and in Panama's commercial airports must
be improved. Enforcement agencies--particularly the Maritime Service with
its dearth of operating vessels--require additional funding. Existing
statues must be strengthened. Much more must be done to combat drug
money-laundering.
In addition, Panama should ratify the UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic
in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. By following the lead of its
Latin neighbors in ratifying this convention, Panama would establish an
additional legal basis for asset forfeiture and seizure. The absence of this
authority is a handicap for Panama in its counter-narcotics efforts. We
have urged Panama to ratify this convention; however, the Government of
Panama has indicated it will wait to have the mutual legal assistance
treaty in place before presenting the UN convention to the [Legislative]
Assembly.
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty
Since our first mutual legal assistance treaty [MLAT] entered into force
with Switzerland in 1977, our MLATs have become an increasingly important
tool in the US war on crime, in particular, transnational crimes such as
narcotics trafficking, terrorism, money-laundering, and export control
violations, which require the close cooperation of law enforcement
authorities throughout the world.
The proliferation of bilateral mutual legal assistance treaties in recent
years reflects the considered judgment and determination of the United
States, as well as of our treaty partners, to enhance cooperation in legal
assistance and to devise the most efficient and expeditious methods
possible within our respective legal systems to facilitate the investigation
and prosecution of crime as well as to support related proceedings.
On several occasions, most recently in April, we have appeared here to
discuss mutual legal assistance treaties being considered by the Senate. On
those occasions, we provided the Senate with information about the basic
elements of MLATs. Rather than repeat that information here, we refer you
to our earlier testimony.
US-Panama MLAT
We are all aware that Panama's status as a major financial center for Latin
America has made it a prime target for the laundering of drug money and
funds generated by other illegal activity. Expeditious access to bank
records and admissible evidence about financial transactions and entities in
Panama is, therefore, a high priority for US law enforcement authorities.
Currently, there is no standard legal mechanism in place between Panama
and the United States for the exchange of evidence relating to a broad
spectrum of criminal activity. The United States has been successful in
gaining access to financial information in Panama under Panamanian Law
23, but such access is limited to narcotics-related investigations and
prosecutions.
To address some of the gaps in our counter-narcotics cooperation with
Panama, we negotiated a mutual legal assistance treaty. The Congress
strongly urged us to complete this treaty in a May 1990 conference
committee report. It recommended that a portion of Panama's FY 1990-91
assistance be withheld pending "significant progress toward concluding an
MLAT."
We began our MLAT negotiations with the Endara Administration in the
spring of 1990. The negotiations were difficult, lasting over a year, but we
secured a treaty which US and Panamanian agencies agree advances the law
enforcement interests of both countries.
The Government of Panama takes this treaty very seriously. Last July,
President Endara called the Legislative Assembly out of recess for a special
session solely to consider this treaty. The assembly rapidly ratified the
treaty at that session. Further, in anticipation of bringing the treaty into
force, the Government of Panama has established and staffed an office
within the Ministry of Government and Justice that will be responsible for
implementing the treaty.
Although the cooperation we are receiving from Panama without this treaty
is good, the methods we must now employ to make law enforcement
requests are cumbersome and time-consuming. Thus, a number of US
criminal investigations are being delayed pending our ratification of the
MLAT. There, currently, are dozens of pending US investigations which
would benefit greatly from faster access to the types of information we
could request under this MLAT.
Once the MLAT enters into force, it will increase our existing law
enforcement cooperation and will make it more efficient. It will establish
a mechanism for the appropriate governmental authorities of each country
to provide to their counterparts information and evidence for use in
criminal investigations and legal proceedings in a form admissible in our
courts.
The US-Panama MLAT is modeled closely on the MLAT between the United
States and The Bahamas. US and Panamanian negotiators found, however,
that certain areas of the proposed treaty warranted augmentation or further
explanation in order to ensure that the MLAT's provisions could be fully and
effectively implemented under the legal systems of both countries. These
understandings about the scope and meaning of the treaty's provisions,
which were viewed as supplements to the basic articles of the MLAT, are
set forth in the annex.
The first article of the annex is intended to supplement and clarify the
meaning of Article 2, which specifies which offenses are covered by the
treaty. Article 2 provides that assistance under the MLAT is available in
connection with all serious offenses that are crimes in both countries. In
addition, certain offenses were deemed important enough to cooperative law
enforcement objectives to merit specific enumeration in the text of the
treaty and further explanation in the annex. Article 1 of the annex
reaffirms the commitment made by both countries to the 1961 Single
Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the 1972 protocol thereto. The article
also clarifies that the treaty covers offenses involving the potential for
violence (such as bank robbery, extortion, and crimes related to terrorism),
as well as offenses in which violence or injury actually occurs. Fraud is
described broadly in the annex to reach crimes which the basic dual
criminality provision might not cover, such as securities fraud, mail and
wire fraud, and fraud against the government.
The annex also includes provisions relating to the exchange of currency
transaction information. Both the United States and Panama have imposed
legal requirements on their financial institutions to keep records of large
currency transactions and to provide law enforcement authorities with
access to that information. The second section of the annex makes explicit
that the parties can use the MLAT as a mechanism for providing and
obtaining this information for use in criminal investigations and
prosecutions.
The annex specifically confirms that although "pure tax" matters are not
covered by the MLAT, tax offenses related to monies generated by criminal
activity otherwise covered by the MLAT do fall within its scope.
Section 3 of the annex reaffirms the understanding of the negotiators that
when the treaty enters into force, each party will have the necessary legal
authority to fully implement all of its provisions. Panamanian negotiators
assured us that the treaty, upon entry into force, would be the law of the
land in Panama. As such, it would serve as implementing legislation in any
areas not already covered by existing Panamanian law, and it would give
Panamanian authorities any additional necessary affirmative power to act
to carry out its provisions.
This treaty is critically important to advance the law enforcement
interests of both the United States and Panama. The Administration
believes that the MLAT will significantly augment the law enforcement
tools needed to assist in the prosecution of a wide variety of modern
criminals, including members of drug cartels, "white collar" criminals, and
terrorists. Panama recognizes that and ratified the MLAT almost a year ago.
We appeal to the US Senate to act quickly so that the treaty can enter into
force as soon as possible. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 19, May 11, 1992
Title: Cuba: Human Rights Trials
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Statement by Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler,
Washington, DC
Date: May, 1 19925/1/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Caribbean
Country: Cuba
Subject: Human Rights
[TEXT]
We are deeply concerned to learn of the pending trials of Cuban human rights
activists Yndamiro Restano and Maria Elena Aparicio on the charge of
rebellion. Both have been detained without charge since December.
Though Cuban authorities claim that Restano, leader of the dissident
Harmony Movement (MAR), sought to incite the Cuban people to civil
disobedience and urged sabotage against the Cuban state, he has advocated
only peaceful, democratic reform through a process of gradual change
involving all sectors of Cuban society. He has never espoused violence but,
rather, has advocated peaceful change. They are requesting a 12-year prison
term against him. Aparicio faces an 8-year prison term.
We call on the Cuban Government to listen to the appeals of well-meaning
Cubans like Yndamiro Restano and Maria Elena Aparicio who seek a voice in
deciding the future of their country. We ask Cuba to free these and other
proponents of peaceful reform so that they can contribute to the building of
a stable and prosperous Cuba.
We also call for the release of Sebastian Arcos, vice president of the Cuban
Committee for Human Rights, who has been detained without charge since
mid-January. We understand that Cuban authorities also seek to try him on
the charge of rebellion, although he, too, has advocated only peaceful,
democratic change in Cuba. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 19, May 11, 1992
Title: Political and Economic Implications of the
African Drought
Davidow
Source: Jeffrey Davidow, Acting Assistant Secretary for
African Affairs
Description: Statement before the Subcommittee on Africa of the
House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Select Committee on
Hunger, Washington, DC
Date: May, 6 19925/6/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Subsaharan Africa
Country: South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Mozambique,
Malawi, Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland
Subject: Trade/Economics, Development/Relief Aid,
Environment
[TEXT]
I appear before you today because of a sadly familiar story on the African
continent--a devastating drought, failed harvests, and the specter of
famine. The suffering in large parts of Southern Africa today, and the even
greater hardships possible in the months ahead, are discouraging for a
region with so much promise. In addition to the clear human tragedy, this
drought also holds potentially serious political and economic implications
for a region which has many of the best prospects for development on the
African continent.
The move toward peace, justice, and stability in Southern Africa in recent
years has been heartening, making the current drought-induced crisis even
more tragic and troubling. In several Southern African countries--South
Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Namibia--nascent democracies are coming to
grips with extremely difficult economic decisions essential to their future
prospects and prosperity. A complicated peace process is moving forward--
albeit slowly--in Angola. Though Mozambique is still devastated by war,
peace negotiations have begun. Fragility characterizes all of these very
encouraging developments.
In South Africa, negotiations are proceeding and hold promise for the
establishment of a non-racial interim government within the year, fully
transforming the former apartheid system and ending international
isolation. However, a political settlement will need to be strongly rein-
forced by economic growth if it is to succeed. Whatever government
emerges from the current negotiations will face the challenge of restoring
economic growth while simultaneously addressing the inequities of more
than 4 decades of apartheid. Currently, the South African economy has
adequate resources to meet the food import requirements generated by the
drought through commercial means. However, these expenditures, roughly $1
billion, will come at the expense of essential outlays for the socio-
economic needs of South Africa's own poor majority. Furthermore, South
Africa has usually been the most important source of grain exports to its
neighbors. This year, it will not have any surplus to supply them.
Already in South Africa, we are seeing the migration of farm workers,
displaced by crop failures, from the land to the towns and cities. As their
rural jobs disappear and they are unable to feed their families, these newly
unemployed will create additional strains on housing and social programs
and could push urban crime rates even higher. One estimate of 100,000
displaced farmworkers is probably low, but it suggests that the impact of
this drought could last well beyond the next harvest.
In Zimbabwe, the Mugabe Government's commitment to a free-market
oriented restructuring of its economy is being seriously challenged by the
drought. The international community enthusiastically welcomed the
government's 1991 decision to encourage foreign investment, develop export
industries, eliminate parastatal subsidies, and reduce non-productive civil
servant employment. The government's resolve remains firm, but the
targets of the multi-billion- dollar 5-year economic reform program have
been eroded by the drought. The food import bill already exceeds $400
million; export industries such as sugar and cotton have been crippled, with
the ripple effect felt especially hard in the agro-industrial sector. Instead
of 5% growth, the IMF [International Monetary Fund] recently forecast
economic contraction of 8% or 9%, and warned of inflation approaching 50%.
Building on the dissatisfaction and pain implicit in the serious economic
restructuring program, the political opposition is criticizing the
government for its response to the drought. This could have implications
for future policy decisions.
In Zambia, a new government, democratically elected after 18 years of one-
party rule, could be a model for the region. However, the government must
forcefully confront the economic wreckage left by its predecessor. Here,
again, hard economic decisions must be and are being made. Sacrifices are
being accepted against the promise of future growth and increased
prosperity. The government is still enjoying a honeymoon period but must
produce results to demonstrate that democracy is preferable to the one-
party system it replaced. Under the best of conditions, the challenge would
be a difficult one. The drought threatens to make it insurmountable.
In Angola, the 16-year civil conflict has ended, and multi-party democratic
elections are scheduled for September 29-30. The strife has left the
economy devastated and has nearly destroyed the country's socio-economic
base. Commitment to the peace process is strong, but implementation is
fragile, requiring constant intervention by interested outsiders. Insuf-
ficient food production has been a recurring problem throughout Angola due
to both weather and the dislocations and uncertainty caused by a long war.
Though it is less affected by the drought than other Southern African
countries, it cannot afford additional demands on its social fabric.
Mozambique remains under siege. War has already driven well over1 million
Mozambicans out of the country. Drought will only add to the disaster. It
could also undermine the drawn-out negotiating process in Rome, which has
recently made some significant progress and holds the only real promise for
a cease-fire and peace within the year. When Assistant Secretary [for
African Affairs Herman J.] Cohen met recently with Mozambique's President
[Joaquim Alberto] Chissano and RENAMO [Mozambique National Resistance]
leader [Alphonso] Dhlakama, he urged both men to support efforts to permit
food distribution in all areas of the country. The Mozambican Government
has indicated its willingness to cooperate with food deliveries, including
behind battle lines. To date, however, RENAMO has not fully supported such
relief efforts and has blocked some deliveries. We will continue to urge
both sides to address the humanitarian priorities in this crisis.
Namibia historically imports a large percentage of its food needs from other
countries in the region, which are now unable to meet those needs. In
addition, this new democracy is suffering near total crop failure, water
shortages, and malnutrition. The most vulnerable groups--children and
subsistence farmers--are the hardest hit and will need supplemental
assistance. As in much of the region, cattle are dying in record numbers,
and people are becoming desperate. The government is also faced with the
rising expectations of a newly enfranchised population. The limited wealth
of those who live off the land has been greatly eroded. With high
unemployment and the need to reintegrate demobilized soldiers and exiles,
the drought is a tough new burden for the government.
In Malawi, a landlocked country which currently hosts the largest refugee
population in Africa, competition between the local population and the
refugees over food resources could provoke overt confrontation. Malawi's
hospitality toward refugees has been one of the only bright spots in its
human rights record. Since the most severely affected districts also have
the largest numbers of refugees, this record of co-existence could be in
jeopardy.
Botswana, Lesotho, and Swaziland which, along with Namibia and South
Africa, make up the South African Customs Union, typically meet sub-
stantial proportions of their food needs through imports from South Africa.
This year, they will still rely on South Africa to sell them imported grain,
but subsistence farmers and those whose limited income will put high-
priced imported grain out of reach, will need assistance. Botswana's
democratic tradition, and the positive democratic trends we are witnessing
in Lesotho and Swaziland, could be tested if the governments prove unable
to respond to their peoples' needs.
Regional cooperation will be essential in any effective response to the
drought. Fortunately, regional cooperation is not a new concept in Southern
Africa. The 10 nations of SADCC, the Southern African Development
Coordination Conference, have an organizational structure which, among
other things, promotes cooperation on food and transportation issues.
Through the years, the United States, through USAID's Southern Africa
regional program, has worked closely with SADCC. Furthermore, all the
nations of the region have maintained essential commercial relations with
the Republic of South Africa, even though they maintained their political
distance. That cooperation is even more important now as unprecedented
quantities of grain and other supplies for South Africa and its neighbors
threaten to clog the ports and vital transportation routes to the interior.
We have already seen some impressive steps in cooperation and
coordination, such as establishment of a regional transportation unit in
Johannesburg, with representatives from Botswana, Malawi, Zambia, and
Zimbabwe sitting with their South African counterparts. On the bilateral
side, humanitarian considerations have resulted in political-level contacts,
such as the visit to South Africa of Zimbabwe's transport minister. These
contacts must be continued and intensified if the necessary political
cooperation is to be maintained through the long months until the next
harvest.
SADCC is also playing an important role in focusing international attention
on the drought. In conjunction with the United Nations, SADCC will jointly
sponsor an international conference where donor nations will be asked to
respond to the burgeoning humanitarian crisis.
In sum, prospects for the most viable, self-sustaining, regional economy in
Africa are at serious risk. While the crisis holds the promise of promoting
regional integration, political and economic progress could falter if critical
needs are not met by a substantial donor response. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 19, May 11, 1992
Title: Malawi: US Concerns
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Statement, Washington, DC
Date: Apr, 30 19924/30/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Subsaharan Africa
Country: Malawi
Subject: Human Rights, Environment, Development/Relief Aid
[TEXT]
US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Herman Cohen met with
Malawi Minister of State John Tembo and other senior government officials
April 29. They discussed matters relating to human rights, refugees, and
the severe drought now affecting Malawi and all of Southern Africa.
Assistant Secretary Cohen expressed appreciation for the manner in which
Malawi has received 1 million refugees from Mozambique and has sought to
contribute to a solution to the civil war in that country. He pledged that the
United States will assist Malawi in combating the effects of the drought.
He also expressed deep concern over violations of human rights in Malawi, in
particular the recent government actions against the Catholic Church over
the Malawi bishops' pastoral letter, the arrest and imprisonment of pro-
democracy advocate and labor leader Chakufwa Chihana, and the expulsion of
two Catholic clergymen. He called on the Malawi Government to open up the
political process and restore constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and
allow its citizens the right to freely criticize their government. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 19, May 11, 1992
Title: Feature: Geographer's Office Keeps Department Up
to Date
PA
Source: Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public
Affairs
Date: May, 11 19925/11/92
Category: Features
Region: North America
Country: United States
Subject: State Department, Science/Technology
[TEXT]
The fall of communism in Europe and Eurasia has put the spotlight on the
Department of State's Office of the Geographer, which keeps the State
Department up to date on new place names and boundaries.
The office, part of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), handles
geographic issues for the bureau and does all cartography for the
Department of State.
"The dramatic changes brought about by the crumbling of the Soviet Union
have kept us especially busy as we update many of our maps to reflect those
changes," said Bradford Thomas, an international boundary specialist and
head of the Cartography Division of the Geographer's Office.
Since its inception in the 1920s, the office's size and function have varied
greatly. World War II dramatically increased the Department's demand for
cartographic information, which led to a growth in staff. But, when the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was established in 1947, many of the
office's research duties were transferred to the new agency, along with
most of the personnel. However, duties related to boundaries stayed at the
State Department.
Until the 1980s, the Office ofthe Geographer dealt primarily with boundary
and law-of-the-sea issues. Since then, the office has been given expanded
responsibilities and now has 2 divisions and 15 employees.
The Cartography Division analyzes boundary and territorial disputes, some
of which affect political situations. The division also produces maps and
graphics for State Department publications and provides guidance on
international boundary depiction and correct foreign name usage to other
State Department offices and to all federal agencies that make maps. It
also produces--often on short notice--most of the maps used for the
Department of State's formal publications and briefing papers.
Such products have become easier to complete since 1985, when computer-
assisted cartography was introduced. The computerized mapping system
permits the cartographers to construct a map on any of 22 basic
projections, store it in memory, and use it later to produce a new, modified
map. The division uses a network of personal computers running AUTOCAD
(a computer drafting program) and two programs that generate basic map
data files. One program, written in-house, is used for quick, generalized
maps. The other, a version of the CIA's Computer Aided Mapping (CAM)
program, is used for more detailed maps. Both programs use subsets of the
CIA's World Data Bank II.
The Global Issues Division briefs senior policy-makers within the State
Department and prepares analyses of such issues as refugees and
international migration, labor, global environmental problems, and
activities of the United Nations and other international organizations.
William Wood, Director of the Geographer's office, explains the perspective
that his office takes: "When looking at global issues, some of the most
pressing are deeply entrenched poverty, rapid population growth, and
environmental degradation, which affect regional stability." Mr. Wood notes
that problems tied to these trends will become worse in many low-income
regions over the next decade and are unlikely to be resolved. He adds,
"these three factors often have significant influences on many current,
violent conflicts over ethnic, territorial, and boundary disputes."
Although most of the office's products are intended for Department or US
Government use, some are available to the public. The Cartography Division
produces maps for sale, including the Foreign Service Post maps, which the
public may purchase through the National Technical Information Service, US
Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA. 22161, (tel:
703-487-4650).
Also available is the quarterly series Geographic Notes. It includes studies
of current international issues from a geographic perspective, such as
boundary, sovereignty, and territorial disputes; perspectives on maritime,
migration, and refugee issues; coverage of resource conflicts and
environmental issues; official updates of changes in foreign geographic
names and international boundary designations; and coverage of political and
economic issues. Subscriptions are available through the Superintendent of
Documents. (See inside back cover for order form.)
Boundary specialist Bradford Thomas also is Vice Chairman of the US Board
on Geographic Names, which was created in 1890 to provide uniform name
usage on all US Government maps and publications. The board has nine
members; one each from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce,
Defense, Interior, and State; CIA; Government Printing Office; Library of
Congress; and US Postal Service.
Foreign names first became a major concern of the board during World War
II. They are once again center stage as the board and the Geographer's Office
update information on the former Soviet and Yugoslav republics.
"The board traditionally receives little attention. However, since the fall of
1991, it has worked at breakneck pace to keep abreast of the new states
established after the dissolution of the Soviet Union," Thomas explained.
Regional contingencies make it even more critical that accurate, uniform
place names be available to agencies reporting on these places and
situations. The board recently formed a new working group to address the
problems of conventional names used for the former USSR. A monthly
publication, the Foreign Names Information Bulletin (which can be purchased
through the Defense Mapping Agency at 1-800-826-0342 or DMA/CSC
Washington, DC 20315-0020, Attention: PMSR), has been created to
disseminate such information more quickly.
Research on foreign name changes for the board is done by 30 geographic and
linguistic specialists of the Defense Mapping Agency. The board accepts a
name in the native language if it uses the Roman alphabet. Otherwise, the
name is transliterated into Roman letter spelling.
When a country changes the name of a city, province, or other major
geographic feature, the shift is accepted by the board, provided official
documentation is available. In the case of changes in country name, some of
which can be politically sensitive and controversial, Thomas seeks the
clearance of the Department's desk officers. Sometimes, as in the case of
Burma's change to Myanmar, the board, on advice of the Department's desk,
does not accept the change.
--Linda Voelpel Crutchfield
Dispatch Staff (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 19, May 11, 1992
Title: US-Ukraine Trade and Investment
Agreements
PA
Source: Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public
Affairs
Date: May, 11 19925/11/92
Category: Focus on Emerging Democracies
Region: Eurasia
Country: Ukraine
Subject: Trade/Economics, State Department
[TEXT]
US-Ukraine Trade and Investment Agreements
On May 6, 1992, President Bush and Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk
signed agreements aimed at strengthening economic ties between the two
countries. The US-Ukraine Trade Agreement provides reciprocal most-
favored-nation (MFN) tariff treatment to the products of both countries. In
addition to the MFN provisions, it will improve market access for US
products and services, allow companies to engage agents and consultants
and to conduct market studies, and offer substantial intellectual property
rights protection.
A second agreement will authorize the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation to provide guarantees to US companies which decide to invest in
Ukraine. These guarantees will include investment insurance against risks
of expropriation, political violence, and currency inconvertibility; project
financing either as direct loans to smaller businesses or US Government
loan guarantees for larger projects; and a variety of services designed to
stimulate US investment in Ukraine and create commercial opportunities for
both US and Ukrainian enterprises.
An additional agreement on humanitarian and technical economic
cooperation provides legal protection for US personnel and property involved
in assistance programs, such as tax and customs exemptions and immunity
from criminal and civil jurisdiction of local courts.
The Administration also announced plans to locate an American business
center in Kiev to facilitate expanded commercial relations between
American and Ukrainian businesses. The center will provide advice on local
business opportunities, translation services, and conference facilities.
Opening of Ukrainian Embassy In Washington, DC
On May 5, 1992, President Leonid Kravchuk and Secretary Baker officiated at
the opening of the Embassy of Ukraine in Washington, DC. The embassy is
located at 2001 L St., NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC, 20036, tel. 202-452-
0939. Mr. Oleg Belorus has been designated as ambassador.
President Nominates US Ambassador to Ukraine
President Bush has announced his intention to nominate Mr. Roman Popadiuk
as US ambassador to Ukraine. Mr. Popadiuk has been Deputy Press Secretary
to the President for Foreign Affairs since 1989. The nomination requires
Senate confirmation.
The US Embassy currently operates from offices at Vul. Yuriy Kotsu-
binskoho 10, Kiev, tel. (044) 244-7349. Ms. Natalie Jaresko is the economic
attache. (###)