US Department of State 

Dispatch, Vol 3, No 32, August 10, 1992

Title:

Containing the Crisis in Bosnia and the Former Yugoslavia

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Opening remarks from news conference, Colorado Springs, Colorado Date: Aug, 6 19928/6/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: E/C Europe Country: Yugoslavia (former), Suriname, Bosnia-Herzegovina Subject: Regional/Civil Unrest, United Nations, Democratization [TEXT] A few remarks on the situation in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia and what the United States-working with the international community-is doing to contain and defuse this escalating crisis. Like all Americans, I am outraged and horrified at the terrible violence shattering the lives of innocent men, women, and children in Bosnia. The aggressors and extremists pursue a policy-a vile policy-of ethnic cleansing, deliberately murdering innocent civilians (and) driving others from their homes. And already the war has created over 2.2 million refugees, roughly the population of greater Pittsburgh and Baltimore. This is, without a doubt, a true humanitarian nightmare. Now, the war in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia is a complex, convoluted conflict that grows out (of) age-old animosities. The blood of innocents is being spilled over century-old feuds. The lines between enemies and even friends are jumbled and fragmented. Let no one think there is an easy or a simple solution to this tragedy. The violence will not end overnight, whatever pressure and means the international community brings to bear. Blood feuds are very difficult to resolve. Any lasting solution will only be found with the active cooperation and participation of the parties themselves. Those who understand the nature of this conflict understand that an enduring solution cannot be imposed by force from outside on unwilling participants. Defusing this crisis and preventing its spread will require patience and persistence by all members of the democratic community of nations and key international organizations. Bringing peace again to the Balkans will literally take years of work. For months now, we've been working with other members of the international community in pursuing a multifaceted and integrated strategy for defusing and containing the (Balkan) conflict. Let me explain the critical steps that we already have underway to help defuse and to contain this crisis. First, we must continue to work to see that food and medicine get to the people of Sarajevo and elsewhere in Bosnia, no matter what it takes. To this end, I have directed the Secretary of State to press hard for quick passage of (a) UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of all necessary measures to establish conditions necessary for, and to facilitate the delivery of, humanitarian assistance to Bosnia-Hercegovina. This resolution is critical-it is absolutely critical to our efforts to bring food and medicine to the people of Bosnia. This resolution will authorize the international community to use force, if necessary, to deliver humanitarian relief supplies. My heartfelt hope is that that will not prove necessary. But the international community cannot stand by and allow innocent children, women, and men to be starved to death. You can be assured that should force prove necessary, I will do everything in my power to protect the lives of any American servicemen or women involved in this international mission of mercy. To truly end the humanitarian nightmare, we must stop ethnic cleansing and open any and all detention camps to international inspection. We will not rest until the international community has gained access to any and all detention camps. Second, we must support the legitimate governments of Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia-Hercegovina. To this end, I have decided that the United States will move now to establish full diplomatic relations with those governments. I will shortly submit to the Senate my nominations for ambassadors to these posts. Third, we must continue to isolate Serbia economically and politically until all the UN Security Council resolutions are fully implemented. We must continue to tighten economic sanctions on Serbia so that all understand that there is a real price to be paid for the Serbian Government's continued aggression. And the United States proposes that the international community place monitors in neighboring states to facilitate the work of those governments to ensure strict compliance with the sanctions. Fourth, we must engage in preventive diplomacy to preclude a widening of the conflict into Kosovo, Vojvodina, Sandzhak, or Macedonia. And, therefore, the United States is proposing that the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe-CSCE-place continuous monitoring missions in these locations to provide an international presence and inhibit human rights abuses and violence. Fifth, we must contain the conflict and prevent its spilling over into neighboring states like Albania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and Greece. And, to this end, the United States proposes that the international community again place civilian monitors, thereby reassuring these governments of our concern for their welfare and inhibiting any aggression against them. And sixth, we are consulting with our allies in NATO on all aspects of this crisis and how the alliance-how the NATO alliance-might be of assistance to the United Nations. Now, these steps represent an integrated strategy for defusing and containing this conflict. We've been working with the international community to advance our work on each of these and will continue to do so in the weeks ahead. It is through international cooperation-through the UN, NATO, the EC (European Community), CSCE, (and) other institutions-that we will be able to help bring peace to that troubled region. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 32, August 10, 1992 Title:

Detention Centers In Bosnia-Hercegovina and Serbia

Eagleburger Source: Deputy Secretary Eagleburger Description: Statement released by the Office of the Assistant Secretary/Spokesman, Washington, DC Date: Aug, 5 19928/5/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: E/C Europe Country: Yugoslavia (former), Suriname, Bosnia-Herzegovina Subject: Regional/Civil Unrest, United Nations, Democratization, CSCE [TEXT] Over the past week, we have seen an increasing number of reports about detention centers in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Serbia, including reports that indicate the possibility of executions, torture, and other gross human rights abuses. These reports have included press interviews, charges and counter- charges by the parties, and reports from others in the area. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has visited nine facilities where they registered 4,300 prisoners. At this point, they have reported on very difficult conditions of detention but have not found any evidence of death camps. Nonetheless, there are many reports of other detention centers which the Red Cross has not been able to visit, and it is at some of these that atrocities have been reported. These reports, although unconfirmed, are profoundly disturbing. It is vital that any and all prisons and detention centers be opened to the Red Cross and other neutral parties. Urgent action is required to reveal the truth and to prevent any abuses which may be occurring. Yesterday morning, we began a series of steps to support such access. -- We instructed our diplomatic personnel immediately to contact senior Serbian, Bosnian, and Croatian officials to insist that the ICRC be granted immediate, unimpeded, and continuing access to any places of detention. -- We have asked the United Kingdom, the presidency country of the European Community (EC), and, through them, the other members of the EC to make similar approaches. -- We have asked the Russians to use their influence with the Serbs to this same end. -- We proposed and obtained a statement by the (UN) Security Council yesterday evening which endorsed this demand and reminded those involved in any abuses that they can be held individually responsible for breaches of the Geneva conventions. Today, we have called for an emergency, extraordinary meeting of the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva to examine this situation in more detail, to discuss gross human rights violations, and (to) press for full access to detention camps. We look to the Human Rights Commission to forcefully exercise its mandate in this regard by appointing a special representative who should be granted access to investigate these charges and report back to the members of the United Nations with his recommendations. This will be the first-ever such meeting by the UN Human Rights Commission. We have been urging governments throughout the world to support this call immediately, even before the formal proposal was circulated, so that the meeting could take place as soon as possible. It has now been circulated in Geneva, asking the 53 members for their views by 1 pm eastern daylight time on Monday, August 10. We hope to see the necessary endorsement from at least 27 members even before that, if possible. In addition, we are undertaking other steps immediately. -- We are calling on the CSCE (Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe) to invoke the appropriate measure of the CSCE Human Dimension Mechanism in order to telescope the process of choosing a rapporteur to look into the allegations. -- We are undertaking renewed efforts to tighten sanctions enforcement in addition to efforts we made earlier this month which have met with some success. We will facilitate the deployment of monitors to Romania to ensure that the effect of the UN sanctions on the Serbian economy is as devastating as possible. We are developing a Security Council resolution which would call on states and organizations to collect substantiated information concerning "war crimes" and make that information available to the Security Council. There are indications today that our urgings are being heard. -- In Belgrade, (Yugoslav Prime Minister) Mr. (Milan) Panic promised our charge (d'affaires) to invite international observers to sites of alleged camps in Serbia and Montenegro. Mr. Panic also pledged his support to the UN presidency statement demanding the opening of camps run by Serbians in Bosnia. -- Press reports indicate leaders of the so-called Serbian Republic of Bosnia have said they are ready to open all facilities to international inspection. -- Bosnian President (Alija) Izetbegovic told our charge (d'affaires) in Belgrade that he has offered access to international observers to all facilities within Bosnia. -- (Croatian) President (Franjo) Tudjman told our consul general in Zagreb yesterday that he would contact Croatian leaders in Bosnia to request their complete cooperation with the ICRC. These promises are welcome, but what is important is real action. We cannot allow excuses-such as those used in the past that the safety of ICRC delegates could not be ensured-to block their important mission. We will press to see that real action is achieved. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 32, August 10, 1992 Title:

UN Security Council Resolution 766 On the Situation in Cambodia: Perkins

Perkins UN Source: Edward J. Perkins, UN Security Council Resolution Description: Statement by the US Permanent Representative to the United Nations, to the UN Security Council, New York City Date: Jul, 21 19927/21/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Southeast Asia Country: Cambodia Subject: Democratization, Regional/Civil Unrest, United Nations [TEXT]
[Remarks by Ambassador Perkins]
My delegation joins today in voting to adopt the draft resolution on Cambodia. Our vote reflects continued grave concern over failure by the Party of Democratic Kampuchea (PDK) to meet its solemn obligations under the Paris accords. In his recent report to the Council, the Secretary- General observed that successful implementation of those accords depends on the cooperation of all parties. The Party of Democratic Kampuchea must permit UNTAC (UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia) access to areas under its control and, thus, enable the United Nations to carry out immediately civil, military, electoral, and human rights responsibilities entrusted to it. The United States regrets deeply that the PDK has remained obstinate in the face of initiatives undertaken by UNTAC to meet its legitimate concerns. These include better verifying the withdrawal of foreign forces, expedited deployment of UNTAC's civil administration staff, and enhancing the role of the Supreme National Council as the external representative of Cambodia. The international community's interest in facilitating PDK cooperation with UNTAC has been demonstrated both by issuance, June 12, of a statement by this Council's President and by good-faith efforts to solicit from PDK officials reaction to a non-paper submitted to the Supreme National Council in Tokyo last month. All other Cambodian parties have accepted the need for full and immediate implementation of the UN settlement plan. My government appreciates and wishes to underscore the continued importance of efforts, particularly by countries in the region, to persuade the PDK to move promptly into Phase II. PDK leaders have nothing to gain- and much to lose-by continuing to obstruct the peace process. The international community cannot wait for them indefinitely and should be prepared to implement the Paris accords with or without them. As noted in the resolution we adopt today, development assistance for Cambodia will benefit only those parties cooperating with UNTAC. Free and fair elections among parties committed to the entire process will be held on schedule, and all necessary steps will be taken to ensure the viability of a new national government. The United States believes the UNTAC plan is the best way to secure for the Cambodian people the peace they deserve. We call once again on all parties to the Paris accords, and especially the PDK, to immediately and scrupulously implement the UNTAC plan and abide by the agreement signed in Paris last October.
Resolution 766 (July 21, 1992)
The Security Council, Reaffirming its resolutions 668 (1990) of 20 September 1990, 717 (1991) of 16 October 1991, 718 (1991) of 31 October 1991, 728 (1992) of 8 January 1992, and 745 (1992) of 28 February 1992, Recalling the statement made by the President of the Security Council on 12 June 1992 (S/24091), Recalling also that any difficulty arising in the implementation of the Paris Agreements should be settled through close consultation between the SNC (Supreme National Council) and UNTAC (UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia) and must not be allowed to undermine the principles of these Agreements, or to delay the timetable for their implementation, Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General dated 14 July 1992 (S/24286), and in particular of the fact that CPP (Cambodian People's Party), FUNCINPEC (National United Front for an Independent, Neutral, Peaceful, and Cooperative Cambodia) and KPNLF (Khmer People's National Liberation Front) have agreed to proceed with Phase II of the cease-fire as laid down in annex 2 of the first Paris Agreement and that the Party of Democratic Kampuchea has so far refused to do so, Taking note also of the declaration on the Cambodia Peace Process adopted in Tokyo on 22 June 1992 (S/24183), and the other efforts made there by the countries and parties concerned for the implementation of the Paris Agreements, 1. Expresses its deep concern at the difficulties met by UNTAC in the implementation of the Paris Agreements; 2. Underlines that all signatories of the Agreements are bound by all their obligations thereunder; 3. Deplores the continuing violations of the cease-fire and urges all parties to cease all hostilities forthwith, to cooperate fully with UNTAC in the marking of all mine fields and to refrain from any deployment, movement, or other action intended to extend the territory they control or which might lead to renewed fighting; 4. Reaffirms the international community's firm commitment to a process under which UNTAC, operating freely throughout all of Cambodia as authorized by the Paris Agreements, can verify the departure of all foreign forces and ensure full implementation of the Agreements; 5. Demands that all parties respect the peaceful nature of UNTAC's mission and take all necessary measures to ensure the safety and security of all United Nations personnel; 6. Urges all parties to cooperate with UNTAC in broadcasting information helpful to implementation of the Paris Agreements; 7. Strongly deplores the continuing refusal by one of the parties to permit the necessary deployment of all components of UNTAC to the areas under its control to enable UNTAC to carry out its full functions in the implementation of the Paris Agreements; 8. Urges all States, in particular neighbouring countries, to provide assistance to UNTAC to ensure the effective implementation of the Paris Agreements; 9. Approves the efforts of the Secretary-General and his Special Representative to continue to implement the Agreements despite the difficulties; 10. Invites in particular the Secretary-General and his Special Representative to accelerate the deployment of UNTAC's civilian components, especially the component mandated to supervise or control the existing administrative structures; 11. Demands that the Party that has failed so far to do so permit without delay the deployment of UNTAC in the areas under its control, and implement fully Phase II of the Plan as well as the other aspects of the Paris Agreements; 12. Requests the Secretary-General and his Special Representative to ensure that international assistance to the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Cambodia from now on only benefits the parties which are fulfilling their obligations under the Paris Agreements and cooperating fully with UNTAC; 13. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter. VOTE: Unanimous (15-0). (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 32, August 10, 1992 Title:

Gist: US-Mexico Relations US-Mexico Cooperation and NAFTA

PA Source: Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public Affairs Date: Aug, 10 19928/10/92 Category: Policy Briefs (Gist) Region: North America Country: Mexico Subject: North America Free Trade, Trade/Economics, Environment, Immigration [TEXT] The US-Mexican partnership is based on a deep mutual respect for the forces of democracy and free markets. Presi-dent Bush and Mexican President Carlos Salinas have deepened the bilateral relationship through numerous initiatives and extensive cooperation on a wide range of issues. When the two Presidents met in 1990, President Bush said, "(L)et us begin this new century not simply as neighbors, but as friends," while President Salinas has stated that US-Mexico relations are on the brink of a "new era." Mexico's dramatic market-based economic reforms, which began in the early 1980s, laid the foundations upon which this new era could be built. Presidents Bush and Salinas seized the opportunity to cement an enduring and mutually beneficial US-Mexico relationship when they announced in June 1990 their intention to negotiate a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). They had a vision that, by breaking down the economic barriers throughout the continent, NAFTA would not only create opportunities for US economic growth but serve as a basis for enhancing ongoing US-Mexico cooperation on a host of issues. As the two countries enter the 21st century, cooperation on issues such as migration, environmental pollution, and narcotics control- which do not respect national borders-is of critical importance. US-Mexico cooperation already is at historic levels. Among other efforts, the two countries have reinvigorated the Binational Commission whose working groups meet regularly at the ministerial level to enhance cooperation on issues such as agriculture, culture, environment, labor, migration, narcotics control, and legal matters. The US-Mexican Binational Committee on Bridges and Border Crossings facilitates legal traffic across the 2,000-mile border-the busiest border in the world. State and local governments along the border also cooperate extensively on tourism, education, and other concerns. As Mexico continues to implement political and economic reforms based upon democratic and free enterprise principles, the relationship will improve even more.
Growing Economic Ties and Economic Reform in Mexico
Supporting and encouraging market-based economic liberalization in Mexico is in the US interest. This liberalization, which NAFTA will enshrine and expand, has led directly to Mexico's economic growth and, consequently, to enhanced opportunities for US exports and investment. As the Mexican economy has grown (13.1% since 1987), so have US exports. Since 1987, US exports to Mexico have more than tripled to a projected $44 billion in 1992. Mexico has become America's third largest trading partner and the fastest-growing US export market. Mexico recently overtook Japan as America's second largest export market for manufactured goods. The United States now sells more per capita to Mexicans ($350) than to far wealthier members of the European Community ($266). The United States can expect that further Mexican economic growth will translate into US gains through increased demand for imports. For every $1 of income growth, Mexicans spend 14 cents on US products, and Mexico purchases 70% of its imports from the United States. Given the increasing importance of international markets in today's economy, encouraging economic growth in a market open to US exports helps ensure continued US prosperity. Mexico's moves toward a market economy in the 1980s and 1990s have been key to the growth in US-Mexico economic ties. Mexico has rejected its traditional economic policies, which had restricted imports and investment and had sealed off its economy from competition. Mexico has reduced trade barriers, privatized more than 900 state enterprises, denationalized the banking industry, and deregulated many sectors of the economy. In 1986, Mexico joined the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Under President Salinas' leadership, the economic reform program has been accelerated with considerable results: Mexico has low inflation; a stable, market-based, and fully convertible currency; a dramatically improved investment climate; and a bold plan for agricultural reform. NAFTA will lock in this progress and further reduce Mexico's trade barriers, encouraging growth in both countries.
Democratic Reform in Mexico
Mexico's political reforms reflect and underpin the country's economic transformation. Opposition parties and non-governmental interest groups have achieved expanded access to the political process, while Mexico's two most recent elections, in August 1991 and July 1992, were the fairest in its history. The Salinas Administration has attacked long-standing corruption problems, dismissing several high-level officials and more than 600 government employees. To improve human rights performance, the government established the National Commission on Human Rights in 1990 and initiated a 12-point plan to ensure that the Mexican police respect the human rights of detainees. The commission is investigating and correcting abuses, resolving controversial cases, reducing official impunity for abuse of power, and earning considerable foreign and domestic respect for doing so.
Mexican Foreign Relations
The new era of US-Mexico relations has achieved closer cooperation on key foreign policy issues. Mexico already has made a significant contribution to ending civil strife in Central America, a major US foreign policy goal. As one of the countries leading efforts toward peace in Central America, Mexico helped persuade the rebel forces and Government in El Salvador to demobilize and end their war. Similarly, Mexico has played a constructive role in encouraging the end to armed conflict in Guatemala. Overall, like the United States, Mexico has been an important voice in supporting the growth of democracy and free market reform throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.
Environment
For more than 100 years, the United States and Mexico have been cooperating on joint environmental problems. Since 1889, the bilateral International Boundary and Water Commission has addressed boundary and water problems. Recently, growing populations and industries along the border began posing environmental, economic, and infrastructure challenges to both countries. In response, the two governments signed the 1983 La Paz Border Environment Agreement, which established a program for environmental coordination to address problems with air and water pollution, hazardous waste, and environmental enforcement. Building upon this agreement, Presidents Bush and Salinas released in 1992 an Integrated Border Environmental Plan to deal with border pollution problems. Mexico has committed $460 million to environmental infrastructure projects along the border over the next 3 years. The Bush Administration has requested $241 million in fiscal year 1993 alone to support border environmental projects.
Immigration and Law Enforcement
Millions of border crossings and increasing population in the border areas pose problems for US and Mexican immigration and law enforcement officials. To address these problems, the Mexican Government created a special police force known as Grupo Beta that has reduced violence by alien smugglers and others and more effectively monitored border traffic. In 1991, Mexican officials apprehended 133,300 third-country nationals (up from 13,000 in 1988), the majority of whom were headed to the United States, thereby saving the United States millions of dollars in detention costs. To deter illegal entry to the United States, the US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has upgraded fencing in certain border areas. INS is deploying more than 300 additional border patrol agents, most of them along the border with Mexico. It also is improving cooperation with the Grupo Beta. Continued Mexican economic growth, enhanced by free trade with the United States, will increase job opportunities in Mexico, thereby reducing over time the pressures for illegal immigration to the United States. The Commission for the Study of International Migration and Cooperative Economic Development reported to the Congress and President in 1990 that economic growth in the home countries of migrants is the single most important long-term remedy to the problem of unauthorized migration to the United States. In the interim, however, humane law enforcement is key to US-Mexican cooperation.
Anti-Narcotics Cooperation
President Salinas shares the US Government's deep concern over illegal drugs and has supported enhanced bilateral cooperation to stem their spread to North America. Mexico has become a leader in promoting regional cooperation to stop drug-trafficking. It also has played a key role in an anti-narcotics effort of the Organization of American States. The Salinas Administration has increased resources devoted to the war on drugs from $37 million in 1989 to $77 million in 1991. It has eradicated one-third of the 1991 estimated marijuana crop and two-thirds of the opium poppy crop. Mexico has reformed its legal system to make money- laundering and other drug-related financial activity crimes and is undertaking a vigorous asset seizure program. The government also has broadened drug treatment, education, and prevention programs to reach its young people. US-Mexico anti-narcotics cooperation has reached unprecedented levels in policy coordination and operations. The US-Mexico Mixed Permanent Commission reviews cooperative efforts. The Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty enhances the capability of both governments to prosecute criminals operating on both sides of the border. The countries are preparing joint training teams to assist Central and South American nations in implementing drug education and treatment programs. The United States supplies helicopters and sophisticated aircraft to Mexico's rapid response force (Northern Border Response Force). (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 32, August 10, 1992 Title:

Report to Congress on Developments Concerning Iraq

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Text of report to Congress released by the White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Jacksonville, Florida Date: Aug, 3 19928/3/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: MidEast/North Africa Country: Iraq Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization, Trade/Economics [TEXT] To the Congress of the United States: I hereby report to the Congress on the developments since my last report of February 11, 1992, concerning the national emergency with respect to Iraq that was declared in Executive Order No. 12722 of August 2, 1990. This report is submitted pursuant to section 401(c) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1641(c), and section 204(c) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA"), 50 U.S.C. 1703(c) Executive Order No. 12722 ordered the immediate blocking of all property and interests in property of the Government of Iraq (including the Central Bank of Iraq) then or thereafter located in the United States or within the possession or control of a U.S. person. In that order, I also prohibited the importation into the United States of goods and services of Iraqi origin, as well as the exportation of goods, services, and technology from the United States to Iraq. I prohibited travel-related transactions and transportation transactions to or from Iraq and the performances of any contract in support of any industrial, commercial, or governmental project in Iraq. U.S. persons were also prohibited from granting or extending credit or loans to the Government of Iraq. The foregoing prohibitions (as well as the blocking of Government of Iraq property) were continued and augmented on August 9, 1990, by Executive Order No. 12724, which I issued in order to align the sanctions imposed by the United States with United Nations Security Council Resolution 661 of August 6, 1990. This report discusses only matters concerning the national emergency with respect to Iraq that was declared in Executive Order No. 12722 and matters relating to Executive Order No. 12724 ("the Executive orders"). The report covers events from February 2, 1992, through August 1, 1992. 1. The economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the Executive orders are administered by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control ("FAC") under the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR Part 575 ("ISR"). There have been no amendments of those regulations since my last report. 2. Investigations of possible violations of the Iraqi sanctions continue to be pursued and appropriate enforcement actions taken. These are intended to deter future activities in violation of the sanctions. Additional civil penalty notices were prepared during the reporting period for violations of the IEEPA and ISR with respect to transactions involving Iraq. Penalties were collected, principally from financial institutions which engaged in unauthorized, albeit apparently inadvertent, transactions with respect to Iraq. 3. Investigation also continues into the roles played by various individuals and firms outside of Iraq in Saddam Hussein's procurement network. These investigations may lead to additions to the FAC listing of individuals and organizations determined to be Specially Designated Nationals ("SDNs") of the Government of Iraq. In practice, an Iraqi SDN is a representative, agent, intermediary, or front (whether open or covert) of the Iraqi government that is located outside of Iraq. Iraqi SDNs are Saddam Hussein's principal instruments for doing business in third countries, and doing business with them is the same as doing business directly with the Government of Iraq. The impact of being named an Iraqi SDN is considerable: All assets within U.S. jurisdiction of parties found to be Iraqi SDNs are blocked, all economic transactions with SDNs by U.S. persons are prohibited, and the SDN individual or organization is exposed as an agent of the Iraqi regime. 4. Since my last report, one case filed against the Government of Iraq has gone to judgment. Centrifugal Casting Machine Co., Inc. v. American Bank and Trust Co.; Banca Nazionale del Lavoro; Republic of Iraq; Machinery Trading Co., Baghdad, Iraq; Central Bank of Iraq; and Bank of Rafidain, No. 91-5150 (10th Cir., decided June 11, 1992), arose out of a contract for the sale of goods by plaintiff to the State Machinery Co., an Iraqi governmental entity. In connection with the contract, the Iraqi defendants opened an irrevocable letter of credit in favor of Centrifugal, from which Centrifugal drew a 10 percent advance payment. Repayment of the advance payment in case of nonperformance by Centrifugal was guaranteed by a standby letter of credit. Performance did not occur due to the imposition of economic sanctions against Iraq in August 1990, and the United States claimed that an amount equal to the advance payment was blocked property. The district court ruled that the standby letter of credit had expired, that no U.S. party was liable to an Iraqi entity under the standby letter of credit, and that the advance payment funds were therefore not blocked property and could be distributed to U.S. persons. The court of appeals affirmed the ruling of the district court that there was no blocked Iraqi property interest in the advance payment funds, based on applicable principles of letter of credit law. 5. FAC has issued 288 specific licenses regarding transactions pertaining to Iraq or Iraqi assets. Since my last report, 71 specific licenses have been issued. Most of these licenses were issued for conducting procedural transactions such as filing of legal actions, and for legal representation; other licenses were issued pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolutions 661, 666, and 687, to authorize the exportation to Iraq of donated medicine, medical supplies, and food intended for humanitarian relief purposes. All of these licenses concern minor transactions of no economic benefit to the Government of Iraq. To ensure compliance with the terms of the licenses which have been issued, stringent reporting requirements have been imposed that are closely monitored. Licensed accounts are regularly audited by FAC compliance personnel and deputized auditors from other regulatory agencies. FAC compliance personnel continue to work closely with both State and Federal bank regulatory and law enforcement agencies in conducting special audits of Iraqi accounts subject to the ISR. 6. The expenses incurred by the Federal Government in the 6-month period from February 2, 1992, through August 1, 1992, that are directly attributable to the exercise of powers and authorities conferred by the declaration of a national emergency with respect to Iraq are estimated at $2.476 million, most of which represents wage and salary costs for Federal personnel. Personnel costs were largely centered in the Department of the Treasury (particularly in FAC, the U.S. Customs Service, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for International Affairs, and the Office of the General Counsel), the Department of State (particularly the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs and the Office of the Legal Adviser), the Department of Transportation (particularly the U.S. Coast Guard), and the Department of Commerce (particularly in the Bureau of Export Administration and the Office of the General Counsel). 7. The United States imposed economic sanctions on Iraq in response to Iraq's invasion and illegal occupation of Kuwait, a clear act of brutal aggression. The United States, together with the international community, is maintaining economic sanctions against Iraq because the Iraqi regime has failed to comply fully with United Nations Security Council resolutions calling for the elimination of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the demarcation of the Iraq-Kuwait border, the release of Kuwaiti and other prisoners, compensation for victims of Iraqi aggression, and the return of Kuwaiti assets stolen during its illegal occupation of Kuwait. The U.N. sanctions remain in place; the United States will continue to enforce those sanctions. The Saddam Hussein regime continues to violate basic human rights by repressing the Iraqi civilian population and depriving it of humanitarian assistance. The United Nations Security Council passed resolutions that permit Iraq to sell $1.6 billion of oil under U.N. auspices to fund the provision of food, medicine, and other humanitarian supplies to the people of Iraq. Under the U.N. resolutions, the equitable distribution within Iraq of this assistance would be supervised and monitored by the United Nations and other international organizations. The Iraqi regime continues to refuse to accept these resolutions, and has thereby chosen to perpetuate the suffering of its civilian populations. The regime of Saddam Hussein continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, as well as to regional peace and security. The United States will, therefore, continue to apply economic sanctions to deter Iraq from threatening peace and stability in the region, and I will continue to report periodically to the Congress on significant developments, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1703(c). George Bush (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 32, August 10, 1992 Title:

FACT SHEETS: US Policies to Promote Technological Innovation

Fitzwater Source: White House Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater Description: Fact sheets released by the White House, Office of the Press Secretary, following the President's meeting with scientists, management, and workers at the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC), Washington, DC Date: Jul, 30 19927/30/92 Category: Fact Sheets Region: Whole World Country: Subject: Science/Technology [TEXT] Technological innovation is essential to sustained economic growth. Those nations that innovate most successfully will compete best in an increasingly integrated global economy. International competitiveness requires needed investments in basic research and efficiently commercializing the results of that research. It involves a technology policy that recognizes the important role of entrepreneurs and the need for flexibility in deploying resources to their most efficient uses.
Administration Principles
President Bush has aggressively pushed a strong science and technology agenda, and he has proposed devoting an unprecedented level of resources to research and development (R∧D). The President's science and technology agenda relies on six basic principles: -- The private sector must be free to determine its research priorities; -- The federal government must promote sound tax policies that stimulate private sector investment in R∧D and technological innovation; -- The federal government must promote sound tax policies thatstimulate private sector investment in R∧D and technological innovation; -- The federal government must assure that its regulations do not impede firms from developing products or from bringing safe, new products to market; -- The federal government must support a strong program of basic and applied R∧D, which provides broad societal benefits; -- The federal government must work cooperatively with the private sector in the development of generic or enabling technologies; and -- Federally funded technology must be transferred swiftly and effectively to the private sector for commercialization. The President has taken these six principles and developed a comprehensive strategy for enhancing America's technology prowess and competitiveness. It includes: -- Opening up foreign markets to US goods; -- Accelerating technology transfer; -- Investing in the future by strengthening America's knowledge base and increasing federal support for emerging technologies; -- Educating US students for a world of technology; -- Coordinating with the private sector in consortia and other arrangements to develop generic or enabling technologies; -- Stimulating private sector R∧D through sound tax policies; and -- Promoting technology through a sound regulatory system.
Opening Foreign Markets To US Goods
The United States remains the world leader in the export of scientific and technological knowledge. US high-tech exports have increased by two- thirds since 1987, and the United States enjoys a $37-billion trade surplus of high-tech exports with the rest of the world. The President is determined to maintain this position by opening new foreign markets and by protecting the intellectual property rights of those on the leading edge of scientific and technological innovation.
Bilateral Agreements With Japan.
The Administration has opened Japanese markets to US high-tech goods through trade agreements covering supercomputers, satellites, semiconductors, and amorphous metals.
Intellectual Property Rights in the Uruguay Round.
The Administration is negotiating to ensure that the US science and engineering base is protected from foreign pirating of technology.
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
The Administration is completing the negotiations on NAFTA, which will open opportunities for American exporters and the free flow of investment capital into the technologically intensive fields of environment, medicine, agriculture, electronics, and telecommunications.
US-Asia Environmental Partnership.
This unprecedented coalition of US and Asian government units, businesses, and community groups is working together to enhance Asia's environment. This will result in the greater export of American technological know-how and equipment.
Accelerating Technology Transfer
The federal government has invested billions of dollars in creating the world's finest, most advanced research laboratories. This valuable national resource can assist civilian research efforts to investigate and develop commercially viable technologies.
Technology Transfer.
The fiscal year (FY) 1993 budget proposes asignificant increase in technology transfer activities, including almost 1,500 cooperative research and development agreements between government laboratories and private industry, an increase of 60% over the last 2 years; about 4,500 new invention disclosures; 2,000 patent applications; and almost 300 technology licenses awarded.
The National Technology Initiative.
Ten conferences have been held across the country, with five more scheduled between now and December 1, 1992. These conferences act as catalysts for creating new partnerships among government, universities, and American companies to better translate new technologies into marketable goods and services.
Expanding the Role of the National Laboratories.
The FY 1993 budget proposes that national laboratories play a greater role in high priority areas of civilian applied R∧D by helping to form R∧D consortia and other collaborative arrangements led by industry and academia.
Improving Linkages Between Federal and Industry R∧D.
Presidential initiatives proposed in the FY 1993 budget call for increased private sector roles in setting directions for federally funded R∧D in critical areas such as high-performance computing, advanced materials, and biotechnology.
Fostering Entrepreneurial Activity in Small High-Technology Businesses.
The Administration has removed impediments to the success and growth of small high-technology businesses that are responsible for a disproportionate share of new jobs and innovations.
Investing in the Future:
Strengthening the Knowledge Base and Increasing Federal Support for Emerging Technologies The Administration remains committed to funding basic and applied research and to working with industry to develop generic technologies but considers market competition best able to identify winners and losers. The President's FY 1993 budget proposes $76.6 billion in research and development, an increase of almost $2 billion, or 3%. Federal civilian R∧D would increase by 7%. The budget proposes more than $14 billion for basic research-an increase of 8%-and more than $17 billion for civilian applied R∧D, an increase of 6%.
Initiatives in Basic Research
Superconducting Super Collider.
The FY 1993 budget proposes $650 million to support continued prototype superconducting magnet development and construction of support facilities and a test tunnel segment. The budget maintains the 10-year project schedule approved last year.
Doubling the National Science Foundation (NSF) Budget by 1994.
The budget proposes an increase of 18% for NSF, including a 21% increase for basic research.
Increasing Support for Individual Investigators.
The budget proposes roughly $8 billion, an increase of 9%, for individual investigators funded by the Departments of Health and Human Services and Energy and the National Science Foundation.
US Global Change Research Program.
The budget proposes $1.4 billion, an increase of 24%, for this initiative to understand more fully the earth's climate system and to develop sound policies concerning issues such as ozone depletion and global warming.
Astronomy and Astrophysics.
The budget proposes $890 million for these programs, which is consistent with the recommendations of a recent report of the National Research Council.
Agricultural National Research Initiative.
The budget proposes a 51% increase to fund six areas of research: natural resources and the environment; nutrition, food quality, and health; plant systems; animal systems; markets and trade policy; and processes antecedent to adding value and developing new products.
Biotechnology Research.
The budget proposes $4 billion, an increase of $271 million or 7%, for a coordinated presidential initiative in biotechnology involving 12 federal agencies.
Applied Research and Development
High-Performance Computing and Communications.
The budget proposes $803 million, an increase of 23%, for the second year of the President's High-Performance Computing Initiative.
Advanced Material and Processing.
The budget proposes $1.8 billion, an increase of 10%, for a presidential initiative intended to improve the manufacture and performance of materials.
Advanced Manufacturing R∧D.
The budget proposes more than $1 billion, including $321 million for non-defense-related manufacturing R∧D.
Energy Technology R∧D.
The budget proposes $914 million, an 18% increase, for targeted energy technologies. These investments, guided by the National Energy Strategy, will increase energy efficiency and generate advances in new electricity technologies.
Fusion R∧D.
The budget proposes a 7% increase for the development of energy from nuclear fusion. This initiative maintains the US commitment to the International Thermo-nuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) engineering design.
Transportation R∧D.
The budget proposes almost $1.4 billion, an increase of 17%, for transportation research and development in high-speed rail, avia-tion, and aeronautics technologies. This proposal includes $260 million for the National Aerospace Plane program.
Space Research and Technology.
The budget proposes $305 million, a 12% increase, for NASA space technology development.
Protecting the Public Health.
The budget proposes $4.8 billion for applied research and development at the Department of Health and Human Services, including more than $1.2 billion for research on Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and an 80% increase for the Women's Health Initiative.
Expanding the Geographical Frontier of Space
Space Station Freedom.
The budget proposes $2.2 billion, an 11% increase, for fabrication and testing of critical components in preparation for first element launch in 1996.
Improving Access to Space.
The budget proposes $5.4 billion for civil space transportation, including the space shuttle, commercial expendable launch vehicle services, and other initiatives such as the SpaceHab module for microgravity research.
New Launch System.
NASA and the Department of Defense will propose $250 million for joint development of a more flexible and powerful launch system.
Space Exploration.
The budget proposes $586 million for space exploration programs, including a planned mission to Saturn, two new robotic missions to explore the moon, and key technologies needed for future missions to Mars.
Educating US Students For a World of Technology
America's education system must produce workers able to compete with any in the world. The National Education Goals call for US students to be first in the world in science and mathematics by the year 2000. -- The President has proposed to Congress $2.1 billion for science and mathematics education programs, an increase of 7% over 1992. -- To enhance teacher training, the President has proposed federally funded math and science training for 770,000 US teachers, almost half of the total number of teachers in those fields. -- The President's budget proposes a series of demonstration projects using electronic communications technologies to enhance math-science curricula.
Cooperating With the Private Sector in Consortia and Other Arrangements to Develop Generic Or Enabling Technologies
It has long been recognized that it is impossible to predict where, when, or to whom the benefits of basic research will flow so that no single institution can justify the necessary investment. The same argument applies to the development of generic or enabling technologies. Examples of federal support for cooperative activity with the private sector in the development of generic technologies include: -- Sematech, a consortium in which the federal government and the com- puter industry cooperate to develop technologies for semiconductor chip manufacture that will leapfrog the next generation and allow US industry to recapture a substantial share of the international market for these chips. -- The Battery Consortium, involving the federal government, major automobile manufacturers, and a number of electrical battery companies, is working toward the development of storage batteries for electric automobiles. -- The Automotive Composites Consortium, involving the federal government (through the National Institute for Standards and Technology) and major automobile manufacturers, is developing and testing composite substitutes for large metal automotive components (e.g., front-end assemblies) that will result in more fuel efficient but still safe automobiles, and technology with much wider industrial application.
Stimulating Private Sector R∧D Though Sound Tax Policies
Fostering technological innovation requires tax policies that encourage research, investment, and risk-taking.
Research and Experimentation Tax Credit.
Since taking office, the President has urged the Congress to make permanent the current 20% research and experimentation tax credit. R∧D Allocation Rules. The President has called on the Congress to extend the so-called Section 861 R∧D allocation rules, which foster R∧D activities in US labs. When Congress failed to act, the President used his administrative powers to extend this important incentive for 18 months.
Capital Gains Tax Cut
. Since taking office, the President has repeatedly urged Congress to cut the capital gains tax, which raises the cost of developing new technologies and the cost of purchasing high-tech goods.
Promoting Technology Through A Sound Regulatory System
Federal regulatory policy should protect health and safety and promote competition. Where possible, the federal government should eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens that stifle technological innovation and product development.
Biotechnology.
The United States is the world leader in biotechnology. This $2 billion domestic industry is expected to increase to $50 billion by the end of the decade. Some of the more promising advances will be in drugs and gene therapies to treat existing diseases. Biotechnology also will produce healthier foods, safer pesticides, additional energy resources, and innovative environmental clean-up technologies.
Drug Approval Process.
On April 9, 1992, the Administration announced four actions to speed up the availability of new drugs and dramatically reduce unnecessary burdens in the drug development process: accelerated approval for "breakthrough" drugs for patients with life- threatening or serious illnesses; a new "parallel track" system under which promising new drugs for treating AIDS and other HIV-related diseases will be made widely available as early as possible; external review of some categories of new drug applications by qualified non-government experts; and, streamlined animal testing to reduce the testing time of new human drugs in animals.
Extending the National Cooperative Research Act (NCRA).
The NCRA of 1984 permitted firms to join forces on research projects without the fear of per se anti-trust violations. The Administration supports legislation to expand the NCRA to permit firms to jointly produce goods. Advanced Television. The Federal Communications Commission is moving to promulgate rules on a standard for high-definition television. This standard will likely embrace the digital technologies pioneered by US private sector firms, which has leap-frogged the analog technologies of foreign competitors.
Superconducting Super Collider: On the Frontier of Science
Succeeding in a competitive global economy requires investing in science and technology to create the products and jobs of the future. In 1911, Dutch scientists discovered that certain materials had zero resistance to the passage of electrical current when cooled to extremely low temperatures. Ever since, scientists have searched for materials having this property at higher, more practically useful temperatures. Now, the objective is to accelerate the development of superconductivity applications and speed this knowledge and innovation to practical, commercial use.
The President's SSC Initiative
The SSC is one of the cornerstones of the President's program for increased federal investment in basic research. The SSC will be the most powerful particle accelerator in the world and the largest scientific instrument ever built when it is completed in 1999. Two rings of superconducting magnets in an underground tunnel 54 miles in circumference will guide beams of protons traveling in opposite directions at nearly the speed of light. When protons in these beams are forced to collide they focus enormous energy into extremely small volumes where some of the energy will convert for brief instants into never-before-seen particles. Scientists from all over the world will study these particles to learn more about the fundamental nature of matter and energy.
What the SSC Will Contribute To America
US world leadership in elementary particle physics will be maintained far into the next century by the scientific advances emanating from the SSC. The SSC holds the potential for breakthroughs in science, technology, and education. The knowledge gained in the developments at the SSC will lead to technology and practical products. The SSC will utilize the largest industrial manufacture of superconducting accelerator magnets under- taken anywhere. This experience will help in the development of magnetically levitated, high-speed trains; energy storage systems for fuel conservation; and low-loss electrical power systems. Many Americans already are familiar with the first commercial success resulting from the use of these advanced magnetic properties in the life-saving diagnostic use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) equipment. Research and development for the SSC already has yielded improved superconducting wire with higher current-carrying capacity. SSC invest- ments in cryogenics, superconducting wire, and magnets should help expand their commercial availability and lead to increased markets and new products. Perhaps the most significant potential application of larger superconducting magnets is the generation of safe, dependable power in the 21st century through controlled thermonuclear fusion. Such advances would lead to cleaner production of electricity and thus reduced air pollutants, less dependence on fossil fuels, and diminished concerns about today's nuclear fission technology. Other applications being explored include new sensors, and new electric drive systems for ships and land vehicles. The SSC already has substantial economic benefits. More than 19,000 contracts have been awarded to businesses of all sizes and to universities around the country. Especially significant is the participation of small businesses from 40 states in helping to build the SSC. The 1993 budget request for the SSC will create more than 7,000 first-tier jobs throughout the country. When complete, the SSC will employ 2,5000 scientists, engineers, and technicians and host an additional 500 visiting scientists.
Funding and Construction
The SSC project is on schedule and within budget. The Administration is committed to completing the SSC within its $8.25-billion baseline cost. The financing of the construction of the 10-year development plan is a joint effort of the private sector, the state of Texas, the federal government, and international private and public sectors. The state of Texas is contributing $1 billion to the project. The United States is seeking international support for the SSC to leverage federal funds and because of traditional international collaboration in elementary particle physics. The President requested $650 mil-lion for the SSC in FY 1993. Foreign partners are expected to contribute substantially to the construction and operation of the SSC as well as to the experimental program. About $1 billion has been spent on the SSC for research and development, purchases of equipment, design, and construction. A staff of 2,000 scientists, engineers and other professionals is working at the laboratory. Construction began in 1990, with completion scheduled for 1999. Facilities completed include: a central facility, the Magnet Development Laboratory, the Accelerator Systems String Test Facility, an exploratory shaft, and two service buildings for the Magnet Test Laboratory. Facilities under construction include: the Magnet Test Laboratory, the Linear Accelerator, a Magnet Delivery shaft, and utility and personnel shafts for the first tunnel segment. Four contracts for the first 22 miles of their tunnel have been awarded or bid. Tunneling will begin in the last quarter of 1992. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 32, August 10, 1992 Title:

Fact Sheet: Export Enhancement Program Initiative for Pork

Fitzwater Description: Fact sheet released by the White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Washington, DC Date: Aug, 3 19928/3/92 Category: Fact Sheets Region: Eurasia Country: USSR (former), Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Georgia Subject: Trade/Economics [TEXT] Today, the President directed the Secretary of Agriculture to make available American-produced pork products for the former Soviet Union (FSU) under the Export Enhancement Program (EEP). This initiative, which is designed to fight unfair foreign competition, could result in the export of 30,000 metric tons (mt) of pork. It is pro-farmer, pro-jobs, and pro-trade as it fights unfair foreign competition.
The Problem
US pork producers face subsidized competition from the European Community (EC), preventing them from being competitive in the large market of the former Soviet Union.
The President's Proposal
The President has directed the Secretary of Agriculture to make available up to 30,000 mt of pork under the EEP. If used by the FSU, this initiative will enable an otherwise competitive US industry to fight unfair competition and gain an important market share in a potentially vast market. This initiative is consistent with the President's commitment to using the EEP aggressively when there is unfair foreign competition. The United States is an efficient producer of agricultural products, including pork, and has a meritorious case for participation in the world market. However, care is taken to minimize the impact of this program on non-subsidizing competitors in the targeted market.
Pork EEP
This is the first time that pork has been approved under the EEP. The approval was based on the particular circumstances of pork trade with the FSU. Other commodities that have been made available to the FSU under the EEP include wheat, vegetable oil, wheat flour, barley, and rice. This initiative will make available to the FSU up to 30,000 mt of pork. According to a report from the University of Missouri, a pork sale of this magnitude represents: -- The use of 3.7 million bushels of corn; -- The use of 600,000 bushels of soybeans; (and) -- The expenditure of 30,639 8-hour days of US labor. With 300 million consumers, the FSU is a major meat-consuming nation that is experiencing declining meat production. Total meat production fell 4% last year and is expected to decline an additional 3% this year. Meat imports to the region are significant and have increased steadily for several years. The FSU's pork imports were 171,000 mt in 1989, 217,000 mt in 1991, and are projected at 272,000 mt in 1992. The FSU is traditionally the world's third largest importer of pork. US pork exporters would have an opportunity to make sales to the FSU but for subsidized competition from the EC. The EC subsidizes the export of pork through a combination of EC and member state subsidies that typically approximate 50% of the US sales price. The level of subsidy required to sell 30,000 mt of US pork is dependent upon the assessment of prices offered by subsidized competitors and the review of bids received.
Export Enhancement Program
This announcement will be the 133rd initiative under the Export Enhancement Program. The EEP enables US exporters to meet prevailing world prices for targeted commodities and destinations. Under the program, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) pays cash to US exporters as bonuses, allowing them to sell US agricultural products in targeted countries at prices below the exporter's costs of acquiring them. The program is used to help US farmers meet competition from subsidizing countries, in particular the EC. Major objectives of the program are to challenge unfair trade practices, expand US agricultural exports, and encourage other countries exporting agricultural commodities to undertake serious negotiations on agricultural trade problems. Since its inception in 1985, $4.6 billion has been expended in support of the export of $15.3 billion of US agricultural products. The EEP program will operate at $1.2 billion in FY 1992, up from $917 million in FY 1991. There are similar but separate export programs for dairy products and sunflower and cottonseed oils.
Export of High-Value Products
Today's initiative is consistent with the Administration's efforts to promote US exports of high-value products. Over the past decade, US high- value product exports have grown and now surpass the value of our bulk commodity exports. The United States has now reached 15% of the world market share in trade of these products in the face of subsidized competition from the European Community. Exports of meat, vegetable oil, eggs, and dairy products have all grown significantly. Products designated as "high-value" now receive about 29% of the total support provided by US agricultural export programs. Currently, 25 of the 56 EEP initiatives with outstanding balances are for high-value products, and, if fully utilized by importing countries, more than 32% of EEP bonuses awarded would go to promote such products. A total of $1 billion in high-value agriculture exports supports 27,000 jobs.
How the Program Will Work
All sales under the EEP are made by the private sector, not by the government. US exporters will contact and negotiate a sales contract, including price, quantity, quality, time of delivery, and other terms with an importer. The contract may be contingent upon USDA's approval of a bonus. Each prospective exporter submits a bid to the USDA requesting a subsidy-or bonus-that would allow the sale to take place at the agreed price. USDA reviews all bids for the competitiveness of the bonus value requested and compares the bids with offers from other US exporters and sales of competitor countries. Any or all bids may be rejected. If accepted, the exporter and USDA enter into an agreement, with (a) bonus being paid upon proof that the commodity has been exported to the targeted country under the terms of that agreement.
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 32, August 10, 1992 Title:

US Pork Export Initiative

Bush Description: Statement by President Bush released by the White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Washington, DC Date: Aug, 5 19928/5/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Eurasia Country: USSR (former), Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Georgia Subject: Trade/Economics [TEXT] Today, I am directing the Sec0retary of Agriculture to make available American-produced pork products to the former Soviet Union under the Export Enhancement Program. This initiative will enable exporters to sell up to 30,000 metric tons of US pork products at prices competitive with subsidized competition. The initiative will enable an otherwise competitive US industry to fight unfair competition and establish its presence in a potentially vast market. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 32, August 10, 1992 Title:

C-130s To Be Deployed to Angola

Smith Description: Statement by White House Deputy Press Secretary Judy Smith, Los Angeles, California Date: Jul, 30 19927/30/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Subsaharan Africa Country: Angola Subject: Military Affairs [TEXT] In response to requests by Angolan President Dos Santos, UNITA (National Union for the Total Independence of Angola) President Savimbi and UN Secretary General Boutros-Ghali, the President has instructed the Department of Defense to deploy three US C-130 aircraft to Angola for approximately 6 weeks. The aircraft will be used to support transportation of troops demobilized in accordance with the peace accords between UNITA and the Angolan Government and to support the elections that will take place Septem-ber 29-30. Since assuming office, the Bush Administration has worked to achieve a peaceful resolution of the civil conflict in Angola in a fashion that would permit that war-torn country to move into an era of peace and multi-party democracy. The fighting has ended, and Angola is now firmly embarked on the first free elections in its history. Approximately 4 million citizens have already registered to vote for the first time in their lives. President Bush attaches high priority to ensuring that free and fair elections take place as scheduled and that all parties respect the outcome of the elections. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 32, August 10, 1992 Title:

US-Latin American Anti-Narcotics Cooperation

Tutwiler Description: Statement released by the Office of the Assistant Secretary/Spokesman, Washington, DC Date: Jul, 31 19927/31/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: South America Country: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, United States, Peru, Venezuela Subject: Narcotics [TEXT] Delegations from the United States, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela met yesterday and today at the State Department in the first formal meetings to follow up on regional initiatives agreed to at last February's San Antonio (Texas) drug summit. The delegates agreed to establish a follow-on mechanism to continue the process begun at this meeting, whereby the different governments can achieve agreement on programs and monitor further progress. The rotating chairmanship for the follow-on meetings will be assumed by Colombia on February 27, the anniversary of the San Antonio summit. The participants discussed ways to improve controls and share information on aircraft, airports, and airstrips; to strengthen anti-narcotics customs controls on air, sea, and land traffic; to identify and treat drug abuse; to increase their citizens' awareness of the dangers of illegal drugs; and to strengthen alternative development and judicial reform efforts. The delegations agreed: -- To strengthen controls on aircraft, airports, and airstrips; -- To pursue the concept of cooperative agreements between national customs services and commercial carriers to control the flow of illegal drugs; -- To coordinate their national drug abuse prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation programs, both bilaterally and through appropriate international and regional organizations; -- To make efforts to involve countries outside the region and the international financial institutions in alternative development programs; and -- To coordinate these policies through annual meetings and smaller technical meetings as necessary. Future meetings will discuss the other anti-narcotics measures agreed to in San Antonio.(###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 32, August 10, 1992 Title:

Cuban Human Rights Trial

Tutwiler Description: Statement released by the Office of the Assistant Secretary/Spokesman, Washington, DC Date: Aug, 6 19928/6/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Caribbean Country: Cuba Subject: Human Rights [TEXT] We are deeply concerned to learn of the sentencing of Cuban human rights activists Omar del Pozo, Carmen Arias, and Reynaldo Infante on the charge of espionage. They have been sentenced by a military tribunal to 15, 8, and 12 years in prison, respectively. The crime that the three persons are convicted of is receiving information from a military member of the Ministry of the Interior regarding investigations the Ministry was conducting on human rights organizations. As the one Ministry employee was military (he also received a 15-year sentence), the case was tried by a military tribunal. In point of fact, the three advocated only peaceful democratic reform through a process of gradual change involving all sectors of Cuban society. They never espoused violence, but rather advocated peaceful change. We call on the Cuban Government to listen to the appeals of well-meaning Cubans like Omar del Pozo, Carmen Arias, and Reynaldo Infante who seek a voice in deciding the future of their country, and ask Cuba to free those and other proponents of peaceful reform so that they can help build a stable and prosperous Cuba.(###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 32, August 10, 1992 Title:

Minsk Group Talks On Nagorno-Karabakh

Boucher Source: State Department Deputy Spokesman Richard Boucher Description: Statement, Washington, DC Date: Aug, 6 19928/6/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: E/C Europe Country: Armenia, Azerbaijan Subject: Military Affairs, Democratization, CSCE [TEXT] The US Government welcomes the agreement reached August 5 in Rome in the Minsk Group talks on Nagorno-Karabakh for a 60-day interruption of military activities. We urge that all the parties support and implement the call, which will be delivered personally to all parties by the Chairman of the CSCE (Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe) Nagorno-Karabakh Conference, former Italian Deputy Foreign Minister Rafaelli. The CSCE mediation effort is the best opportunity for the parties to resolve this tragic conflict by peaceful means. We call upon all the parties to the conflict and all the members of the Minsk Group to recommit themselves to the CSCE mediation effort and to take steps to de-escalate the conflict and create an environment in which good-faith negotiations can succeed upon their resumption in September. We also call upon all parties to honor CSCE commitments that require disputants to refrain from any action which may aggravate a dispute and make it more difficult or impossible to settle. The US Government has repeatedly stated that the quality and character of its relationship with both Azerbaijan and Armenia will depend on their demonstrated commitment to CSCE principles, including the peaceful settlement of disputes.(###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 32, August 10, 1992 Title:

Death of Opposition Leader In the Central African Republic

Boucher Source: State Department Deputy Spokesman Richard Boucher Description: Statement, Washington, DC Date: Aug, 4 19928/4/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Subsaharan Africa Country: Central African Republic Subject: Human Rights [TEXT] The United States deeply deplores the death of Central African (Republic) political figure and human rights activist Jean-Claude Conjugo-Batoma. Dr. Conjugo was killed on August 1 when security forces broke up an opposition demonstration in Bangui. In the course of the disturbance, Dr. Conjugo was beaten by security forces and, subsequently, died of his injuries. The United States urges all parties in the Central African Republic to exercise restraint in the face of this tragedy. The sad incident underscores the need for the Central African Government to fulfill its repeated promises of democratic reforms, so that opposing political viewpoints can be aired in a spirit of dialogue rather than one of confrontation. The United States, in conjunction with other donor nations, has both publicly and privately urged the Central African Government to respect the human rights of its citizens and to permit them to exercise the democratic freedoms to which they are entitled. In the wake of Dr. Conjugo's death, we want to reiterate our concern over the lack of respect for human rights and the slow pace of democratization in the country. We are also making this point strongly and directly to the Government of the Central African Republic.(###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 32, August 10, 1992 Title:

Accession by France to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty

Tutwiler Description: Statement released by the Office of the Assistant Secretary/Spokesman Washington, DC Date: Aug, 3 19928/3/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Europe Country: France Subject: Nuclear Nonproliferation, Arms Control [TEXT] On Monday, August 3, 1992, in a ceremony at the State Department in Washington, DC, France formally acceded to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The United States warmly welcomes this action by the Government of France, which affirms, in a legally binding manner, its commitment to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons. French adherence to the NPT underlines the continued vitality of this treaty, which now has more than 150 parties. With China's adherence to the NPT on March 9, 1992, all of the nuclear weapon states identified by that treaty are now parties. The United States attaches tremendous importance to the NPT, which is the cornerstone of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime. The NPT's success reflects the overwhelming international consensus against nuclear weapons proliferation, as well as broad support for the role of International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards in verifying the treaty's non-proliferation undertakings. We believe that continued strong international support for the NPT will contribute to the achievement of its indefinite extension in 1995-a goal to which the United States is committed. France's adherence to the NPT comes at a time when cooperation on non- proliferation has become a central element in the entire post-Cold War structure of international security. France's action will encourage adherence by those few members of the international community who remain outside the NPT. It will reinforce the commitments recently made by China, the newly emerging states of the former Soviet Union, and others as we move forward to the 1995 NPT extension conference. It strengthens the regime which makes possible international cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy and reinforces a long tradition of cooperation among France, the United States, and others on non-proliferation and other arms control issues. France's decision to join the NPT marks a true milestone. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 32, August 10, 1992 Title:

Disposing of Nuclear Weapons In the Former Soviet Union

Gallucci Source: Robert L. Gallucci, Assistant Secretary For Politico-Military Affairs Description: Statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Washington, DC Date: Aug, 4 19928/4/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Eurasia Country: USSR (former), Russia Subject: Arms Control, Nuclear Nonproliferation [TEXT] Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to appear before this committee today to address the issue of the disposition of nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. I know this committee, as part of its consideration of the START Treaty (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), is specifically interested in those weapons that are being removed from strategic systems in accordance with that agreement. We have a panel of witnesses who are prepared to address a number of different aspects of this issue. I would like to use my time to give you an overview of the Administration's efforts to ensure the responsible control and disposition of nuclear weapons belonging to the former Soviet Union and to establish safeguards against their proliferation. As you are well aware, the attempted coup of last August and the ultimate breakup of the Soviet Union posed new challenges and opportunities in the area of national security. President Bush responded to these challenges and opportunities beginning with his September 27, 1991, nuclear initiative. As part of that initiative, the President proposed discussions to explore cooperation on the safety and security of nuclear weapons and on their safe and environmentally responsible storage, transportation, and destruction. Our objective has been to enhance the security of nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union, especially those nuclear weapons slated for elimination under unilateral commitments made by Presidents Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Tactical nuclear weapons, in particular, because of their small size and transportability, pose the greatest risk of loss of control or seizure by third parties. We wanted to take steps to ensure these weapons were quickly disabled and consolidated at sites where they could be securely controlled. In addition, we wanted to put into motion a process for quickly dismantling these weapons.
SSD Dialogue
President Bush's September initiative was followed by the establishment of an experts group to discuss the safety, security, and dismantlement (SSD) of nuclear weapons. This group first met in Washington, DC, last November. That same month, the Congress passed, and the President signed, the Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act-the Nunn-Lugar legislation - which gives the President the discretionary authority to transfer up to $400 million in Department of Defense funds to destroy nuclear, chemical, and other weapons; transport, store, and safeguard these weapons in connection with their destruction; and establish verifiable safeguards against their proliferation. After some initial fits and starts caused by the breakup of the Soviet Union and the growing pains of Russia and the other newly independent republics as they attempted to put their own governmental structures into place, our SSD efforts began to pay off at the June summit when four agreements related to the safe, secure dismantlement of nuclear weapons were signed by Russia and the United States. The first, an umbrella agreement, provides an international legal framework for the transfer of the $400 mil- lion as authorized by the Nunn-Lugar legislation. Under three other agreements, the United States will, over the course of the next several years, provide Russia with approximately 500 armored blankets for the safe, secure transport and storage of nuclear weapons and fissile material; over 1,000 pieces of nuclear weapon accident response equipment and clothing, and training in its use; and 10,000 transportation and storage containers for fissile material from dismantled warheads. Initial deliveries of armored blankets have already taken place in Moscow. More work remains to be done. We are moving closer to an agreement on a program of assistance to modify Russian railcars used in the transport of nuclear weapons to enhance their thermal insulation as well as their fire and intruder detection features. We are also working with the Russians to identify requirements for a facility for the storage of fissile material removed from nuclear weapons. Any US assistance in the construction of such a facility will require Russian agreement to a high degree of transparency in its operation. The Administration is currently considering a range of measures in this regard. An agreement with the Russians on the design and construction of a storage facility will also depend, in part, on the conclusions reached in our continuing discussions on the ultimate disposition of highly enriched uranium and plutonium removed from dismantled weapons. We and the Russians agree that the most desirable use for the highly enriched uranium would be to dilute it to lower its enrichment level, and sell it as nuclear power reactor fuel. This could earn hard currency for Russia and eliminate the military potential of this material. The US Government has not yet completed its review of the various possible arrangements for US participation in the conversion of Russian uranium, but both we and the Russian Government agree that, whatever arrangements are finally decided upon, we need to decide upon standards and criteria for physical protection of material and non-proliferation measures. Plutonium presents a more difficult challenge than uranium because there is no ready market for it as a power reactor fuel or for other peaceful purposes. For this reason, plutonium will likely require secure, long-term storage. Finally, as part of our SSD dialogue, we are continuing our discussions with the Russians on establishing an effective nuclear material control and accounting system (MC∧A) and a system for the physical protection of nuclear material. The former Soviet Union lacked a modern MC∧A system for bulk nuclear material. On the other hand, their controls on manufactured items- for example, reactor fuel assemblies-appears adequate, and, by all accounts, they have an effective system for controlling nuclear weapon inventories. We have also established a dialogue with Ukraine, Belarus, and, most recently, Kazakhstan aimed at providing Nunn-Lugar assistance. All tactical nuclear weapons have been removed from these republics and, ultimately, all strategic weapons will be removed as well. However, where appropriate, we have discussed the provision of possible accident response equipment and assistance in the monitoring of the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from these republics. It is likely that we will also be providing assistance to one or more of these republics in the dismantling of strategic weapon systems currently located on their territory. Where appropriate-for example, Ukraine-we are also discussing MC∧A systems for controlling nuclear materials associated with civilian power programs. We have also addressed export controls with these and other republics, as well as Russia, and are considering additional assistance in this area under Nunn-Lugar.
"Brain Drain"
Finally, I want to note the one area in which I have been deeply involved- namely, the science centers in Russia and the Ukraine. Equal in our mind to the potential loss of control over warheads or fissile material is the potential proliferation of knowledge in their use. The Administration considered it important to address the non-proliferation threat represented by the possible emigration of unemployed or underemployed weapon scientists to countries that seek an indigenous capability for delivering weapons of mass destruction. To reduce this so-called brain drain threat, the International Science and Technology Center in Moscow and the Science and Technology Center in Kiev are being established to provide professionally rewarding, nuclear-weapons related projects on which the ex-Soviet weapons scientists and engineers can collaborate with scientists and engineers in the West. In Russia, we expect the majority of the projects will employ weapons designers and engineers from their nuclear laboratories. In Ukraine, we expect that most projects will employ the ballistic missile scientists and engineers at their missile production facilities.
START and the Joint Understanding
Our involvement in the disposition of nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union will also follow from the START Treaty and the Joint Understanding on further reductions in strategic offensive arms reached at the June summit. These agreements will result in large numbers of strategic warheads entering the same storage and dismantlement stream as the tactical nuclear warheads removed from service under the earlier Bush, Gorbachev, and Yeltsin nuclear initiatives. As the committee is aware, neither START nor the June 17 Joint Understanding require the elimination of strategic nuclear warheads. However, our involvement with strategic systems and their warheads in the former Soviet Union will probably go well beyond the strict provisions of those two agreements, further increasing their transparency; for example: -- We expect to have a significant role in the ultimate disposition of strategic systems and warheads in the former Soviet Union as a result of the resolution of destruction obligations between Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan necessary to implement START; -- We will also be pursuing the early deactivation and disarming of those systems the sides have agreed to eliminate under START and the Joint Understanding; -- Finally, we will be involved in providing assistance to help ease the financial and technical burden of storage and dismantlement. Of particular note, the summit Joint Understanding states that reductions will be carried out by the year 2000 (vice 2003) if the United States can contribute to the financing of the destruction or elimination of strategic offensive arms in Russia. We intend to begin these discussions in the near future. Much of our assistance program under the Nunn-Lugar legislation will also be directly relevant to the process of eliminating strategic arms.
The SFRC Conditions On START Ratification
Let me address briefly one condition included in the resolution of ratification reported out by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC). This condition would require, in connection with any further agreement reducing strategic offensive arms, that the Administration seek an arrangement to monitor: -- The numbers of nuclear stockpile weapons on the territories of the parties to the treaty; and -- The location and inventory of facilities on the territory of the parties to the treaty capable of producing or processing significant quantities of fissile materials. The Administration completely agrees with the premise of the SFRC condition, i.e., that "the prospect of a loss of control of nuclear weapons or fissile material in the former Soviet Union could pose a serious threat to the United States and to international peace and security." As I have just detailed, the Administration is pursuing a number of measures in the SSD context that should help to reduce the risk of such a loss of control. Our analysis of the SFRC condition is not yet complete. However, based on our preliminary review, the Administration is concerned with the implications of this condition for several reasons. First, the Administration is concerned that we not delay agreement on the codification, ratification, and implementation of the Joint Understanding on further reductions in strategic offensive arms, including the elimination of MIRVed (multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles) ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles), agreed to at the June Washington summit. This understanding represents an extremely important achievement of immense benefit to the United States. All substantive areas associated with the Joint Understanding have been resolved; the only remaining task is to turn the agreement between President Bush and President Yeltsin into appropriate treaty language. Any interpretation of the Foreign Relations Committee condition that would require adding new provisions not agreed to at the summit that would require reopening the scope of the treaty, or that links its implementation to an agreement on the monitoring of fissile material production or weapons stockpiles risks at least a delay and, possibly, the unraveling of this accomplishment and would be opposed by the Administration. Second, the Administration is concerned that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee condition would require the United States to propose "reciprocal inspections . . . to monitor the number of nuclear stockpile weapons and the location and inventory of facilities . . . capable of producing or processing significant quantities of fissile materials." We are still evaluating whether or not such monitoring can be implemented in a manner consistent with US security interests and our statutory requirements under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for the protection of nuclear weapons design information. Naturally, the Administration would be unwilling to propose a monitoring scheme that we were unprepared to accept because it would be inimical to US security interests. Our review of this aspect of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee condition is continuing. Finally, we are concerned that any verification measures that would be consistent with US-or Russian-requirements for protection of nuclear weapons design information would be woefully inadequate to ensure that all weapons or facilities were declared. Acceptable verification measures probably could be devised to allow us to monitor declared weapons and facilities. However, additional measures would be needed for verification of undeclared weapons and facilities. Such measures would be exceedingly intrusive, expensive, and complex. Based on the level of intrusiveness alone, such measures would most likely be unacceptable to both the United States and Russia. Moreover, they would not be sufficient to ensure that all nuclear weapons, fissile material, and nuclear facilities located on the territory of the Russian Federation were declared and accounted for. I would add two additional political points. First, I would be loathe to see any attempt to negotiate a verification or monitoring regime slow the pace of weapons dismantlement in Russia. I believe this would be the outcome of such a process. Second, it should be borne in mind that there is already a degree of self-policing that is taking place within the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). In last December's Minsk agreement, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia agree that the process of destruction of nuclear weapons located on the territory of Ukraine and Belarus would take place with the participation of those states. This was followed by a more detailed agreement between Russia and Ukraine. These agreements, by all accounts, appear to now be working smoothly. The perceived benefits of any US intervention into this intra-CIS process would have to be carefully weighed against our larger foreign policy objectives and our relations with these states. Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by stating that the Administration's efforts to address the safe, secure transport, storage, and dismantlement of nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union and to prevent their proliferation have been both far-reaching and intensive. Our discussions with Russia and the other newly independent republics, and their actions to date, have demonstrated that they fully share our concerns and goals in these regards. Our task, as we see it, has been to give them the tools, where necessary, to help ensure their control over nuclear weapons and fissile material. While more remains to be done, I believe the Administration's efforts are effectively addressing the basic concern reflected in the Foreign Relations Committee condition. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 32, August 10, 1992 Title:

1992 Proclamation On Helsinki Human Rights Day

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Text of Proclamation 6462, released by the White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Washington, DC Date: Jul, 28 19927/28/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Europe, E/C Europe, Eurasia Subject: CSCE [TEXT] Less than two decades ago, on August 1, 1975, the United States and Canada joined 33 European nations in adopting the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). Affirming the "close link between peace and security in Europe and in the world as a whole," signatories to the declaration agreed to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, "including freedom of thought, conscience, religion, or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion." Participating states recognized respect for human rights as "an essential factor" for the attainment of peace, justice, and cooperation among nations and agreed to settle disputes among themselves peacefully and on the basis of international law. This year the CSCE Summit, the first held in Helsinki since 1975, offered an historic setting to renew US support for a strong Euro-Atlantic partnership based on shared goals and values. Since its inception, the CSCE has championed human rights and democratic values. Originally set forth at Helsinki in 1975, these standards have been strengthened and reaffirmed by the Copenhagen, Geneva, and Moscow CSCE documents and by the 1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe, through which members added to existing CSCE principles new and sweeping commitments to political pluralism and the rule of law. The Charter of Paris also established new CSCE institutions, such as the Conflict Prevention Center in Vienna, to strengthen the ability of the Conference to promote the peaceful resolution of disputes and the development of stable, democratic governments. During the past two years, the Conference has evolved further to assist in the task of managing the dramatic changes that have been brought about in the CSCE community by the collapse of communism and the end of the Cold War. In addition to expanding its activities and institutions, as well as its mechanisms for fostering international dialogue and cooperation, the CSCE has welcomed new members from among the emerging states of Central and Eastern Europe and the 12 states that replaced the Soviet Union. We welcome these new CSCE participants and the commitment to human rights that their membership signifies. While great advances have been made overall in promoting human rights, especially since the democratic revolutions that swept Europe in 1989, today some states are making only minimal progress while others are sliding backward into the mire of ethnic conflicts. Thus, this year's Helsinki Summit emphasized that political stability and lasting freedom can be based only on genuine respect for human rights, which forms the basis of the CSCE concept of international security and cooperation. At Helsinki, participating states broke new ground in enhancing the CSCE's ability to promote human rights, to manage change, and to prevent conflicts. In addition to establishing the office of a CSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, which will assist in the investigation and prevention of conflicts arising from ethnic or minority tensions, the 1992 Helsinki document provides for an expanded Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights in Warsaw. To promote the nonviolent resolution of disputes, the document also envisages formal peacekeeping operations in support of political solutions, either by CSCE countries directly or with the support of other international organizations such as NATO and the Western European Union (WEU). Today the Euro-Atlantic community continues to be challenged by the legacy of the Cold War. The peoples of Europe's emerging states face many difficulties as they strive to overcome deeply rooted political and economic problems imposed by decades of Soviet repression and communist rule. Yet, during this period of great change, the principles set forth in the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and reaffirmed at follow-on meetings at the CSCE continue to offer a steady guide to peaceful, cooperative relations among states and to the just and democratic conduct of governments. In recognition of the contributions of the CSCE toward the expansion of human rights and toward the development of a strong Euro-Atlantic partnership for freedom, the Congress, by Senate Joint Resolution 310, has designated August 1, 1992, as "Helsinki Human Rights Day" and has requested the President to issue a proclamation in observance of this day. Now, Therefore, I, George Bush, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim August 1, 1992, as Helsinki Human Rights Day and reaffirm the United States commitment to upholding human dignity and freedom-principles that are enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act. As we Americans observe this day with appropriate programs and activities, let us remember all those courageous individuals and groups of individuals who have made tremendous sacrifices to secure the freedoms that we enjoy. The God-given and inalienable rights affirmed in our Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by our Constitution are rights that many people in the world still struggle to obtain. Building on the foundation that was laid at Helsinki 17 years ago and that was fortified there last month, let us recommit ourselves to making peace and liberty the common heritage of all. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-eighth day of July, 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 seventeenth. George Bush (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 32, August 10, 1992 Title:

1992 Feature: US International Telecommunications Policy

PA Source: Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public Affairs Date: Aug, 10 19928/10/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Whole World Country: United States Subject: Media/Telecommunications [TEXT] Just as mail delivery and telegraph service did before them, modern communications and information technologies, such as computer networks and communications satellites, have revolutionized the way nations interact and do business. Now, telecommuni-cations have become vital to most nations' political, economic, and national security interests as technology has advanced. At his December 1989 swearing-in ceremony, Bradley P. Holmes, US Coordinator and Director for International Communications and Information Policy stated: "(Americans) generally fail to appreciate how our broadcasting and telecommunications infrastructures help guarantee our political rights and open social and economic opportunities. It takes the striking events in Eastern Europe to bring home to us the impact these technologies can have on closed or struggling societies.....(T)he potential benefits of improved communication systems hold even greater promise for the developing world. ....Inexpensive and reliable equipment is the key." The United States encourages governments to include telecommunications infrastructure projects in their national plans and seek financial support from appropriate multilateral and bilateral sources. The United States also continues to impress upon governments the benefits of competition that accompany liberalization of regulatory policies and show them how opening their markets to newcomers provides new sources of capital and technical advice while speeding the overall development process. In his address before the France-Amerique Association in February 1990, Ambassador Holmes pointed out: "These technologies (personal computers, communications satellites, fax machines, copying machines, videocassettes, fiber optic cables, and mobile radio) should be basic tools for consolidating . . . budding democracies. . . . Much has been written about the need for new equipment for their long- neglected telecommunications infrastructures. Little attention has focused on the regulatory environment in which the rebuilding must be completed. Already in the United States, more than two-thirds of the work force holds information-related jobs, and telecommunications equipment and services are the third-largest US export. Since the breakup of AT∧T in 1984, many new companies have begun competing vigorously in domestic telecommunications. Abroad, US companies have started to vie with foreign firms and with formerly government-run mail, telegraph, and telephone monopolies."
State Department Role
Recognizing the growing importance of communications and information issues in US foreign policy, Congress in 1982 mandated a State Department Office of International Communications and Information Policy (CIP), which was elevated to bureau status in 1985. Two principles underlie US international communications and information policies: -- Free enterprise in open, competitive markets is the most efficient, productive means to foster innovation; and -- The free flow of information among nations strengthens democracy and political liberty. The Director of CIP has principal responsibility for: -- Identifying key international communications and information issues; -- Incorporating foreign policy considerations into US positions on these issues; -- Coordinating US policy positions; and -- Promoting these positions internationally. CIP promotes US policy through bilateral negotiations and multilateral programs. The bureau provides guidance to US representatives to international organizations, such as the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT); International Maritime Satellite Organization (INMARSAT); Information, Computers, and Communications Policy Committee (ICCP) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD); and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a UN specialized agency. CIP also coordinates participation in regional communications organizations such as the Inter-American Telecommunications Conference (CITEL) and the North Atlantic Consultative Process, a multilateral group that plans transatlantic cable facilities.
Other Policy Participants
Although the State Department generally has the lead role for international communications and information policy, several other US departments and agencies are key to the policy formulation process. These agencies coordinate informally and through meetings of the Senior Interagency Group on International Communications and Information Policy. The group, co- chaired by the Departments of State and Commerce, reviews telecommunications policy issues and makes recommendations to the President. More than 14 major US Government agencies are members of the group. Among the participants is the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)-the principal executive branch adviser on domestic telecommunications issues that also has important international policy responsibilities. In conjunction with NTIA, the Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration works with US telecommunications firms to enhance the competitive position of American industry through trade missions, profiles of other countries' telecommunications systems, and market studies. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), an independent regulatory agency, also is an active participant in the interagency process. The State Department and the FCC jointly administer the Cable Landing Act and participate in the North Atlantic Consultative Process. The Department of Defense, the world's single largest user of commercial communications, is an important participant on policy matters affecting national security. The US Information Agency takes an active role, particularly on public diplomacy and broadcast questions. As a result of growing telecommunications trade deficits, the US Trade Representative's Office has become more involved in developing policies to gain greater access by US telecommunications providers and users in foreign markets. In contrast to the strong role government-run monopolies have played in most other countries, private industry has played the key role in developing the US telecommunications networks. In formulating policy, the State Department and other US Government agencies seek industry advice through advisory groups, FCC notices of inquiry, and participation on international conference delegations. US industry, for instance, provides input through the national advisory committees for the two ITU standards-setting bodies, and a private sector leader is usually chosen as head of the US delegation to international telecommunications conferences. Industry participation also is a key element in the instructional process for INTELSAT and INMARSAT.
Satellite Communication
US international commercial satellite policy is based on expanding international competition in this high- technology field and a continuing US commitment to the pioneer intergovernmental organizations INTELSAT and INMARSAT. Major satellite issues addressed by the State Department's CIP include: -- Management of US affairs in INTELSAT and INMARSAT; -- The intense competitive rivalry that the increasing number and value of satellites and launchers (at more than $100 million each) bring to the world economic picture; -- The reluctance by some countries to accept US satellite competitors in their markets; and -- The coordination required to assure interference-free operation of systems around the world. INTELSAT provides global satellite services for such transmissions as telephone calls, business data, and television programs. INMARSAT provides satellite services for the transmission of telephone calls, data, and other communications to mobile terminals on ships, aircraft, and land vehicles. INMARSAT earth terminals are being used more often at fixed, terrestrial locations where local phone service is unavailable. The United States called for the founding of INTELSAT in 1962 as a means of sharing the benefits of US telecommunications satellite technology with the world. The first INTELSAT satellite was launched in 1965. Today, INTELSAT has 124 member countries and operates 19 satellites providing service to approximately 180 countries. Seven replacement satellites are under construction. INTELSAT has proven to be a major US foreign policy success in bringing vital communications to isolated areas of the world, providing instant access to global news events, and promoting international goodwill. INMARSAT came into existence in 1979 using capacity on satellites leased from the United States and, later, from INTELSAT and the European Space Agency. INMARSAT has completed the launch of its four second-generation satellites and has contracted for the construction of a third generation of satellites. INMARSAT has 65 members. Since 1979, when INMARSAT's primary function was to serve ships at sea, the organization has expanded its capabilities and mandate to become the major provider of satellite communications for aircraft and land vehicles. The INTELSAT and INMARSAT agreements allow member countries to designate a telecommunications authority-which may be distinct from the member-country government-to undertake the commercial/operational responsibilities of the organizations on behalf of the country. These commercial agents of INTELSAT and/or INMARSAT, referred to as signatories, are the conduits for sale and lease of satellite time and provide the capital needed by the organizations to buy satellites and other equipment. In the United States, the Communications Satellite Corporation (Comsat), a shareholder company, has been chartered by the US Congress to act as signatory to INTELSAT and INMARSAT. The State Department has a statutory responsibility to provide guidance to Comsat on matters affecting "the national interest and foreign policy of the United States." Revenues for operating the satellite systems come from charges to users of the systems (e.g., TV networks, other businesses, and telephone callers). No US tax dollars are used. Both INTELSAT and INMARSAT are fully developed, commercially strong operations. Since 1984, the United States has promoted a policy of competition in the provision of satellite services to satisfy emerging demands for new kinds of services and alternative marketing arrangements. The first US competitor, Pan American Satellite, launched its satellite in 1988. In 1992, another company, Columbia Communications, began providing service using spare capacity aboard two NASA-owned satellites. These and other companies have additional satellites planned or under construction. Many companies are developing projects to compete in the international "mobile satellite" (e.g., satellite communications for vehicles) market that is now served almost exclusively by INMARSAT. Commercial and technological developments in this area promise to bring hand-held satellite telephones-capable of making calls anywhere in the world-by the turn of the century. The satellite service providers are facing rapidly growing competition from fiber-optic undersea cables first laid in the late 1980s. These cables have the capacity to provide the same kinds of services that satellites provide and at a lower cost over high-traffic routes. In the years ahead, cable will be used more and more for basic telephone communications. However, cables lack the flexibility of satellites in distribution of TV programming to multiple points or collection of news or business data from multiple locations or isolated areas. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 32, August 10, 1992 Title:

Treaty Actions: Multilateral and Bilateral

PA Source: Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public Affairs Date: Aug, 10 19928/10/92 Category: Treaties/Agreements Region: Subsaharan Africa, Caribbean, MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia, E/C Europe Country: Belarus, China, Cote d'Ivoire, Germany, Greece, South Korea, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe, Oman, Romania, Tajikistan, Georgia, Lithuania, Yemen Subject: International Law, Media/Telecommunications, Immigration [TEXT]
Multilateral
Consular Relations
Convention on consular relations. Done at Vienna Apr. 24, 1963. Entered into force Mar. 19, 1967; for the US Dec. 24, 1969. TIAS 6820; 21 UST 77. Succession deposited: Slovenia, July 6, 1992.
Diplomatic Relations
Convention on diplomatic relations. Done at Vienna Apr. 18, 1961. Entered into force Apr. 24, 1964; for the US Dec. 13, 1972. TIAS 7502; 23 UST 3227. Optional protocol to the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations concerning the compulsory settlement of disputes. Done at Vienna Apr. 18, 1961. Entered into force Apr. 24, 1964; for the US Dec. 13, 1972. TIAS 7502; 23 UST 3374. Succession deposited: Slovenia, July 6, 1992.
Health
Constitution on the World Health Organization. Done at New York July 22, 1946. Entered into force Apr. 7, 1948; for the US June 21, 1948. TIAS 1808. Amendment of Articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the World Health Organization. Done at Geneva May 23, 1967. Entered into force May 21, 1975. TIAS 8086; 26 UST 990. Amendments to Articles 34 and 55 of the Constitution of the World Health Organization. Done at Geneva May 22, 1973. Entered into force Feb. 3, 1977. TIAS 8534; 28 UST 2088. Amendments to Articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the World Health Organization. Done at Geneva May 17, 1976. Entered into force Jan. 20, 1984. TIAS 10930. Acceptance deposited: Uzbekistan, May 22, 1992.
Judicial Procedure
Additional protocol to the Inter-American convention on letters rogatory, with annex. Done at Montevideo May 8, 1979. Entered into force June 14, 1980; for the US Aug. 27, 1988. Ratification deposited: Panama, Aug. 28, 19911; Venezuela, Oct. 16, 1991.
Labor
Instrument for the amendment of the constitution of the International Labor Organization. Done at Montreal Oct. 9, 1946. Entered into force Apr. 20, 1948; reentered into force for the US Feb. 18, 1980. TIAS 1868. Acceptances deposited: Azer-baijan, May 19, 1992; Moldova, June 8, 1992; Slovenia, May 29, 1992; Vietnam, May 20, 1992.2
Property, Intellectual
Treaty on the international registration of audiovisual works, with regulations. Done at Geneva Apr. 20, 1989. Entered into force Feb. 27, 1991.3 Accession deposited: Argentina, Apr. 29, 1992.
UNESCO
Agreement on the importation of educational, scientific and cultural materials, with protocol. Done at Lake Success Nov. 22, 1950. Entered into force May 21, 1952; for the US Nov. 2, 1966. TIAS 6129; 17 UST 1835. Protocol to the agreement on the importation of educational, scientific and cultural materials of Nov. 22, 1950. Done at Nairobi Nov. 26, 1976. Entered into force Jan. 2, 1982; for the US Nov. 15, 1989. Succession deposited: Slovenia, July 6, 1992.
United Nations
Convention on the privileges and immunities of the United Nations. Done at New York Feb. 13, 1946. Entered into force Sept. 17, 1946; for the US Apr. 29, 1970. TIAS 6900; 21 UST 1418. Succession deposited: Slovenia, July 6, 1992.
Bilateral
Belarus
Investment incentive agreement. Signed at Minsk June 24, 1992. Entered into force June 24, 1992.
China
Postal money order agreement. Signed at Washington and Beijing June 19 and 27, 1992. Entered into force July 1, 1992.
Cote d'Ivoire
Agreement regarding the consolidation and rescheduling or refinancing of certain debts owed to, guaranteed by, or insured by the US Government and its agencies, with annexes. Entered into force July 20, 1992.
Djibouti
Agreement regarding grants under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and the furnishing of defense articles, related training and other defense services from the United States to Djibouti. Effected by exchange of notes at Djibouti June 3 and 13, 1992. Entered into force June 13, 1992.
Georgia
Investment incentive agreement. Signed at Tbilisi June 27, 1992. Entered into force June 27, 1992.
Germany
Memorandum of agreement concerning a joint enhanced maneuverable fighter aircraft research, development and flight test program, with annexes. Signed at Arlington and Bonn Mar. 25 and June 11, 1992. Entered into force June 11, 1992.
Greece
Memorandum of understanding concerning the joint use of Hellenic Air Force bases by United States Air Force operational units, with annex. Signed at Athens and Ramstein AB May 6 and June 8, 1992. Entered into force June 8, 1992.
Korea
Memorandum of understanding for the coassembly and coproduction of M9 armored combat earthmover (ACE). Signed at Washington and Seoul Apr. 23 and May 30, 1992. Entered into force May 30, 1992.
Lithuania
Agreement concerning the provision of training related to defense articles under the United States International Military Education and Training (IMET) Program. Effected by exchange of notes at Vilnius Mar. 31 and June 10, 1992. Entered into force June 10, 1992.
Mauritania
International express mail agreement, with detailed regulations. Signed at Nouakchott and Washington June 28 and July 17, 1992. Enters into force Sept. 21, 1992.
Nicaragua
Agreement regarding the consolidation and rescheduling or refinancing of certain debts owed to, guaranteed by, or insured by the US Government and its agencies, with annexes. Entered into force July 20, 1992.
Oman
Agreement regarding grants under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and the furnishing of defense articles, related training and other defense services from the United States to Oman. Effected by exchange of notes at Muscat May 5 and June 1, 1992. Entered into force June 1, 1992.
Romania
Investment incentive agreement. Signed at Bucharest June 30, 1992. Enters into force upon an exchange of notes in which the Parties notify each other that all necessary legal requirements have been fulfilled.
Tajikistan
Investment incentive agreement. Signed at Dushanbe June 25, 1992. Entered into force June 25, 1992.
Yemen
International express mail agreement, with detailed regulations. Signed at Sanaa and Washington June 17 and July 23, 1992. Enters into force Sept. 21, 1992.
Zimbabwe
Agreement relating to the employment of dependents of official government employees. Effected by exchange of notes at Harare Feb. 7, 1991 and Mar. 7, 1992. Entered into force Mar. 7, 1992. 1 With designation. 2 Vietnam resumed membership effective May 20, 1992. 3 Not in force for the US. (###)