US Department of State Dispatch,
Vol 3, No 22, June 1, 1992
Title: America's Commitment To the Global Environment
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: Address at the Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt,
Maryland
Date: Jun, 1 19926/1/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Whole World
Country: United States
Subject: Science/Technology, Environment
[TEXT]
(Introductory remarks deleted.)
Twenty years ago....the leaders of the world gathered in Sweden to talk
about the human environment. The Stockholm Declaration that they adopted
had a simple conclusion, that "through fuller knowledge and wiser action,
we can achieve for ourselves and our posterity a better life in an
environment more in keeping with human needs and hopes." Much has been
accomplished since those early days of environmentalism, and much has
been learned.
We've learned that only market-oriented economies and democratic systems
provide the accountability needed to protect against environmental
degradation. The coating of soot that the world found when the curtain of
secrecy was pulled back from Eastern Europe was but one visible
demonstration of that.
We've learned that the economy can grow even while pollution is reduced.
Since 1973, our GDP [gross domestic product] has grown by more than 50%.
And yet air quality has gotten better: Emissions of carbon monoxide and
smog-forming ozone, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter are all down by
more than 20%. And water quality has gotten better: We've achieved an 80%
reduction in suspended solids from industrial and sewage treatment plants.
We've learned that technology--spurred by the right incentives--can provide
help to the environment that no amount of regulation of old technology could
have achieved. Technological progress can cut pollution rather than
increase it. And at the same time, the efficiency gained is good for profits.
We've learned that market-based mechanisms and flexibility--aimed at
ambitious objectives and backed up by rigorous enforcement--can help us
solve environmental problems at less cost than command-and-control
regulation.
We've learned about a new generation of environmental problems that are
global in scope and that will require international cooperation to solve.
This week--and I referred to this earlier--over 100 heads of state will
gather in Rio de Janeiro, and it will be time to apply those lessons. What
better place to discuss our plans for taking on the problems of the
international environment than here at Goddard.
I thought as I was on this little tour--which was all too quick but,
nevertheless, gave me a little feel about the magnificent work that the
wonderful employees of Goddard do--I thought wouldn't it be a wonderful
thing if these 100 or more heads of state could actually walk through the
laboratories here and get a practical feeling for what it is you are doing; to
see how they can better monitor the changes that they talk about or that
they get from their environmental ministers. It's a wonderful thing. I think
it's very timely that I've had this opportunity, and I look forward to sharing
[it] with those people down in Rio.
It is science developed here that has given the world a new window from
which to see its environment. A spacecraft managed by Goddard provided
humanity with its first image of earth from space. It was your scientists--
Goddard's scientists--who developed the Upper Atmosphere Research
Satellite launched last year, which is providing us new insight about the
content of the ozone layer.
The lion's share of the science that the world is using to understand our
climate comes from a program with its heart and soul right here--the
Global Change Research Program, built around the Mission to Planet Earth
that Goddard is developing.
When we go to Rio, the United States will go proudly as the world's leader,
not just in environmental research, but in environmental action. The United
States was the first nation to recognize the danger of CFC
[chlorofluorocarbons] emissions by eliminating aerosol propellants, which
we did in 1978. Other nations are now following suit--using the aerosol
phaseout as credit to meet the terms of the Montreal Protocol. We are 42%
ahead of the schedule required by that agreement. Earlier this year, on the
basis of science developed by NASA, we unilaterally decided to speed up our
timetable for phasing out CFCs to the end of 1995.
We were the first nation, back in 1975, to adopt catalytic converters to
reduce those emissions from our cars and trucks. In 1982, we began phasing
out lead from American gasoline--and now ambient levels of lead in our air
have been cut by 95%. Other nations are only now taking these two steps.
I came to this office committed to extend America's record of
environmental leadership. And I've worked to do so in a way that is
compatible with economic growth, because this balance is absolutely
essential--and because these are twin goals, not mutually exclusive
objectives.
You see, those who met 20 years ago at Stockholm and called for this UNCED
[UN Conference on Environment and Development], this summit, explicitly
called for the discussion at Rio to be about both environment and
development. And they knew even back then that the two were inextricably
linked.
Only a growing economy can generate the resources and the will to manage
natural assets for the longer term and the common good. But only assets
which are so managed can support the growth on which so much human hope
is hinged. By definition, for development to be successful in the long term,
it has got to be sustainable.
I invite comparison of the record that we as a country and as an
Administration have built. It is aggressive. It is comprehensive. And it is
ambitious, but carefully balanced. What we've done in this Administration
reflects the new environmentalism, more sophisticated in its approach, that
harnesses the power of the marketplace in the service of the environment.
Let me give you some examples.
-- The 1990 Clean Air Act, which I proposed and signed into law, is the
most ambitious air pollution legislation anywhere on earth. It will cut acid
rain, smog, [and] toxic chemical emissions. And, yet, it will do so with
innovations the whole world is watching. We have a trading system for
sulfur dioxide reductions, a new generation of cleaner fuels and cleaner
cars, a massive--and, to date, successful--voluntary air toxics reduction
program.
-- Our national parks are under stress from millions of visitors. Just in
the last 4 years, we've added over 1.5 million acres to America's parks,
forests, wildlife refuges, and to other public land. We've created 57 new
wildlife refuges and restored or protected more than 500,000 acres a year
of important wetlands. And, at the same time, we've streamlined the
permitting process so that projects which don't hurt wetlands aren't slowed
down. And we've made sure to respect people's private property rights.
-- We've placed a moratorium on oil and gas drilling along the most
environmentally sensitive areas of our coasts; signed new laws to protect
against oil spills; to end below-cost timber sales in America's largest rain
forest, the Tongass; and to promote environmental education. We've backed
our laws up with strict enforcement to make the polluters pay. And the
results have been record contributions to cleanups from businesses.
-- We have attended to the international environment--with new agree-
ments to stop the irresponsible export of toxic wastes, to ban trade in ivory
and thereby stop the extinction of elephants due to poaching, and to use debt
forgiveness to protect the environment through debt-for-nature swaps.
In short, our country, America, retains its place at the forefront of
international environmental accomplishment. Our laws have served as a
model for environmental laws the world over.
America's environmental accomplishments have not come by mistake-- they
are the result of sustained investment. Today, the United States spends
about 2% of its gross domestic product--over $100 billion per year--on
pollution control. In comparison to other nations, that's among the highest
in the world.
Americans have always believed that actions speak louder than words. And
simple wisdom has guided our approach to the questions on the table at Rio.
We will sign a good agreement on climate change. It is based on the idea
that every nation should prepare an action strategy--as we in the United
States have done.
We first laid our plan on the table in February 1991--with specific policy
proposals and specific calculations concerning how much greenhouse gas
emissions would be reduced. When the science on CFCs changed, we added
new measures, and we, again, laid our plan on [the] table. We showed that
our policies would reduce projected-year 2000 greenhouse gas emissions by
125 million to 200 million tons--or by 7% to 11%.
No other nation except The Netherlands has laid out such a specific plan of
action. That's why we insisted that the focus be on results, not on rhetoric.
It may not have been widely reported in the press, but in area after area, the
United States laid down specific proposals and worked for their adoption:
forests, oceans, living marine resources, public participation, [and]
financing.
Let me be clear: Our commitment to action did not begin and will not end
with Rio. So when I travel down there next week, to Brazil, I will bring
with me several proposals to extend the commitment of the world
community into the future. Let me outline for you my four-point plan of
cooperation.
First, I will propose a major new initiative to protect and enhance the
world's forests. I mentioned lessons learned about cost effectiveness.
Well, halting the loss of the earth's forests is one of the most cost-
effective steps we can take to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
Forests also filter the air and water. They provide products from timber
and fuelwood to pharmaceuticals and foodstuffs. They are home to more
than half the world's species. At the Houston G-7 [Group of 7 industrialized
nations] summit 2 years ago, I proposed a global forest convention. At
UNCED, we should get agreement on the principles leading up to it.
But I propose today to move ahead faster. At Rio, I will ask the other
industrialized countries to join me in doubling worldwide forest
assistance--with a goal of halting the loss of the world's forests by the end
of the decade. As a downpayment, the United States will increase its
bilateral forest assistance by $150 million next year.
The plan is to encourage partnerships between recipient countries who could
propose new projects and investor countries who, in effect, could bid to
support the most effective proposals for sequestering CO2 or preserving
biodiversity.
Second, with respect to climate: The signing of a convention that calls for
action plans is simply a first step--we must implement them. So I will join
in proposing a prompt start to adoption of climate action plans. Of course,
as new and better science becomes available on climate change, we will
adjust our action plan accordingly.
The solution to climate change must include the developing countries. While
today they account for about a quarter of the world's emissions, by the year
2025, they will contribute over half. So we must have their participation,
and we will fund "country studies" to get them started.
These countries will need new technologies if they are to enjoy "green
growth." And America can provide them. So my budget includes an
investment of almost $1 billion in developing new energy-efficient
technologies.
Hundreds of American businessmen will be traveling to Rio to make the case
for our technology. But this effort must continue.
The third part of our plan is to support a program--a broad program of
technology cooperation. In particular, we're going to create a Technology
Cooperation Corps to identify the green technology--those green
technological needs of countries around the world--and then to knock down
the barriers to making it available.
The fourth point of my program for a cleaner future is a continued program
of research and understanding. This year, we are requesting over
$1.4 billion for the Global Change Research Program--that's more than the
amount spent on climate research by the rest of the world put together.
With [Administrator] Dan Goldin's leadership here at NASA, we will push for
a program that provides results faster, cheaper, and better. At Rio, I will
propose to make the data from our climate change program available and
affordable for scientists and researchers all around the world.
As part of this effort, we will distribute at that conference, at UNCED,
thousands of copies of computer disks with data on greenhouse effects, and
we will open this year a Global Change Research information office.
These four steps--a dramatic program to protect and to enhance forests;
quick action on climate change; cooperation in deploying cleaner, more
efficient technology; and then an ongoing program to develop and share
sound science--can help us seize that opportunity long after those speeches
in Rio have been given and the conference is over.
Two decades ago, when they gathered at Stockholm, the leaders of the world
could not possibly have foreseen the tumultuous events of the intervening 2
decades. Then they worried about nuclear war as a chief environmental
threat. They couldn't have known that today the specter of nuclear war--
with its unthinkable destruction--would be calmed as never before in our
post-war history.
They could not possibly have envisioned that, with the fall of statism and
communism, those who would come to Rio would have had the chance to
launch a new generation of clean growth--guided by the wisdom of free
peoples and fueled by the power of free markets.
They could never have known how far we'd have come in 20 years. Now, it is
for us to imagine how much further we can go. And what better place to
make that point than standing before these people that are dedicated to
demonstrating to the rest of the world how much further we can go.
I am grateful to each and every one of you who gives of himself or herself to
further the science and, thus, to improve and keep something very, very
special--the environmental quality of our entire world. Thank you for what
you do. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 22, June 1, 1992
Title: Convention on Biological Diversity
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Statement, Washington, DC
Date: May, 29 19925/29/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Whole World
Country: United States
Subject: Science/Technology, United Nations
[TEXT]
Negotiations on a convention on biological diversity, held under the auspices
of the UN Environment Program, concluded in Nairobi on May 22.
The United States strongly supports the conservation of biological diversity
and was an early proponent of a convention. The United States is
disappointed that the negotiations on this convention have produced a text
which we believe is seriously flawed in a number of respects. The United
States is not willing to sign a convention that does not address US concerns;
prin- cipal US objections are listed below.
The US record on protecting biodiversity is unparalleled.
-- The Endangered Species Act requires that threatened and endangered
species be identified and given special protection;
-- The United States has set aside nearly 180 million hectares of public
land where the diversity of native plant and animal species is protected;
-- The United States is a strong proponent of the Convention on the
International Trade in Endangered Species.
However, issues of serious concern to the United States were not addressed
in the course of the negotiation of the framework convention. The United
States is particularly concerned about provisions related to:
Intellectual property rights, (IPR). The convention focuses on PR as a
constraint to the transfer of technology rather than as a prerequisite;
Funding. The convention contains unacceptable language on the transfer of
funds from developed to developing countries:
-- The role of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) of the World Bank
differs from that agreed to by the participants in the GEF less than a month
ago.
-- The United States is prepared to help others protect our world's
biological resources, but the funding system must be workable.
Biotechnology. The convention does not treat biotechnology and biosafety
appropriately.
In every negotiation, no matter how important the subject matter, the
actual outcome must always be considered; the United States does not and
cannot sign an agreement that is fundamentally flawed merely for the sake
of having that agreement.
As the record shows, the United States is committed to protecting
biological diversity. The United States will continue to take measures
domestically and internationally to conserve and protect biological
diversity. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 22, June 1, 1992
Title: Facing New Challenges of Diplomacy
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: Remarks at the Naval Academy Commencement, Annapolis,
Maryland
Date: May, 27 19925/27/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Whole World
Country: United States
Subject: Democratization
[TEXT]
(Introductory remarks deleted.)
As President, I have made it my mission to preserve three legacies of
concern to all Americans. I spoke a few days ago at Southern Methodist
University about the new economic realities--about the promising job
opportunities that we're going to have in the next century. At Notre Dame,
my focus was the family, because the first lessons in faith and character
are learned at home. But, today, I want to speak about the great mission
you've taken up as your own--preserving freedom, keeping the peace.
You take up your watch at a watershed moment as old order gives way to
new. Just think of the changes, the remarkable changes, that have taken
place since you first came to Annapolis 4 years ago, for plebe summer way
back in 1988. That was a different era--another world, literally. Europe
was a continent divided--East from West. From Central America to the Horn
of Africa to Afghanistan and Southeast Asia, the United States faced Soviet
expansionism. Today, all that has changed: Today, the "dominoes" fall in
democracy's direction.
Today, the [Berlin] wall, the Warsaw Pact, the Soviet empire--even the
Soviet Union itself--all are gone, swept away by the most powerful idea
known to man: the undeniable desire of every individual to be free.
We must recognize these events for what they were: a vindication of our
ideals--a testament to faith--but also a victory for the men and women who
fought for freedom. Because this triumph didn't just happen; imperial
communism didn't just fall--it was pushed.
Your generation will be the first to enjoy the fruits of that victory. Today,
the threat of a lightning strike across the fields of Europe has vanished
with the Warsaw Pact. The threat of nuclear war is more distant than at
any time in the past 4 decades. As Commander in Chief, I think back often to
the day I did what so many of my predecessors must have longed to do: to
give the order for many of our nuclear forces to stand down from alert. And,
last week in Lisbon, we reached agreement with four of the new nations of
the old Soviet empire--Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Byelarus--to make
good on the great promise of the START Treaty [Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty] that we signed just a year ago.
The end of the Cold War means new opportunities for global prosperity. Free
market reform is now sweeping away the dead hand of state socialism.
Capitalism is recognized the world over as the engine of prosperity and
social progress, and nations are reorganizing themselves to unleash the
limitless potential of the individual.
Governments can help foster free enterprise, or they can put obstacles in its
path. There is no question what course--the course we must take. The
United States will remain a forceful advocate for free trade.
But the promise of new prosperity must not blind us to the new challenges
of new economic realities. Nations that lack the confidence to compete will
be tempted to seek refuge behind the walls of protectionism. We must fight
the protectionist impulse here at home, and we must work with our partners
for trade that is free, fair, and open.
Beyond this economic challenge, we must see clearly the dangers that
remain. And, yes, since the day you came to Annapolis, we have made great
gains for freedom, but we have not yet entered an era of perpetual peace.
Some see the great triumph I mentioned a moment ago not simply as cause
for celebration but as proof that America's work in the world is finished--
is done. The fact is, never in the long history of man has the world been a
benign place. It will take hard efforts to make and keep it a better place.
There is no substitute in this effort for America's strength and sense of
purpose. When other nations look to the United States, they see a nation
that combines economic and military might with a moral force that's borne
of its founding ideals.
Even in our new world, as old threats recede, new ones emerge. With the end
of the East-West standoff, ideology has given way to ethnicity as a key
factor for conflict. Ancient hatreds, ethnic rivalries frozen in time,
threaten to revive themselves and reignite. We see it now in the war-
ravaged Balkans; intentions within and among some of the new nations of
the old Soviet empire. For all the overwhelmingly hopeful aspects of the
new nationalism we see in the world, for all the proud history and heritage
we see reclaimed, for all the captive nations now free, we must guard
against those who would turn the noble impulse of nationalism to negative
ends.
We will face new challenges in the realm of diplomacy: Where in the past
we've relied almost entirely on established formal alliances, the future may
require us to turn more often to coalitions built to respond to the needs of
the moment. Where in the past international organizations like the United
Nations had been paralyzed by Cold War conflict, we will see a future where
they can now be a force for peace. Where in the past many times the
heaviest burdens of leadership fell to our nation, we will now see more
efforts made to seek consensus and concerted action.
The United States will never rely on other nations to defend its interests,
but we can and will seek to act in concert with the community of nations to
defend common interests and ideals. We saw a glimpse of that future in the
Persian Gulf. Such a world puts a premium on nations certain of their
interests, faithful to their ideals, and on leaders ready to act.
We will face new challenges that take us beyond containment to a key role
in helping forge a democratic peace. In the weeks ahead, Congress will be
considering the FREEDOM [Freedom for Russia and the Emerging Eurasian
Democracies and Open Markets] Support Act--to promote democratic reform
in Russia and the other Commonwealth states. For all the pressure to focus
our energies on needs here at home, and for all that we must do and will do
to open new opportunities to every American here at home, we cannot fail in
this critical mission.
When we think of the world you and your children will inherit, no single
factor will shape their future more than this: Whether the lands of the old
Soviet empire move forward into democracy or slide back into anarchy or
authoritarianism, the outcome of this great transition will affect
everything, from the amount of resources government must devote to
defense instead of domestic needs to a future for our children free from
fear.
And, yes, the aid that I have requested from the Congress is significant, but
it is also a tiny fraction of the $4 trillion that this nation spent to wage and
win the Cold War. We owe it to those who began the task, as well as those
who will come up afterwards, to finish the great work that we have begun.
But if we hope to remain free and at peace in the world, a world that still
holds dangers, we must maintain defenses adequate to the task. And this
defense rests on four key elements:
First, we must maintain a strong strategic deterrent. Yes, our nuclear
forces can and will be smaller in the future. But, even in the aftermath of
the Cold War, Russia retains its nuclear arsenal. And we learned in Desert
Storm about the progress that Iraq had made toward building nuclear
weapons of its own.
We must heed the lessons learned in the Gulf War, when a single Scud
missile took the lives of more Americans than any other combat action in
that war. We cannot count on deterrence to stop a madman with missiles.
We must deploy a defense against ballistic missile attack.
Second, security means forward deployment. From the 40 years of Cold War
to the 40 days of Desert Storm, forward-deployed forces have contributed
to the world's stability and helped America keep danger far from its shores.
Even in our new world, with the tremendous political transformation we've
worked to bring about, the fundamental facts of geopolitics don't change.
Forward deployed forces--I'm talking about ground forces, and I'm talking
about the US Navy--will keep America safe in the century ahead, as they
have in the century now coming to a close.
Third, the nature of the challenges we are likely to face will put a premium
on rapid response. We live in a day when clear and present dangers are few,
when new threats can emerge with little or no warning. Throughout history,
our ability to project power has helped us keep the peace and, if need be, to
win the war. This I pledge as Commander in Chief: America's forces will
continue to be the best-trained, the best-equipped, and the most battle-
ready forces anywhere in the entire world. We owe it to the generations
coming up.
Fourth, even as we reduce our armed forces, we must retain the capability
to reconstitute sufficient forces to meet the future threats that we may
face. As we make significant cuts in our defense procurement, we've got to
keep in mind that production lines for planes and tanks and ships cannot be
turned on and off like water from a faucet. We've got to keep our
technological edge--keep our research and development focused on the next
generation of weapons that you'll need to succeed.
In conclusion, I just want to turn to a final challenge, one that begins with a
hard-won truth that shines through this century's great conflicts: America
is safest at home when we stand as a force for stability in the world.
In many respects, reaffirming this truth in our new world may be the
greatest challenge of all, because the history of this century reveals in the
American character a desire to see in every hard-won victory a sign that
America's work in the world is done. Such an urge is not unusual in
democracies; it's a trait found in nations more interested in the quiet joys
of home than in the glories of conquest abroad. But it can be devastating in
a world that still holds dangers for our interests and ideals.
Winston Churchill made this point the theme of the last volume in his epic
history of World War II. He called it: "How the great democracies
triumphed--and so were able to resume the follies which had so nearly cost
them their life."
Once more, our challenge is to avoid the folly that Churchill warned of--to
remain engaged in the world as a force for peace. And we will do it with
your help, through the leadership you provide. Today, John Paul Jones would
say: "The measure of a ship is not its guns but its courageous men and
women." Your courage, your integrity, your ability to lead--these are the
qualities on which our nation's security depends.
More than once this century, America has proved its mettle. More than once,
we've come late to conflict and turned back mortal threats to freedom. But,
as a nation, we have yet to prove that we can lead when there is no enemy on
the doorstep. We have proved and proved again we can win the war. And now
we must wage the peace. . . . (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 22, June 1, 1992
Title: Assistance to the New Independent States
Baker
Source: Secretary Baker
Description: Intervention at the Lisbon Conference on Assistance to
the New Independent States, Lisbon, Portugal
Date: May, 24 19925/24/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Eurasia
Country: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine,
Uzbekistan
Subject: NATO, CSCE, Development/Relief Aid, Trade/Economics
[TEXT]
Four months ago today, we concluded the Washington Coordinating
Conference, resolved to divide our labors to meet a pressing global
emergency: to preserve the promise of freedom in the new independent
states through the dead of winter.
Together, we overcame that emergency. Together, we provided help, and we
provided hope. And, together, we joined with the peoples
of the new independent states to keep freedom alive when it was most
vulnerable.
Today, we welcome the new independent states as full partners in the
coordinating conference process that began in Washington. For each
of these new states, their peoples and their leaders, the path of reform has
not and will not be easy. They recognize that the success of freedom is in
their hands, not ours, and they have not asked for charity. Rather, they have
asked for our partnership and our help.
Here in Lisbon, we need to strengthen that partnership. We need to
accelerate the work we began in Washington and strengthen our collective
engagement in support of political and economic freedom. In my view, there
are three tasks that should dominate our work here and in the coming
months:
First, taking steps now to alleviate and prevent future humanitarian
emergencies;
Second, focusing technical assistance to support microeconomic and
structural reform; and
Third, beginning consultations on the future of the coordinating process.
The first task is to take preventative steps now to minimize the risks of a
humanitarian emergency in the future. While our collective action helped
overcome last winter's emergency, conditions in the new inde- pendent
states remain difficult and will undoubtedly be exacerbated next winter
with the return of cold weather.
The working groups, led ably by their co-chairs, did an excellent job of
coordinating efforts to cope with last winter's crisis. In particular, I would
like to congratulate the Dutch and Venezuelan co-chairs for their fine work
in leading the energy group. Their efforts show the value of expanding
international coordination efforts to include a wide range of countries, each
offering unique and valuable expertise.
Now, however, the working groups should further refine their focus toward
actions that can prevent future food, medicine, energy, and shelter
shortages and needs. In the food area, for example, we need to begin helping
these states address problems in the production and proper use of
agricultural chemicals, such as fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, so
that they can take advantage of their own agricultural potential. In energy,
it means assuring adequate supplies of fuel and electricity to the
agricultural and food processing sectors-- particularly during the harvest
season--throughout the new independent states and especially in Armenia
and Kyrgyzstan. In medicine, it means accelerating our efforts to encourage
markets and restore an indigenous pharmaceutical industry.
It also means integrating each of the new independent states fully into the
working groups. But with involvement comes responsibility, and I must say,
frankly, that the political will to engage in this collective effort must be
used to break bureaucratic obstacles and vestiges left over from the
command system of the Stalinist era. For example, I understand that the
energy working group, while undertaking an energy efficiency audit, was
denied access to a refinery on national security grounds. The international
community cannot help those who will not help themselves, and that means
we all need to be fully cooperating with one another.
The new independent states also have the responsibility to accelerate
microeconomic and macroeconomic reform. Supporting further reform
through focused and coordinated technical assistance should be our second
task. At Washington, we agreed that technical assistance was a critical
"bridge" between humanitarian assistance and long-term macro-economic
and microeconomic reform. Now, it is time to strengthen this bridge.
All along, we have supported the membership of the new independent states
in the international financial institutions, and we fully support the efforts
of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to work with the new independent
states in putting together macroeconomic programs for them. But
macroeconomic stabilization alone cannot ensure economic recovery. It
must be complemented by micro-economic and structural change. The new
states--supported by expertise from the international community--need to
pursue vigorous policies to promote competition, genuine property and
contract rights, privatization and demonopolization, and sectoral reform.
Not only will these policies support the development of free markets and
hasten economic recovery, but, in doing so, they will help alleviate further
humanitarian emergencies, too. In energy and agriculture, for example,
market economies can increase export earnings and lower food import costs
while meeting critical needs. That is in everyone's interest.
Therefore, I would urge all the participants in this conference to invigorate
their technical assistance programs, particularly those--like our Peace
Corps, Farmer-to-Farmer Program, Eurasia Foundation, and America Houses-
-which can put people on the ground to maximize the transfer of know-how.
Where possible, we should work multilaterally, as we are, for example,
through the shelter group's Resident Adviser Program, drawing
cooperatively on our individual comparative advantages and technical and
regional expertise. As another example, we are developing a close
partnership with Turkey to promote free markets and democracy in the
Caucasus and Central Asia, and we are exploring with Israel ideas to
promote agriculture in Central Asia.
With the aim of promoting multilateral technical assistance programs, I
would like to announce three initiatives designed to catalyze broad-based,
collective action.
First, we propose a Multilateral Nuclear Reactor Safety Initiative. The
dangers of another Chernobyl are real, and this initiative aims to reduce the
risk of accidents at Soviet-designed nuclear reactors by addressing the
safety deficiencies of these reactors as soon as possible. As an initial
stop, we propose to expand the already existing efforts of our Department of
Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission to establish two regional
training centers--one for Russia and the other for Ukraine. These centers
will provide essential training in safety procedures and equipment and will
include a computer-based simulator at the center in Ukraine. These will be
open to all the new independent states and to the Baltics. In addition, we
will move forward with a package of operational safety enhancement and
risk reduction measures. We hope others will join in this effort to meet
what is clearly a problem with global ramifications, and we wish to work
with our friends and allies in the coming weeks on further measures we
might take in concert.
Second, we propose a Multilateral Food Monetization Program. This
program--built upon an idea first raised with me by Mayor Sobchak of St.
Petersburg--will aim to develop private markets through the sale at market
prices of commodities donated to the new independent states. We plan to
draw upon the successful efforts of the European Community in this area,
using funds generated by the sale of these commodities to help develop food
distribution systems, to provide loans for agribusinesses and private
farmers, and to strengthen social safety nets. We will initiate our
participation by monetizing $35 million worth of foodstuffs. We are
prepared to devote additional funding to a multilateral endeavor of this
nature.
Third, we propose a Partners in Defense Conversion Initiative. This would
build upon our practice of placing long-term, resident defense conversion
advisers in key cities across the new independent states.
The aim would be to catalyze defense conversion and encourage investment
by providing on-the-ground expert advice to regions, cities, and enterprises
that are shifting into civi- lian production. Defense conversion will be
critical to freeing resources for economic recovery, growth, and prosperity.
While we will move ahead with all of these initiatives unilaterally, our aim
is to stimulate the involvement of as wide a range of international partners
as possible. I hope others will join in our initiatives, making each a truly
multilateral endeavor.
The third task we face is to begin transforming this ad hoc coordinating
process, devised to cope with a short-term emergency, into one that can
serve our collective engagement over the long term. We need to develop
mechanisms to coordinate our efforts, especially as the new independent
states proceed with reform. I would propose that we consider the idea of
forming consultative groups or mechanisms at an appropriate time to
support reform in particular states.
As many of you know, consultative groups or mechanisms traditionally
include the recipient country or countries, major bilateral donors, and
multilateral institutions such as the World Bank, IMF, regional development
banks, and the UN Development Program. They have been chaired by various
organizations, by individual countries, or some combination of the two and
typically have met once a year, sometimes with a core group that meets
more frequently.
Clearly, there are many models to choose from, and we need not lock
ourselves into one pattern to deal with the diverse needs of the different
independent states. Indeed, given the historical challenge we face--
supporting reform in 12 new states simultaneously--we should be willing
to consider new and innovative coordination mechanisms. We will need to
consider the form and structure of such groups or mechanisms; the degree
of coordination they should exercise; the number desirable to meet the
needs of the new independent states; as well as who should join in which
groups or mechanisms, who should chair them, and when it would be
appropriate to begin them to support the reform process.
In my view, we should set up consultative groups or mechanisms to
coordinate assistance effectively, to support sound macroeconomic and
structural policies, and to include political and policy coordination in the
process. Obviously, the new independent states must be fully involved in
developing this process, and these mechanisms should be set up--at an
appropriate time--in a way to address the unique situations of the
independent states. We should also encourage the participation of a broad
range of bilateral and multilateral donors in the process.
Obviously, these are issues we will not be able to decide here. But I do
believe it would be useful for this conference to endorse this idea so that
we can move to address these issues and get the groups or mechanisms up
and going at an appropriate time in support of the reform process.
Before closing, I would like to thank the European Community--especially
Portugal--for hosting this conference and say to our Japanese partners that
we look forward to meeting again in Tokyo in the fall. I would also like to
make one additional point which events beyond this conference compel me to
address.
As I have said many times recently, we have--with the collapse of Soviet
communism--the opportunity to create an enduring peace in Eurasia, a
democratic peace built on shared values. It truly is a once-in-a-century
opportunity. But we have much work to do if we are to turn this opportunity
into a reality. While we join together to divide our labors in assisting the
states of Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia to overcome the economic
devastation wrought by years of Stalinist planning, other obstacles lie in
the way.
In Yugoslavia, in Nagorno-Karabakh, in Trans-Dniestr, and in other places
across Eurasia, age-old ethnic animosities are fueling tragic cycles of
violence and dangerously escalating conflicts with the potential to spread
into neighboring areas. These conflicts are causing grave human suffering
while exacerbating political tensions. They threaten the very process of
reform and the hope for democracy. As we work here to coordinate
economic assistance to the new independent states, let us also use our time
here to advance our efforts to find political solutions to these conflicts.
In Yugoslavia, every attempt at peace has been blocked, and now we are
witnessing human suffering on a terrible and massive scale. No longer
should the international community tolerate this barbarity, this affront to
our collective conscience.
So I call upon every state and organization at this conference to use
whatever influence you have to make known that there is a cost for
aggression and that the world demands safe passage for humanitarian
convoys and the opening of the Sarajevo airport immediately. I call upon
every state and organization at this conference to join in a collective effort
to mobilize our political, diplomatic, and economic influence to make it
plain there's a price to be paid for blocking peace and terrorizing innocent
peoples. Fellow ministers, my bottom line is this: We should not accept a
humanitarian nightmare in the heart of Europe.(###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 22, June 1, 1992
Title: START Protocol Signed
Baker
Source: Secretary Baker
Description: Statement at the signing of the Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty (START) Protocol in Lisbon, Portugal
Date: May, 23 19925/23/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Eurasia
Country: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine,
Uzbekistan
Subject: Arms Control, Nuclear Nonproliferation
[TEXT]
The signing of the START Treaty last July marked a major mile-stone in the
arms control process we have pursued over the last 3 decades. The START
Treaty significantly lowers the risk of nuclear war by radically reducing
strategic offensive arms and enhancing strategic stability. The treaty's
extensive verification mechanisms will ensure openness and transparency
for years to come.
Since the signing of the START Treaty last July, we have entered into a new
era in political relations among our respective nations. The signing of this
protocol reflects this changed political situation. The protocol recognizes
the sovereign status of the newly independent states of the former Soviet
Union in a manner fully consistent with our shared goals of non-
proliferation and effective implementation of the treaty.
With sovereignty and independence, of course, comes responsibility. This
agreement makes Byelarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine parties to the
treaty and confirms and consolidates the non-nuclear status of Byelarus,
Kazakhstan, and Ukraine. Of course, the protocol and its associated three
letters to President Bush from Byelarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine are legally
binding documents. Under their terms, all nuclear weapons and all strategic
offensive arms on the territory of Byelarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine will be
eliminated within the 7-year START reductions period.
We consider the obligations by Byelarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine to join the
Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] in the shortest possible time to be an
integral element of the protocol-- an element that significantly advances
the international community's non-proliferation goals. Acceding to the Non-
Proliferation Treaty is neither a complex nor a difficult process. We expect
Byelarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine to take the initial steps immediately and
to conclude the process soon, thereby ensuring prompt accession. Along
with the rest of the international community, we will, of course, be
monitoring their progress.
By joining the NPT, Byelarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine will be taking a step
recognized by everyone as essential for the positive and constructive
political and economic relations with the United States and the rest of the
international community that we all seek. This agreement is consistent
with the single control of nuclear weapons that has been established for all
nuclear weapons of the former Soviet Union.
With agreement to the protocol, the basis is created for prompt ratification
of the treaty by all parties.
In short, by this agreement, we have laid the foundations for further
stabilizing reductions in strategic offensive arms and expanded the nuclear
non-proliferation regime. This is clearly in the national security interest
of each of the parties to the protocol and very definitely serves the interest
of international peace and security. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 22, June 1, 1992
Title: Helping the New Independent States; Sanctions on
Serbia-Montenegro
Baker
Source: Secretary Baker
Description: Excerpts of Secretary Baker's remarks at concluding
news conference of the Lisbon Conference on Assistance to the
New Independent States, Lisbon, Portugal
Date: May, 24 19925/24/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: E/C Europe
Country: Serbia-Montenegro, Yugoslavia (former),
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Subject: Regional/Civil Unrest, Human Rights
[TEXT]
Thank you, Mr. Minister, very much. I'll be very brief. I would like to try and
summarize, if I could, briefly, what I think these two conferences--the
Washington conference and this conference--have achieved.
The first thing, I think, that they have achieved is to provide tangible help
to the new independent states and, in doing so, provide hope. We said in
Washington that this was one of the purposes of the Washington conference,
and I think that purpose has been carried out and followed up on during the
course of this conference. Let me just give you a couple of examples. One
hundred and three thousand tons of food assistance has been delivered.
Millions of dollars of medicine have been delivered. Over half a million
children in Central Asia have been vaccinated. These things would never
have happened but for this international effort.
We've been able, I believe, to catalyze a truly global coalition. This is not
just the G-7 [Group of Seven industrialized countries] sitting up here but a
truly global coalition in the sense--for instance, as evidenced by
Venezuelan leadership--co-chairmanship--of the energy working group;
Korean contributions to a leukemia center in Kazakhstan; [and] Turkey's
technical assistance efforts in Central Asia.
The second thing I think we've done is to reach all the independent states--
not just Russia--and, in Russia, not just Moscow and St. Petersburg but the
Urals, Siberia, and the far East.
Lastly, I think these two conferences have resulted in the beginning of
collective engagement in support of long-term reform and related problems:
for instance, the nuclear reactor safety initiative that we've discussed
here, the defense conversion initiative, and the fact that we are now going
to be focusing our attention on the coordination of our technical assistance
programs and technical assistance programs of the nations making up the
global coalition.
I was very pleased to hear the remarks of my colleague, [Portuguese Foreign]
Minister Deus Pinheiro, with respect to the issue of what used to be
Yugoslavia, because we feel rather strongly about this. It seems to me that
the world community is appalled at the atrocities that are taking place in
Bosnia-Hercegovina. That is becoming more and more evident and more and
more obvious. Clearly, none of us should try to find reasons for not
forcefully and specifically condemning what has happened. None of us
should try to find reasons for not taking some sort of action to try and end
what truly is a humanitarian nightmare in the heart of Europe.
Q. A question, if I may, to [Foreign Minister] Pinheiro and Secretary of State
Baker: Both of you have laid emphasis on the crisis in Yugoslavia. Can I ask
you both, when do you expect firm, concrete sanctions to be enacted (a) by
the community and (b) perhaps by the United Nations? Can we look forward
to a definite decision by next Tuesday at the meeting you referred to, or
will it take longer?
Secondly, if I may, have you ruled out the need for some military action to
assure the availability of Sarajevo airport for humanitarian assistance if
the present situation continues?
Secretary Baker: I think your question was, when do--quite apart from the
use of force question--your question was when we might anticipate
sanctions. Let me speak for the United States and say that I guess that the
first ones were undertaken months ago--with respect to the question of
arms embargo--and undertaken in cooperation with our European colleagues.
In addition to that, the United States has already instituted a number of
sanctions, cancelling the landing rights of the Yugoslav airline in the United
States. That action was taken several days ago.
We do not have major assistance programs to Yugoslavia, but the ones we do
have have been put on hold quite some time ago. We have taken diplomatic
action over the course of the last 48 hours by making it clear that we will
not be sending our Ambassador back to Belgrade. We will be closing two of
the three consulates that Yugoslavia has in the United States. We, for our
part, will not accept Yugoslavia--I am sorry, Serbia-Montenegro--as the
continuation state of Yugoslavia in multilateral institutions. We are
breaking contacts that we have had in the past with the Yugoslav military,
and we are also drawing down the size of our embassy in Belgrade. So these
are actions that the United States has already taken.
We are also having discussions with others at the United Nations in New
York about the possibility of some Chapter VII action. I can't predict for you
when that might or might not be possible, but I can predict for you that we
intend to continue those discussions and to push them as forcefully as we
know how because of what's taking place in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
I want to elaborate on that a little bit more, too, because I think it's all too
easy to sit back and talk about this tragedy in a vacuum. I think it is
important for everyone to understand what's happening here, because we are
appalled by it. There are 35,000 diabetics who have no insulin. There are
6,000 women and babies who have no medicine, baby formula, or milk. There
are reports, in the last 48 hours, of hunger-related deaths, because food and
humanitarian assistance cannot get through. There have been attacks, as
you know, on Red Cross convoys. There have been killings of Red Cross
personnel. Twelve UN trucks have been highjacked at gunpoint. The so-
called cleansing operations that are taking place--the ethnic purification of
certain portions of Bosnia-Hercegovina--are all too reminiscent of
something that we sat back and witnessed a number of years ago.
The Bosnian Government reports--and I don't know; I can't vouch for the
accuracy of these reports--but their reports are that, over the last month,
2,225 people have been killed, 7,600 have been injured, and over 2,500
people are missing.
So I think that the message should be to the world community: Anyone who
is looking for reasons not to act or arguing somehow that action in the face
of this kind of a nightmare is not warranted at this time--I think that in the
view of all of us in the civilized world at least--is on the wrong
wavelength.
Now, you asked me about the use of force, and I think that is, obviously, a
very hypothetical question at this point. We had to face hypothetical
questions like that leading up to the events in the Gulf over a long period of
time. I will say this, because we made it very clear: There will be no
unilateral use--no unilateral use--of US force. As we have said before, we
are not and we cannot be the world's policeman. Before we consider force,
it seems to me, we ought to exhaust all of the political, diplomatic, and
economic remedies that might be at hand. That's why I am encouraged to
hear what my colleague here has said, and I would be even more encouraged
if, coming out of the meeting on Tuesday, there were a willingness on the
part of our European colleagues to act. . . .(###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 22, June 1, 1992
Title: US Support for Georgia's Quest for
Democracy
Baker
Source: Secretary Baker
Description: Luncheon toast, Tbilisi, Georgia
Date: May, 26 19925/26/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Eurasia
Country: Georgia
Subject: Democratization, CSCE
[TEXT]
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Prime Minister, distinguished guests: Eduard
[Shevardnadze, Chairman of the State Council], thank you for your warm and
gracious words of welcome. Before I arrived, I was told by everyone that
Georgia is famous for its hospitality. The welcome you have given us has
proven those accounts to be serious understatements.
It is both a pleasure and an honor to visit your homeland, Eduard. Here we
are in a free and independent Georgia--a Georgia that has pledged to move
forward with political and market reforms, a Georgia that has pledged to
join America in building a democratic peace.
Eduard, I cannot hope to match your native eloquence as Tamada--and if I
didn't pronounce that right, please blame General Shalikashvili.
Our distinguished Georgian friends may have heard a lot about Texans--and
most of it's true. We Texans aren't particularly known for our toasting
skills, but we are known for telling tales. There's a very old tale that has
come down through the ages. I think it fits this occasion well.
In ancient times, there was a beautiful and beloved land that fell under a
cruel curse. In order to redeem that good land, a young leader and his
intrepid companions set forth on a perilous quest. To restore their country
to peace and plenty, they had to recover a sacred prize. The trouble was, the
prize was guarded by a sleeping dragon. What's more, their path to the prize
was blocked by terrible obstacles: They had to yoke fire-breathing bulls to
a plow and then sow a huge field with serpents' teeth. Despite all obstacles
and with teamwork, ingenuity, bravery, skillful negotiation, and divine
intervention, the heroic band succeeded.
Of course, I'm referring to the story of Jason, the Argonauts, and the Golden
Fleece, which, as legend has it, was found right here in Georgia.
It occurs to me that Georgia's current quest is no less noble and no less
difficult than that of the Argonauts. For you are seeking to make a
successful transition from communism to democracy and to full
participation in the world community.
The test of faith, leadership, and courage that the democrats of Georgia face
today are, of course, of a very different kind than those the Argonauts met.
Today, it is faith in democratic and market principles, not the prediction of
an oracle, that must sustain you in your quest.
Today, we know that courage and leadership can no longer be measured, as
they were in the Argonauts' day, by conquering an opponent in battle.
Instead, today, the test of courage and leadership is statesmanship. It is
measured by the will, the skill, and the bravery it takes to achieve
reconciliation and political legitimacy through dialogue, respect for human
rights, and the negotiated settlement of disputes. President Bush and I have
no doubt that Georgia can and will meet these crucial tests.
My delegation comes here today to say to the Georgian people: America
supports you in your quest for democracy, prosperity, and peace at home and
abroad. We are here to see first-hand the problems and difficulties you are
encountering and what progress you are making on political and economic
reform. I am certain that we will leave here with a much better grasp of
how best we can assist you in consolidating democracy and in finding your
rightful place in the international community.
The United States welcomes Georgia's membership in the CSCE [Conference
on Security and Cooperation in Europe] community and your strong statement
of commitment to CSCE's principles and democratic values. In that regard,
we welcome your announced intention to hold parliamentary elections on
October 11--elections that are critical to the democracy you are building.
We look forward to your admission next month into the North Atlantic
Cooperation Council. We support your admission to the United Nations. We
are pleased to learn that you have acceded to the agreement reached in
Tashkent on CFE [Conventional Armed Forces in Europe] allocations and
obligations.
Building on shared values of freedom and democracy, I know that our two
countries can look ahead to a dynamic, productive, bilateral relationship.
We are especially grateful and impressed by the tremendous help you have
afforded us in our beautiful, new embassy chancery here in Tbilisi. You have
gone out of your way to make our embassy staff feel right at home, and we
hope to repay the compliment as you establish your new embassy soon in
Washington.
I am aware that today is Georgia's independence day, and I join with
President Bush in offering the warm congratulations of the American people
to the people of Georgia. My own country is a relatively young nation, while
Georgia is an ancient land. Americans were fortunate to have made our
democratic choice 200 years ago, while Georgia's democratic future has
only just begun.
Yet, I can tell you this: Our shared democratic values--respect for the
human rights of all, for tolerance, for entrepreneurship, and for
international standards of conduct--can unite our two proud and independent
countries in a partnership of democratic peace.
President Bush and I understand that Georgia's transition from
totalitarianism to independence and democracy is both an exhilarating and a
difficult task. For the men and women of Georgia, this is a time of great
hope and great difficulty--a time for national pride as well as national
reconciliation.
But the land of Rustaveli and Chavchavadze is equal to the challenge and
will have the support of America as long as you follow democratic values.
One way we can help support your young democracy through this trying time
is to work with you in meeting critical needs. In this regard, I am pleased
to announce the following actions the United States will take by the end of
June:
-- The United States will ship to Georgia 500 tons of bulk food rations plus
33 tons of medical consumables such as bandages, gloves, and syringes.
-- We will also send at least five sea-land vans filled with critical
hospital fluids--for example, saline solutions and liquid oxygen.
-- In addition, within the next 10 days to 2 weeks, the United States will
make an emergency airlift of critical supplies of insulin.
Grain is one other area in which we know you have a short-term
requirement. We want to do what we can to be helpful. We currently have
$390 million of unallocated Commodity Credit Corporation credit guarantees
from President Bush's April 1 announcement. While Georgia has to qualify
for those credit guarantees, and there are strict requirements for doing so,
we want to work with you in the hope of seeing you qualify for some portion
of the unallocated guarantees.
As we work together to meet Georgia's short-term needs, we must also lay
the foundations for long-term American-Georgian economic cooperation and
business development. In order to facilitate American trade and investment
and to expand our mutual economic cooperation, we hope to sign Overseas
Private Investment Corporation, tax, investment, and trade agree- ments
with Georgia in the near future.
The surest path to your economic recovery and prosperity is the integration
of Georgia into the global economy, and these agreements will be a
significant step forward on that path.
I began my remarks by talking about Georgia's noble quest for democracy. In
closing, "with this small glass but with my most heartfelt feeling,"
let me extend to you the best wishes of the American people for your every
success.
As you chart your destiny as a democratic nation, we say to you,
gamardzhoba--victory--and we bid you mshvidoba--peace. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 22, June 1, 1992
Title: US-Canada Free Trade Agreement
PA
Source: Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public
Affairs
Date: Jun, 8 19926/8/92
Category: Fact Sheets
Region: North America
Country: Canada, United States
Subject: Trade/Economics
[TEXT]
The US-Canada Free Trade Agreement (FTA), which entered into effect on
January 1, 1989, eliminates all tariffs on US and Canadian goods over a 10-
year period and expands trade opportunities.
The United States and Canada are the world's largest trading partners.
Bilateral trade totaled $179 billion in 1991, an increase of $26 billion since
1988. The FTA has encouraged and increased the volume and the value of
bilateral trade. About 65% of Canadian exports go to the United States, and
Canadian companies now have greater access to the large US market. The
FTA also increases the efficiency of both economies so they can better
compete against economic rivals from Europe and Asia.
The FTA has helped ensure that the US-Canadian market is among the more
open in the world. The agreement is consistent with the goal of freer
international trade in the ongoing multilateral negotiations of the Uruguay
Round under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The FTA
has established a successful mechanism to resolve trade disputes.
Key Provisions
The FTA eliminates all bilateral tariffs on US and Canadian goods by 1998.
Some tariffs were removed when the agreement went into effect, while
others are being phased out over 5 or 10 years. In hundreds of cases, tariff
elimination has been accelerated on the basis of petitions from companies
in both countries. For certain sensitive sectors (such as agriculture, autos,
steel, and textiles), the FTA allows a 10-year phase-out period for duty
elimination. The industry can take advantage of this full timeframe, or if
the producers think that the adjustment is already in place, they can seek
accelerated tariff reductions. The agreement also eliminates import and
export quotas unless consistent with GATT or allowed to remain in place by
the FTA.
The FTA reaffirms GATT principles preventing discrimination against
imports; most goods and some services (e.g., financial) produced in the
United States or Canada qualify for FTA treatment. Goods containing
imported components qualify if they are sufficiently transformed to result
in a specified change in tariff classification.
The FTA ends customs user fees and scraps most programs under which
importers receive a duty rebate on exports. It also prohibits the use of
product standards as a trade barrier.
Implementation
The two governments have established the Canada-US Trade Commission to
ensure that the FTA is implemented properly. The commission is the highest
decision-making body under the FTA and meets at least once a year.
The commission has set up working groups to monitor implementation of the
various chapters of the agreement and to conduct negotiations to expand the
agreement's coverage in those areas. The working groups, which report
directly to the commission, handle the following subjects: tariffs and their
accelerated elimination, agriculture, subsidies, customs-related issues, and
rules of origin. In addition, the commission has established an Auto Select
Panel, a committee of experts from the private sector of both countries, to
assess the state of the auto industry in North America and ways to improve
its competitiveness.
Dispute Settlement
The FTA emphasizes dispute avoidance. If a disagreement over trade arises,
however, the FTA provides a settlement mechanism, modeled after the one
in GATT, to assure rapid and effective resolution under a joint commission.
The parties also can choose arbitration. The FTA mechanism has four basic
steps:
-- Notification and consultation;
-- Referral to a five-member panel, if needed;
-- A finding and a recommendation by the panel; and
-- Resolution or retaliation.
If no resolution is reached in 30 days after a panel finding, a party can
retaliate. The process applies to all disputes except anti-dumping,
countervailing duty cases, and financial services (which have their own
settlement process).
One active bilateral issue is how to define the origin of a product that is
assembled or transformed in North America. This applies particularly to
Japanese cars that are produced in Canada and exported to the United States.
For further information on the US-Canada FTA, including appropriate US
Government contacts, see US-Canada Free Trade Agreement, published by the
Office of Public Communication, US Department of State, July 1989
FTA GOALS
The FTA was designed with several key objectives:
-- Eliminate tariffs and substantially reduce other barriers to trade in
goods and services between the two countries;
-- Promote fair competition;
-- Liberalize trade in specific areas, including agriculture, autos, energy,
and government procurement;
-- Establish rules on investment and financial services;
-- Set up effective administrative procedures to resolve disputes; and
-- Lay the foundation for further bilateral and multilateral cooperation.
(###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 22, June 1, 1992
Title: Country Profile: Canada
PA
Source: Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public
Affairs
Date: May, 26 19925/26/92
Category: Country Data
Region: North America
Country: Canada, United States
Subject: North America Free Trade, Trade/Economics
[TEXT]
Official Name: Canada
Geography
Area: 10 million sq. km. (3.8 million
sq. mi.); second largest country in the world.
Cities: Capital--Ottawa(pop. 833,000). Other major cities--Toronto (4
million), Montreal
(3 million), Vancouver (1 million).
Terrain: Varied.
Climate: Temperate to arctic.
People
Nationality: Noun and adjective--Canadian(s).
Population (1991 est.): 27 million.
Annual growth rate (1991): 1%.
Ethnic groups: British 25%, French 24%, other European 16%, indigenous
Indian and Eskimo 1.5%, mixed background 28%.
Religions: Roman Catholic 47%, United Church 16%, Anglican 10%.
Languages: English, French.
Literacy: 98% of population aged 15 and over have at least a ninth grade
education.
Health: Infant mortality rate--7/1,000. Life expectancy--73 yrs. male, 80
yrs. female.
Work force (13.7 million, 1991): Community/business/personal service--4
million. Manufacturing--2 million. Public administration--800,000.
Agriculture--400,000.
Government
Type: Confederation with parliamentary democracy.
Independence: July 1, 1867.
Constitution: The amended British North America Act of 1867, charter of
rights, and unwritten custom.
Branches: Executive--Queen Elizabeth II (head of state, represented by a
governor general), prime minister (head of government), cabinet.
Legislative--bicameral parliament (104-member Senate, 295-member
House of Commons). Judicial--Supreme Court.
Political parties: Progressive Conservative (ruling party), Liberal, New
Democratic, Reform, Social Credit, Bloc Quebecois.
Suffrage: Universal over 18.
Defense: 2% of GDP.
Subdivisions: 10 provinces,
2 territories.
Flag: A red maple leaf on a white background flanked by vertical red bands.
Economy
GDP (1991): $559 billion.
GDP growth rate (1991): -1.5%.
Per capita GDP (1991): $20,000.
Avg. inflation rate (1991): 5.6%.
Natural resources: Petroleum and natural gas, hydroelectric power, metals
and minerals, fish, forests, wildlife.
Agriculture: Products--wheat, livestock and meat, feed-grains, oilseeds,
dairy products, tobacco, fruits, vegetables.
Industry: Types--motor vehicles and parts, fish and forest products,
processed and unprocessed minerals.
Trade (1991): Exports--$129 billion: motor vehicles and parts, lumber,
wood-pulp and newsprint, crude and fabricated metals, natural gas, crude
petroleum, wheat. Partners--US 76%, EC 8%, Japan 5%. Imports--$119
billion: motor vehicles and parts, industrial machinery, crude petroleum,
chemicals, agricultural machinery. Partners--US 69%, EC 10.2%, Japan 6%.
Fiscal year: April 1-March 31.
Development assistance (FY 1991): $2.7 billion or 0.4% of GDP.
Principal Government Officials
Prime Minister--Brian Mulroney
Secretary of State--Barbara McDougall
Ambassador to the US--Derek Burney
Ambassador to the UN--Louise Frechette (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 22, June 1, 1992
Title: World Trade Week 1992
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: Proclamation released by the White House, Office of the
Press Secretary, Washington, DC
Date: May, 18 19925/18/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Whole World
Country: United States
Subject: Trade/Economics
[TEXT]
At no time in recent history has international commerce been so important
to the economic productivity and strength of the United States. As more and
more peoples around the world join the ranks of free and democratic nations
and reform their economies on the basis of market principles, American
business, agriculture, and industry face unprecedented opportunities and
challenges. Thus, it is fitting that we pause to recognize the role of
international trade in creating jobs for our citizens while spurring
America's productivity and competitiveness.
Today, the success of US exporters is driving our nation's economy toward
stronger growth. Last year, US merchandise exports soared to a record high
of $422 billion. Our trade deficit dropped to $66 billion, the lowest level
since 1983. Exports not only mean jobs to the men and women who develop,
grow, manufacture, and market products for sale abroad but also help to
bring prosperity to our communities.
This Administration will continue to work in partnership with US business
and industry to promote the quality of American goods and services and to
eliminate barriers to free and fair trade. The United States has led the way
in initiating the current set of negotiations on the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and we will continue to work to bring the Uruguay
Round to a successful conclusion. We also remain committed to the full
implementation of our Enterprise for the Americas Initiative as well as to
the completion of a North American Free Trade Agreement, which will
create a thriving market of 360 million consumers and an estimated $6
trillion annual output--the largest integrated market in the world. The
United States is determined to advance our free trade agenda on both the
multilateral and bilateral levels.
There remains tremendous export potential in America today, and much of it
lies with small- and medium-sized companies. In fact, while the United
States leads the world in exports, just 15% of our exporters account for
more than 60% of the value of goods shipped across the borders. American
businesses and industries, large and small, must take advantage of recent
events in the world marketplace and recommit themselves to the aggressive
pursuit of export markets abroad. The Trade Promotion Coordinating
Committee, which is chaired by the Secretary of Commerce and comprised
of 18 federal agencies, was established to coordinate government export
programs and to assist American businesses in their exporting efforts.
Now, therefore, I, George Bush, President of the United States of America,
by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the
United States, do hereby proclaim the week of May 17 through May 23, 1992,
as World Trade Week. I encourage all Americans to observe this week with
appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this eighteenth day of May,
in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-two, and of the
independence of the United States of America, the two hundred and
sixteenth.
GEORGE BUSH (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 22, June 1, 1992
Title: Economic Reconstruction in Cuba
Malpass
Source: David Malpass, Deputy Assistant Secretary For
Inter-American Affairs
Description: Statement at a conference on "Cuba's economic
reconstruction" organized by a consortium of Florida-based
business and academic organizations, Miami, Florida
Date: May, 19 19925/19/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Caribbean
Country: Cuba
Subject: Trade/Economics
[TEXT]
I am very happy to discuss the forward-looking topic of Cuba's economic
reconstruction. With Cuba issues as emotional, political, and important as
they are on a day-to-day basis, it is useful to have the opportunity, as this
conference provides, to step back and look at the long-range economic
issues that will confront Cuba.
Cubans, like people everywhere, want to choose their future. When they
have that opportunity, I believe that they will choose democracy and a
market economy. They will want to move from a failed economic system to
a successful one. The way to do this, of course, is to provide freedom of
choice in both the economic and political spheres so that Cubans can choose
their own way to do it. We'll certainly be available to help.
When Cubans have that right to select their government and leaders--and I
trust it will be soon--the United States would like to help Cubans plan for
and develop a strong economy. Cuba was a major economic player in the
Caribbean, has significant resources and economic potential, is
strategically located, and had a long commercial relationship with the
United States. Its land is rich and its people industrious. Between 1945 and
1958, Cuba was able to double its gross national product. Before the
current government, Cuba's per capita GNP ranked third among Latin
American countries, behind only Argentina and Venezuela. We miss having
Cuba as a commercial partner.
I have many observations on how Cuba might make the most rapid and
successful transition to democracy and a market economic system. Before I
get into that, it might be useful to identify the distance Cuba's economic
system will have to travel.
Many economists estimate that Cuba's GSP--that's gross social product--
Cuba's measure of economic production--has fallen by more than 30% since
1989. Cuba's economic growth--measured as the change in GSP--had been
negative even before the economic shock sustained by the economy as a
result of the substantial reduction in trade and aid from the former Soviet
Union and Eastern Europe. At the beginning of 1990, the Cuban economy was
already slightly smaller than it was in 1986.
In the early 1980s, Cuba's economic growth averaged over 6% per year, in
large measure because of the success of private farmers' markets in
meeting the needs of Cuban consumers. Those markets were abolished in
1985. Since then, there has been no long-lasting growth in Cuba's GSP.
What is it that has caused Cuba's economic distress?
First, its failed system of ownership. The core of the world's economic
disillusionment with communism is that collective ownership has proven to
be a disastrous economic policy.
Second, the failed price mechanism. The Cubans value the peso officially at
74 centavos to the dollar, while the real market gives it a value of 25 to 30
pesos to the dollar. Until goods and labor can be priced, rather than
allocated by scarcity, there will be no incentive to produce. A senior Cuban
economic official told the Slovak press that the Cuban leadership does not
consider inflation a priority and will continue to issue money into
circulation to prevent an economic shock. This is a classic recipe for
continuing economic disaster.
Third, low productivity. For example, Cuba's centrally planned economy
forces resources into sugar production beyond what is economically
rational, given the market price of sugar.
Fourth, a failed system to allocate investment. Central planning has led
Cuba to devote huge resources to large projects which often do not have a
firm economic basis. In 1970 it was the sugar harvest, while today it is
biotechnology and tourism.
Fifth, economic and technological retrogression. Rather than adopt
economic reforms, Cuba has reacted to the disruption in its trading links by
going back to ox carts and bicycles.
So, an immense amount of change is needed in Cuba. Decades of doing
business in a regimented hierarchy will not be overcome overnight. While
we hope that Cuba can quickly create an economic system that works, we
should recognize that as long as there are no basic reforms which would
allow market forces to determine economic priorities, Cuba's economic
system will not work.
Observations on Change
I have a few observations on economic change in Cuba. I should note this is
my thinking based on observing economic development in other parts of the
world, and not a "plan." I am very interested in the discussions at this
conference. I believe that public discussion of the issues can help provide
options for development that will be useful to the Cuban people when change
comes.
To be successful, Cubans will have to set up a democratic process that will
allow them to make choices about their economic and political objectives.
Cuba's new leaders must have a clear mandate from the people because there
will be many forces pulling in different directions.
-- They will need to develop a market-oriented system for the 1990s. Open
trade, support for small businesses, high levels of education, and worker
training will all be important.
-- Cubans must work together. They should use the talent available on the
island as well as off, establishing clear rules for foreign participation to
facilitate attracting the best people wherever they are.
-- A new government should establish early on a clear statement of
economic principles and a public, democratic, law-based way of making
decisions based on those principles.
-- Our experience is that gradualism brings costs without benefits. A half-
market system will not bring in investors.
Moving to specific areas, it will be critical to achieve financial and price
stabilization early on. Cuba should avoid the pitfalls of hyper-inflation and
lingering currency crisis that slowed economic reconstruction in Nicaragua
and Russia. A new government should enunciate a clear, transparent, honest
monetary policy based on a fully convertible currency right from the start.
This will be important in preserving wages and the nascent private sector.
A new government committed to establishing a functioning economic system
must resolve ownership issues. This should be done quickly so that lack of
clear titles does not become a barrier to investment. US law states that no
assistance can be provided to Cuba until measures are taken to return
property to, or to provide equitable compensation to, US citizens from whom
the property was taken. There are also many Cubans in exile whose property
was taken by the current government.
One of the ways to resolve the ownership issue is to settle disputes over
property with bonds secured by Cuba's full faith and credit and, therefore,
by Cuba's future. This solution, however, will only work if it is agreed upon
by the former owners, some of whom will want their property returned. It
is very important not to allow disputes over assets to stymie the
development of a strong new system that rewards hard work and creates
new assets. Clearly, resolving this issue will be contentious. Yet, if it is
not resolved fairly and in a manner acceptable to the majority of Cubans and
expropriated property holders, it will damage Cuba's economic future.
Restoring agricultural production will be an early key to Cuba's growth. In
order to stimulate food production, there will be a need to replace state
farms with secure private ownership. One possibility that may be
acceptable in today's Cuba may be to allow the workers real participation
either by giving them a private holding of property within the farm or by
giving them a share of the ownership of the farm. The drafters of such a
plan
would have to consider a host of consequences which only Cuba itself would
be qualified to evaluate.
A new Cuba can't rely on foreign aid. Certainly, we will be prepared to
assist with emergency aid, if it is needed and with long-term planning,
which will help secure balanced development. But most important for
Cuba's future is participation of the world's private sector which can
provide significant financing to help Cuba recover from its disastrous
policies. Let me give an example: tractor leasing. If foreign aid gives
tractors to Cuba, it undercuts the development of a private sector system
for leasing not only tractors, but other equipment as well.
For Cuba to attract the resources it will need to rebuild, the investment
climate will be a critical element. This means clear ownership rights, a
system for adjudication of contracts, the free flow of capital in and out of
Cuba (as well as within Cuba), and the prompt resolution of Cuba's past
relationship with the international financial community, both commercial
and multilateral.
Renewed growth in Cuba will have an impact on the wider Caribbean area. A
new government in Cuba should factor this into its planning in order to help
build an expanding economic pie in the Caribbean. Fully open trade with
Caribbean Basin countries may help cushion the effects of trade diversion to
Cuba as this major economic player reintegrates into the region.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the future of Cuba can be very prosperous. But to achieve
prosperity, the Cuban people will face
a variety of choices, and many decisions will be very difficult. The key to
undertaking these changes, however, is to put into operation immediately a
system that allows full participation of all the people. Hopefully, Cubans
will make the right decisions and, as a consequence, have a better chance of
economic recovery. We and other nations stand ready to offer advice and to
help Cubans discover what type of system will work best for them.
I have pointed out some of the conditions which exist today in an
undemocratic centrally controlled economy which could inhibit or prevent
future development. I have also made some suggestions about how Cuba
might develop a market economy which would attract foreign investment
and provide a better living for its citizens.
Neither I nor my government has a prescription for the future. There are
many options. Each country must choose its own path. Cuba, however, has
some advantages. It will be able
to choose from a wide variety of policy options drawing on the experiences
of other developing countries, Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union.
Its location close to the large market of the United States and its central
position in the Caribbean make it ideally situated to benefit from
established commercial routes.
Finally, Cubans in exile offer to Cuba an enormous potential for investment,
for advice, and for know-how. Cuba needs to draw on this vast resource.
Perhaps the single most important key to Cuba's future is for Cubans in
exile and in Cuba to work together for a better system. I hope that means
their difficult job will be a little easier and more likely to succeed. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 22, June 1, 1992
Title: Cuban Independence Day
Bush
Source: President Bush
Description: Statement by President Bush released by the White
House, Office of the Press Secretary, Washington, DC
Date: May, 20 19925/20/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Caribbean
Country: Cuba
Subject: Democratization, Human Rights
[TEXT]
I would like to mark this day, the 90th anniversary of Cuban independence,
by sharing my vision for a free and democratic Cuba. Just as the struggle
for Cuban independence was hard fought, so, too, is the struggle of the Cuban
people today to gain their freedom. The [Fidel] Castro dictatorship cannot
and will not survive the wave of democracy that has swept over the world,
and I believe the Cuban people are closer than ever to winning that freedom.
On this Cuban Independence Day, I want to reiterate my firm solidarity with
the Cuban people as they strive to bring peaceful, democratic change to
their country.
Independence Day is the occasion to pay homage to the great heroes and
freedom fighters of the past. But as we honor them, I also want to salute
all those in Cuba who are placing themselves at personal risk by calling for
peaceful change. We particularly want to express our admiration for the
ever-growing number of Cuban men and women who are courageously
speaking out against Castro's abuses of human rights and his denial of the
Cuban people's most basic civil liberties.
We are working hard to ensure that those Cubans striving for human rights
and civil freedoms have the broadest possible international recognition and
support. I am pleased that the United Nations will be naming a special
rapporteur to investigate and report on the human rights situation in Cuba.
We will continue to help get the truth to the Cuban people through a free
flow of information. Today, I reaffirm my commitment to oppose Castro at
every turn and not to pursue normal relations until his dictatorship is done.
Castro's vision of the future is to cling to a failed past. His determination
to keep Cuba an anti-democratic, communist state dooms the Cuban people
to a predetermined fate. He tells them that their only choice is between
"socialism or death." And he dismisses the basic rights of people--the right
to free speech and free association--as the "garbage" of democracy.
I reject Castro's vision of doom--as I believe the Cuban people do. I see
Cuba's future as one of hope and expectation. I believe that Cubans will
enjoy a peaceful and democratic future, one in which they will be able to
elect the leaders of their choice. My vision is one in which Cubans have open
access to the newspapers, television, and radio; will be able to travel and
study wherever they like; and will find jobs in a prosperous Cuba resulting
in better lives for their children and their grandchildren. And I want the
Cuban people to know that my Administration and the American people will
be prepared to help in a transition to a stable and free Cuba. Our elected
officials, our businessmen, many of our ordinary citizens, and especially the
members of our hard-working and prosperous Cuban-American community
are willing and able to help rebuild Cuba by lending their know-how to
repair the shattered Cuban economy. So, on this historic occasion, I look
forward to a new day of Cuban independence when decisions about their
future are made through free and fair elections that reflect tolerance and
respect for the views of each individual. This will be the foundation for
building a new and better Cuba, a free Cuba.(###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 22, June 1, 1992
Title: Focus on the Emerging Democracies:
A Periodic Update
Category: Focus on Emerging Democracies
Region:
Date: Jun, 8 19926/8/92
Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements
Region: Eurasia, Europe
Country: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine,
Uzbekistan, Turkey
Subject: Democratization, Nuclear Nonproliferation,
Arms Control
[TEXT]
New US Government Initiatives Announced at the Lisbon Conference on
Assistance to the New Independent States
Multilateral Nuclear Safety Initiative.
There are 37 nuclear reactors in the new independent states. While the US
Government continues to support efforts to get unsafe reactors off-line,
many steps can be taken now to enhance operational safety and reduce the
risks of a nuclear accident. The United States proposes to expand
international efforts in this area. As the US initial contribution to this
effort, it proposes a $25-million initiative which:
-- Builds on and expands the ongoing work of the Department of Energy and
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission over the past 5 years.
-- Establishes two regional training centers, one in Russia to provide
operational safety training and one in Ukraine with a computer-based
simulator for VVER-1000 reactors. The centers will serve as a focal point
for training and for establishing comprehensive Western safety
management systems in existing reactors in the new independent states.
Establishment of these centers will be conditioned on agreement that
reactor crews from other new independent states and the Baltics also can
use the facilities for training purposes. These training centers will cover
the full range of civilian nuclear issues from training to nuclear clean-up.
-- Provides immediate operational safety enhancement through
improvement of emergency operating procedures and operational controls
for both VVER-1000s and RBMK reactors; improvement of nuclear plant
equipment servicing and maintenance practices; translations of US
standards, guidelines, and ancillary materials; support to help keep safety
procedures and training materials updated; development of alarm response
procedures; improvement of diagnostics methods and hardware; and training
for technical support personnel at nuclear power plants.
-- Provides risk reduction measures for RBMK reactors and VVER 440/230s
through improvement of confinement performance for severe accidents;
development of methods to prevent uncontrolled hydrogen explosions;
installation of dedicated emergency diesel and feedwater pumps in
protected areas; and improvement of basic fire detection capability.
-- Assists regulators in developing consistent and effective safety
standards and procedures and provides training in nuclear materials safety,
safeguards accountancy, regulatory law, and use of radioactivity monitoring
equipment.
Fostering Free Markets for Food.
The United States will set up a
food monetization program, selling donated commodities at local prices and
using the funds generated for various purposes, ranging from development of
a private wholesale distribution system to support for social safety nets.
The United States will:
-- Monetize $20 million of butter committed to Russia as part of the
$165-million grant food aid. Funds will be used to support pensioners and
other fixed-income individuals who are most adversely affected by the
current economic reform; and
-- Make available an additional $15 million to purchase US agricultural
commodities for monetization in the new independent states.
Partners in Defense Conversion.
To catalyze international defense
conversion efforts, the US will commit $20 million to an integrated
defense conversion initiative which will include:
-- Placement of resident advisers: The United States has just placed
resident advisers in Nizhniy Novgorod, Russia, and Kharkiv, Ukraine, and will
place advisers in one additional reform-oriented city in Russia and Alma-
Ata, Kazakhstan, to engage local political leaders, enterprise directors, and
US businesses on defense conversion.
-- Investment support: The United States will make available Overseas
Private Investment Corporation, Export-Import Bank, and Trade and
Development Program resources to provide incentives for private
investment in commercially viable conversion projects.
-- Trade and Investment Centers: These will be established in major
commercial centers in several new independent states to provide business
services, including translation, seminar, and training facilities for US
business. The centers should be open by early 1993.
-- Information clearinghouse: The United States will establish the
Business Information Service for the New Independent States to match
businesses in the new independent states with potential investors in the
United States. It will be modeled after the East European Business
Information Center at the US Department of Commerce and will open in June.
-- Reducing barriers: As part of a broader US effort, the Department of
Commerce will work with the new independent states to remove mutual
barriers to expanded trade and investment.
US-Turkey Partnership for Reform.
The United States and Turkey
will launch a joint technical assistance program for the Central Asian and
Transcaucasian states to complement our humanitarian efforts, foster
democratic and market reform, and orient their trade and other ties
westward. This will include:
-- US financial advisers to assist fledgling ministries of finance and
central banking institutions with financial sector reform and institution
building;
-- Cooperative efforts between US non-governmental organizations and the
Turkish Democratic Foundation to support democracy building through
programs on constitution drafting and establishing legal systems;
-- Commitment of US TDP grant funding for a transportation feasibility
study of road, rail, and port development linking the Transcaucusas and
Central Asian states to the West;
-- Expanded scholarship program which Turkey established to foster
cultural ties and education for 1,000 university students from each country
in the region.
Partnership for Privatization.
The United States, in partnership
with the International Finance Corporation, will support privatization in the
new independent states through:
-- Support for privatization auctions in cities committed to reform based
on the privatization efforts initiated in Nizhniy Novgorod in April 1992.
Two cities--Rustov, Russia, and Lvov, Ukraine--have been selected as sites
for privatization auctions.
-- Technical support to the Russian Ministry of Privatization through
facsimile, photocopy, and computer equipment needed for ongoing
privatization efforts.
World Health Organization Clearinghouse.
The US, Japan, and
France, as co-chairs of the Medical Working Group, have agreed to fund the
establishment of a World Health Organization clearinghouse which will be
designed to collect, update, and assess information among donors; collect,
assess, and distribute information on medical aid programs provided by
donors; and provide information on instances of diversions.
Operation Provide Hope II.
The US will deliver more than 20,000
tons of Desert Storm food stocks and 1,000 tons of medical supplies (valued
at $44 million) to more than 24 cities in all 12 new independent states
through Operation Provide Hope II. To help meet urgent needs of the most
vulnerable members of society, the United States:
-- Delivered five C-5s totaling 375 tons of excess Department of Defense
food stocks to Nakhichevan, Azerbaijan.
-- Identified 45 sea containers of excess Defense Department medical
supplies which are currently being prepared for shipment to the Central
Asian republics.
-- Identified excess Defense Department supplies and equipment equal to a
1,000-bed hospital which will be donated to Georgia. (###)