US Department of State 

Dispatch, Vol 3, No 22, June 1, 1992


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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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. (###)