US Department of State 

Dispatch, Vol 3, No 48, November 30, 1992

Title:

US-EC Agree on Agricultural Package

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Statement by President Bush, released by the White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Washington, DC Date: Nov, 20 199211/20/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Europe Subject: Trade/Economics, EC [TEXT] I want to salute [Agriculture] Secretary Madigan and [US Trade Representative] Ambassador Carla Hills, and my announcement relates to their work. I am exceptionally pleased to announce that the United States and the European Community's Commission have reached unanimous agreement on an agricultural package that should enable us to press forward the global trade negotiations to a successful conclusion. These global trade negotiations, the so-called Uruguay Round under the GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade], are fundamental to spurring economic growth, creating jobs here at home and, indeed, all around the world. I am hopeful that the breakthrough that we achieved today will spur movement across the board in the ongoing negotiations among all the GATT parties in Geneva, so that we can achieve this comprehensive, global, and balanced agreement that we've sought for so long. In addition, by agreeing to solutions to our differences on oil seeds and other agricultural disputes, we've avoided a possible trade war, and that is very, very important. I am particularly pleased that Ambassador Hills and Secretary Madigan are here with us today, because they've done extraordinary work to achieve this historic result. I salute their teammates who are with us here today as well, and also because they will remain with you to answer your questions. Some of this is very, very technical. And they know how proud I am of their work. I've seen them in action both here and abroad hammering out this agreement. It's taken a long time, but it was sound. It's been a long and difficult course to the result that we've achieved today. I recall these extensive and frequently vigorous--I've chosen the word carefully--discussions on agriculture and other trade issues at the economic summit that we hosted in Houston in 1990 and at each of the summits that followed. But I am now absolutely convinced that the work was well worth it. I talked to [UK] Prime Minister John Major this morning; [and] had an opportunity to thank him for his key role as the current President of the EC. The next step, then, will be for the United States and the EC and all the other parties in the Uruguay Round to return to the negotiating table in Geneva prepared to show the flexibility necessary to bring these negotiations to a successful close. So, once again, I salute our partners in all of this, and I certainly salute our extraordinarily effective team that has been able to bring this about.
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 48, November 30, 1992 Title:

US-EC Agree on Agricultural Package

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Joint press statement of the Commission of the European Communities and the United States of AmericaStatement by President Bush, released by the White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Washington, DC Date: Nov, 20 199211/20/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Europe Subject: Trade/Economics, EC [TEXT] The United States and the Commission of the European Communities intend to pursue a successful conclusion to the Uruguay Round. As a result of our discussions, we believe that we have achieved the progress necessary to assure agreement on the major elements blocking progress in Geneva, notably in agriculture, services, and market access. A successful outcome will be a positive factor for the trade and economic growth of the economies of the world. Our negotiators are returning to Geneva to work together to build the comprehensive, global and balanced package we both seek from these negotiations. We intend to work with GATT Director General Arthur Dunkel in finalizing agreements in all areas outlined in the draft "Final Act," which he produced last December and in completing the access negotiations which we all agree are an integral part of the overall Uruguay Round result. In agriculture we have resolved our differences on the main elements concerning domestic support, export subsidies, and market access in a manner that should enable the Director General to move the negotiations to a successful conclusion. We shall inform Director General Dunkel of our progress and work with him to secure broad agreement in Geneva. For our part, we have instructed our negotiators to complete the detailed negotiations on our respective country schedules as rapidly as possible. We are in full accord that an effective agreement on agricultural reform requires the participation of all countries in the negotiations. The United States and the EC Commission agreed how to resolve the oilseeds dispute. On market access, the United States and EC Commission have found the basis to achieve an ambitious result that meets their respective objectives as follows: detailed negotiations will continue on specific sectors or products in order to make progress towards the completion of a substantial and balanced package. Tariff reductions will be maximized, with as few exceptions as possible, including the substantial reduction of high tariffs, the harmonization of tariffs at very low levels, and the elimination of tariffs in key sectors. The prospect exists that the Montreal target could be substantially exceeded. However, participation of third countries--not only the developing countries, but other industrialized countries--and elimination of non-tariff distortions are considered to be of essential importance, and both parties will continue efforts to achieve maximum results in this regard in Geneva during the coming weeks. In addition, in the area of government procurement, substantial progress has been made with respect to the expansion of coverage. US and EC negotiators are instructed to complete the details of the expansion of coverage and improvements of the Code. In services, we are in strong agreement that the market access offers must form an integral part of the ambitious result we seek. We have now agreed to take a common approach on financial services. In addition, we discussed improvements in our respective offers, and have agreed to seek maximum liberalization and minimum exemptions, with the expectation that other participants in the negotiations will similarly improve their offers. We have full expectations that the breakthrough we have achieved will unblock the negotiations and provide new impetus necessary to complete the Round. We encourage our trading partners to return to the negotiating table in Geneva, prepared to show the necessary flexibility to bring these negotiations to a close. Earlier this year at the Munich Economic Summit, G-7 [Group of Seven] leaders called for conclusion of the Uruguay Round by the end of the year. Time is short, but negotiators are returning to Geneva confident that substantial progress can be achieved to meet the intent of the G-7 leaders' commitment, provided other countries are prepared to work with us to secure an ambitious and far reaching result to these important talks. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 48, November 30, 1992 Title:

Status Report on the Middle East Peace Process

Djerejian Source: Edward Djerejian, Assistant Secretary for Near East Affairs and Acting Assistant Secretary for South Asian Affairs Description: Opening statement at a news conference, Washington, DC Date: Nov, 19 199211/19/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: MidEast/North Africa Country: Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria Subject: Mideast Peace Process [TEXT] Good afternoon. I would like to start with some remarks on the latest round of negotiations, and I'd be pleased to take your questions after that. Unfortunately, this round was marked by external events that affected the negotiations. There was, regrettably, an upsurge in violence in the region, especially in south Lebanon. The United States and others expended significant efforts to bring about an end [to] or reduction of the violence and to prevent escalation. We worked very hard to ensure that the peace negotiations continued during this difficult period. As we have often stated, we deplore this violence and want to see an end to the suffering and hardship that it causes. We do not want the opponents of peace to benefit from their efforts to harm this process, and we succeeded. The Madrid process of negotiations, again, proved its durability with the parties continuing to engage at the negotiating table despite the challenges on the ground. The negotiations themselves produced no headline-grabbing breakthroughs this round. However, two points need to be made as this round ends: All the parties have told us they remain seriously committed to pursuing these negotiations with the objective of reaching a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace settlement on the basis of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. All the parties are focused on the substantive issues--issues relating to the core concerns of land, peace, and security. The real challenge for the parties now is to develop approaches that will enable each of them to begin meeting one another's requirements on their basic concerns. Much hard work remains on the road ahead. -- On the Israeli-Palestinian track, both sides are clearly frustrated by the slow pace of negotiations, but they continue to engage at several levels--in plenary and in informal discussion groups--to try to elaborate the complex issues associated with Palestinian interim self-government arrangements. In informal groups, the sides explored the concept of interim self- government arrangements, including the size, the structure, and jurisdictional issues. They discussed control and authority over land, and they engaged on economic issues and on human rights. -- In the Syrian-Israeli negotiations, the parties continued their effort to reach an agreed statement of principles. They continued to focus on the core issues of land, peace, and security. This remains a difficult and ambitious undertaking but one which is central to moving forward to an eventual agreement between the two sides. More work is needed to come to an agreement. Despite the difficulties, both sides have demonstrated a real commitment to sustain this effort. We hope both will keep at it and build on the progress that has been achieved to date. -- On the Lebanese-Israeli track, the most significant achievement of this round was that the two sides persevered in the face of the violence in the region. They did not allow the opponents of peace to get the upper hand. We praise both sides for their demonstrated commitment to peace, despite very difficult circumstances. Continuity and sustained engagement have been the keys to working through very trying circumstances. As the situation on the ground calmed toward the end of the round, the parties were able to refocus on the effort to reach agreement on a formula for military expert talks within the overall framework of the negotiations. This is clearly a vital issue for both sides. Further progress will allow the Israelis and Lebanese to explore each other's security needs and concerns, which should be the focus of the next round. -- In the Jordanian-Israeli negotiations: As I noted in my last press briefing, the parties achieved substantial agreement on the direction and principles concerning the negotiation. An agenda outlining these principles was agreed ad referendum. The exact language of the agenda has not yet been finalized, but we think it is important to bring this issue to closure. In the meantime, the sides engaged in in-depth work on key issues. Informal groups focused on water, energy, economic issues, and the environment. Now, taking a look ahead. The co-sponsors of these talks--the United States and Russia--remain firmly committed to the Madrid process and its goal of a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. We continue to work quietly and intensively with the parties. We have no illusions about the magnitude of the task at hand; but the parties should have no doubt about our commitment. The United States is in this for the long run, and we'll work as long and as hard as needed to see these talks succeed. Further, we have made it clear to all the negotiating parties that they should not be distracted by our transition. The best thing they can do, in fact, is to maintain a strong commitment to these negotiations with a view toward obtaining positive results during this period. Both President Bush and President-elect Clinton have made clear the high priority we give to the Arab-Israeli peace process. In sum, it is important to maintain the momentum of the negotiations and explore all possible ways forward. To this end, the co-sponsors have invited the parties to return to Washington for an eighth round of bilateral talks to start on December 7. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 48, November 30, 1992 Title:

US Reaffirms Its Policy Toward Liberia

Robinson Source: Leonard H. Robinson, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Description: Statement before the Subcommittee on Africa of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Date: Nov, 19 199211/19/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Subsaharan Africa Country: Liberia, Burkina Faso Subject: Mideast Peace Process, United Nations [TEXT] As you know, Assistant Secretary [for African Affairs, Herman J.] Cohen returns from Africa tomorrow. In his absence, I am pleased to have this opportunity to review recent events in Liberia. I want to start with a clear articulation of US objectives in Liberia: -- A negotiated settlement under the leadership of ECOWAS [Economic Community of West African States]; -- Full disarmament of all Liberian warring factions; -- The return home of nearly 1 million displaced Liberians; -- Free and fair internationally monitored elections; [and] -- The establishment of a unified government based on respect for human rights, democratic principles, and economic accountability. I am saddened to report that conflict has again broken out and continues today in that tragic country. The cease-fire brokered by ECOWAS--which had held successfully for 21 months--began to break down in August of this year, as the United Liberation Movement (ULIMO) pushed forces of Charles Taylor's National Patriotic Front (NPFL) out of two southwestern counties. On October 15, the cease-fire was shattered when the NPFL launched premeditated, surprise attacks on the West African peace-keeping force, known as ECOMOG, which is protecting Monrovia. Fighting continues on the outskirts of Monrovia as ECOMOG re-establishes its defensive perimeter around the city, while the NPFL continues to resist ECOWAS calls for encampment and disarmament of the Liberian warring factions. Good faith and extensive efforts to resolve the conflict peacefully have foundered against the NPFL's refusal to implement the agreements that Charles Taylor signed in Yamous-soukro [Cote d'Ivoire] and Geneva. I will not dwell on the climate of violence which led to the unfortunate deaths of thousands of Liberians, the destruction of almost all US facilities in Liberia, and the outflow of half a million refugees who still do not feel they can return to Liberia. Weapons remain plentiful throughout the country, and many Liberians live in fear. In some areas, the NPFL has become essentially an internal army of occupation, sustaining an environment of brutality and coercion and prolonging the misery of the Liberian people. The revolution against Samuel Doe, supported by most Liberians, has become bogged down in a bitter struggle for personal power while the interests of the nation suffer. None of the Liberian warring factions is blameless for the resumption of hostilities. Elements of every warring faction demonstrated a willingness to resume hostilities in the buildup to the current crisis. No factor contributed to that climate as much as the intransigence of the National Patriotic Front. As the undisputed leader of the NPFL--which controls some 90% of Liberian territory--Charles Taylor bears primary responsibility for the implementation of the peace plan. Only he can determine whether to create the conditions for free and fair elections throughout the country; he has chosen, instead, to seize on a variety of excuses not to. Charles Taylor and his allies in Burkina Faso have essentially repudiated the ECOWAS leaders who devised the Yamoussoukro IV agreement calling for encampment and disarmament of combatants followed by free and fair elections. The United States and ECOWAS remain open to cooperation with the NPFL, and we recognize that Taylor has legitimate security concerns. But Charles Taylor must find a way to work with ECOWAS and discontinue his verbal and military attacks on the regional organization. Continued resistance to disarmament portends continued conflict. The record of Charles Taylor and his undisciplined and unpaid troops in recent months includes: -- Repudiation of the April 7 Geneva accord within hours after he signed it; -- The execution of six captured Senegalese ECOMOG soldiers and the humiliation of 625 ECOMOG troops sent upcountry to supervise encampment and disarmament; -- The murder of five American nuns and harassment of other non- combatants, relief workers and ex-patriates; and -- The conscription of boys as young as 10 years old, at least some of whom are reportedly drugged before being sent to battle. I want to pay a special tribute to the five gallant nuns of the Precious Blood Order, who made such a tragic sacrifice in a country whose people they had devoted their lives to serving--in full knowledge of the dangers to which they were exposing themselves. In the weeks preceding the October 15 attack, Taylor imported tons of new weapons, then motivated his young troops to storm the city with promises of unlimited looting once they took Monrovia. At the same time, the NPFL lobbed dozens of shells into the crowded city, causing many civilian casualties. After suffering some initial setbacks, the ECOMOG forces repulsed the NPFL and are re-establishing security for Monrovia. ECOMOG attempts to strike at NPFL lines of supply upcountry have also resulted in some civilian casualties. We have expressed our concern, and ECOMOG has assured us that such collateral damage is unintentional. The declared purpose of the peace-keeping forces is, first of all, to defend themselves and disrupt the NPFL's ability to attack Monrovia and, second, to convince Charles Taylor that military victory is not possible; he must return to a negotiated settlement, disarm his troops, and give the Liberian people the chance to select their own leaders through free and fair elections. Much of the progress of the past year in reaching a political settlement has been undone, but we must not lose sight of what ECOWAS accomplished through intervention and negotiation. The dispatch of a six-nation West African peace-keeping force in August 1990 demonstrated unprecedented African determination to take the lead in regional conflict resolution. ECOMOG ended the killing, separated the warring factions, allowed relief assistance to flow to avert starvation, and established a cease-fire and framework for peaceful negotiations. In a country where anarchy reigned, ECOMOG provided order and a bastion of security in Monrovia, and hundreds of thousands of Liberians flocked to the relative safety of the city. ECOMOG troops won the support of the populace and acted with restraint and professionalism during the 21-month cease-fire. ECOMOG remains virtually the only force in Liberia unblemished by serious human rights abuses and is the one military force not motivated by personal aggrandizement. Clearly, the ECOMOG troops would like to return to their home countries; but ECOMOG remains critical to peace, free elections, and regional stability. Although the dispatch of peace-keeping forces to Liberia was a decision taken by the ECOWAS governments on their own initiative, we have supported this effort from its inception. In addition to more than $200 million in humanitarian assistance to victims of the Liberian conflict, we have provided a total of $8.6 million in assistance to ECOWAS directly and $18.75 million in FMF [Foreign Military Financing] and Department of Defense drawdown authority to ECOWAS member states to support ECOMOG. Their effort has been endorsed by the organization of African states and the United Nations, but ECOWAS countries have borne the vast majority of the expense of fielding the peace-keeping force in Liberia. It is imperative that this effort succeed. A precipitous ECOMOG withdrawal from Liberia would lead to resumption of warfare and probable humanitarian catastrophe. A bloody takeover by force would deal a setback to democratic aspirations throughout Africa and lead to the conclusion that might makes right. Dissidents throughout the region--many of whom maintain connections to Charles Taylor--would be encouraged to take their battle into the street rather than work through the political process. If the ECOWAS effort fails in Liberia, the organization is unlikely to venture into the difficult realm of peace-keeping and conflict resolution in the future, and pressure will build rapidly for direct US or UN intervention. We have made clear to ECOWAS states that we do not believe a military solution is possible in Liberia. ECOMOG has a responsibility to defend Monrovia and respond when it is attacked, but fundamental problems such as the proliferation of arms, ethnic hatred, human rights abuses, and refugees will not be resolved through force of arms. Ultimately, Liberians must learn to get along with each other and with their neighbors in the subregion. Aggression must not be rewarded, and no one who comes to power in Liberia through force or fraud can expect normal relations with the United States. In addition to material support for ECOWAS and humanitarian support for Liberians, the Administration has stood ready to help support demobilization of all Liberian factions and help ensure that proposed elections are genuinely free and fair. To assure real progress, however, comprehensive disarmament is necessary. Our experience in Angola, Cambodia, and elsewhere amply demonstrates that peace without disarmament is tenuous at best. This is especially true in Liberia, where proliferation of guns is accompanied by indiscipline, drugs, and widespread human rights abuses. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to leave no doubt about US policy in Liberia. We support ECOWAS. As the principal regional body, ECOWAS has the mandate and the interest to take the lead in reaching a peaceful solution. We want to see ECOWAS develop as a mechanism for conflict resolution in the region. ECOWAS has established a record of restraint and professionalism sorely needed in Liberia. Its peace-keeping effort is endorsed by the OAU [Organization of African Unity] and the United Nations and offers the only cost-effective alternative to the overstretched UN peace-keeping option. As demonstrated by our continuing support of the ECOWAS mediation process and our ongoing humanitarian assistance, we continue to meet our obligations to the Liberian people, while recognizing that the historical relationship between our countries has changed irrevocably. Only the United States remained in Liberia when all other embassies shut down during the war. Our assistance to the peace process and the Liberian people is greater than that of all other donor countries combined. Our desire to see peace restored is unconstrained by strategic necessities or a desire to rebuild expensive facilities. We have repeatedly said we will work with the winner of a free and fair election, whoever that may be. But our policy of evenhandedness must not obscure the facts. NPFL aggression sparked the current tragic round of fighting. All of the warring factions must realize that aggression will not succeed and [that] only disarmament will end the nightmare for the Liberian people. With the support of the Liberian people, the United States, the OAU, ECOWAS, and the United Nations, good-faith negotiations by all the parties will not fail. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 48, November 30, 1992 Title:

UN Security Council Resolution 788 on Liberia

UN Source: UN Security Council, United Nations Description: Resolution 788, New York City Date: Nov, 19 199211/19/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: MidEast/North Africa Country: Liberia Subject: Mideast Peace Process, United Nations [TEXT] Resolution 788 (November 19, 1992) The Security Council, Recalling the statements by the President of the Council on its behalf on 22 January 1991 (S/22133) and 7 May 1992 (S/23886) on the situation in Liberia, Reaffirming its belief that the Yamoussoukro IV Accord of 30 October 1991 (S/24811) offers the best possible framework for a peaceful resolution of the Liberian conflict by creating the necessary conditions for free and fair elections in Liberia, Taking into account the decision of the Joint Meeting of the Standing Mediation Committee and the Committee of Five of 20 October 1992 held at Cotonou, Benin (S/24735) and the Final Communique of the First Meeting of the Monitoring Committee of Nine on the Liberian conflict issued at Abuja, Nigeria on 7 November 1992 (S/24812, annex), Regretting that parties to the conflict in Liberia have not respected or implemented the various accords to date, especially the Yamoussoukro IV Accord (S/24811), Determining that the deterioration of the situation in Liberia constitutes a threat to international peace and security, particularly in West Africa as a whole, Recalling the provisions of Chap-ter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, Noting that the deterioration of the situation hinders the creation of conditions conducive to the holding of free and fair elections in accordance with the Yamoussoukro IV Accord, Welcoming the continued commitment of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to and the efforts towards a peaceful resolution of the Liberian conflict, Further welcoming the endorsement and support by the Organization of African Unity of these efforts, Noting the request of 29 July 1992 from ECOWAS for the United Nations to dispatch an observer group to Liberia to verify and monitor the electoral process, Taking note of the invitation of ECOWAS of 20 October 1992, in Cotonou, Benin, for the Secretary-General to consider, if necessary, the dispatch of a group to observe the encampment and disarmament of the warring parties, Recognizing the need for increased humanitarian assistance, Taking into account the request made by the Permanent Representative of Benin on behalf of ECOWAS (S/24735), Taking also into account the letter of the Foreign Minister of Liberia endorsing the request made by the Permanent Representative of Benin on behalf of ECOWAS (S/24825), Convinced that it is vital to find a peaceful, just and lasting solution to the conflict in Liberia, 1. Commends ECOWAS for its efforts to restore peace, security and stability in Liberia; 2. Reaffirms its belief that the Yamoussoukro IV Accord offers the best possible framework for a peaceful resolution of the Liberian conflict by creating the necessary conditions for free and fair elections in Liberia, and calls upon ECOWAS to continue its efforts to assist in the peaceful implementation of this Accord; 3. Condemns the violation of the cease-fire of 28 November 1990 by any party to the conflict; 4. Condemns the continuing armed attacks against the peace-keeping forces of ECOWAS in Liberia by one of the parties to the conflict; 5. Calls upon all parties to the conflict and all others concerned to respect strictly the provisions of international humanitarian law; 6. Calls upon all parties to the conflict to respect and implement the cease-fire and the various accords of the peace process, including the Yamoussoukro IV Accord of 30 October 1991, and the Final Communique of the Informal Consultative Group Meeting of ECOWAS Committee of Five on Liberia, issued at Geneva on 7 April 1992, to which they themselves have agreed; 7. Requests the Secretary-General to dispatch urgently a Special Representative to Liberia to evaluate the situation, and to report to the Security Council as soon as possible with any recommendations he may wish to make; 8. Decides, under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, that all States shall, for the purposes of establishing peace and stability in Liberia, immediately implement a general and complete embargo on all deliveries of weapons and military equipment to Liberia until the Security Council decides otherwise; 9. Decides within the same framework that the embargo imposed by paragraph 8 shall not apply to weapons and military equipment destined for the sole use of the peace-keeping forces of ECOWAS in Liberia, subject to any review that may be required in conformity with the report of the Secretary-General; 10. Requests all States to respect the measures established by ECOWAS to bring about a peaceful solution to the conflict in Liberia; 11. Calls on Member States to exercise self-restraint in their relations with all parties to the Liberian conflict and to refrain from taking any action that would be inimical to the peace process; 12. Commends the efforts of Member States, the United Nations system and humanitarian organizations in providing humanitarian assistance to the victims of the conflict in Liberia, and in this regard reaffirms its support for increased humanitarian assistance; 13. Requests the Secretary-General to submit a report on the implementation of this resolution as soon as possible; 14. Decides to remain seized of the matter. VOTE: Unanimous (15-0). (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 48, November 30, 1992 Title:

Focus on the Environment: A Periodic Update

PA Source: Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public Affairs Date: Nov, 30 199211/30/92 Category: Features Region: Whole World, North America Country: United States, Mexico, Canada Subject: Environment, United Nations [TEXT]
Acting Secretary Announces Environment Initiative for New Independent States
The United States will fund a $35-million environmental initiative in the former Soviet Union, Acting Secretary Lawrence Eagleburger announced on October 29 at the Tokyo Conference on Assistance to the New Independent States. The goal of the initiative is to ensure that environmental quality goes "hand-in-hand" with economic and democratic reforms. Mr. Eagleburger said the United States will concentrate on specific challenges and also seek to effect legislative and policy reforms and promote cooperation with US environmental organizations. Although the program is still in the formative stage, its general outline is emerging. The US Agency for International Development and the Environmental Protection Agency will implement this program over a 4-year period. The largest portion of funding will help promote the growth of an indigenous private sector in environmental management and develop a market for US environmental know-how; the program will also focus on institution- building and environmental policy development. The proposal will promote public participation by providing funding for non- governmental organizations and media public awareness campaigns and will encourage democratic participation in addressing environmental problems. Given the extent of the problems and the limited availability of US assistance, most financing will have to be generated internally, from the private sector overseas, and the multilateral banks. The US strategy seeks to strike a balance among the various forms of assistance to reach both near- and long-term goals. It also is designed to involve government representatives, the private sector, and non- governmental organizations. The US Government will provide technical assistance and training through the use of US expertise and environmental technologies. Specifically, US assistance will focus on: -- Building an effective environmental regulatory and management structure; -- Promoting environmental and other technological cooperation; -- Reducing the health and economic costs of pollution; -- Managing natural resource assets efficiently; and -- Supporting the development of non-governmental organizations and increasing public participation in environmental decision-making. The Department of State will coordinate the environmental initiative, but other agencies--including the US Agency for International Development; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and the Peace Corps--will participate.
US Is First Developed Nation To Ratify Climate Change Convention
The United States became the first developed country to ratify the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change when the Senate gave its approval on October 7, 1992. On October 15, Ambassador Alexander F. Watson, then Acting US Permanent Representative to the United Nations, deposited the US instrument of ratification with the United Nations in New York. President Bush signed the convention at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. The climate convention represents a commitment by the United States and other nations to control greenhouse emissions and adapt to climate change.
US Supports Creation of UN Sustainable Development Commission
The world must move beyond the "rhetoric of Rio," EPA Administrator William K. Reilly told the UN General Assembly on November 2, and begin to translate the pledges made at UNCED last June into action. Mr. Reilly applauded UNCED as one of the most important multinational conferences in history because the international community, for the first time, recognized damage to the environment as a danger to human survival and an impediment to economic development. The conference also agreed to create a UN Commission on Sustainable Development to implement the Rio agreement known as Agenda 21. No issue in Agenda 21 is more important to the United States than the new commission, Administrator Reilly said. He urged the delegates to act quickly so that substantive work can begin in early 1993. The United States believes that the Commission should: -- Review and report on worldwide progress in implementing Agenda 21; -- Draw on the work of UN agencies to follow sustainable development issues; -- Promote cooperation with the World Bank and regional development banks; -- Allow those with expertise in sustainable development to contribute; and -- Involve non-governmental organizations as true "partners." He stressed that the Commission should be part of the ongoing revitalization of the United Nations and should be efficient, innovative, and built upon the resources available with the organization itself. According to figures released by the General Assembly, US overseas development assistance will increase by 4% to more than $11 billion next year. Funding for the UN Development Program will grow by 9% to $125 million; the UN Environment Program will grow by 21% to $22 million; and the contribution to the Montreal Protocol Fund will rise to over $20 million. In 1993, total US contributions to multilateral development banks will near $1.6 billion, including $90 million for the Multilateral Investment Fund of the Inter-American Development Bank. Mr. Reilly commented: "Clearly, as these figures show, the US commitment to the United Nations and to the international community is stronger than ever. At the same time, it is important to remember that there is more the United States can and will do; there is more all nations can--and must--do to support sustainable development worldwide." The United States believes that economic growth is one of the most powerful tools for protecting the environment. "Economic and environmental history suggests that poverty and environmental degradation go hand in hand," Mr. Reilly said. To support sustainable development, it is necessary to build a strong market economy through debt reform, open investment policies, and trade liberalization The United States already has advanced these principles through its Enterprise for the Americas initiative and in the North American Free Trade Agreement. "The economic benefits of free trade will do more to protect the global environment than we could ever expect from foreign aid alone," he said. Mr. Reilly also told the General Assembly that the United States looks forward to progress on an international convention on desertification and serious discussions on high seas fisheries and on fostering sustainable development in small island states during this session.
NAFTA Governments To Create Environment Commission
The environmental ministers of Canada, Mexico, and the United States agreed in principle on September 17 to create a North American commission on environmental cooperation. Jean J. Charest (Canadian Minister of the Environment), Luis Donaldo Colosio Murrieta (Mexican Secretary of Social Development), and US EPA Administrator William K. Reilly shared the view that, although cooperation between the three nations was good, more formal mechanisms would be needed to face the challenges leading into the 21st century. The North America Free Trade Agreement is already the most environmentally sensitive trade agreement ever negotiated. The agreement: -- Commits the signatories to sustainable development and environmental conservation and protection; -- Maintains the integrity of the parties' domestic environmental regulatory regimes; -- Enhances environmental standards; -- Provides for the resolution of disputes about environmental measures in an environmentally sensitive manner; -- Protects trade provisions of key international environmental agreements; and -- Refrains from attracting or retaining investment by permitting the creation of pollution havens. The ministers agreed to meet often, and they instructed their officials to open discussions on future areas of trilateral cooperation, tentatively scheduling a meeting for early 1993. They also signed a Trilateral Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental Education, which will increase public awareness of sustainable development issues through joint education and training activities. The three nations cooperate successfully on environmental programs to protect transboundary air and water resources. Cooperation also has begun on the exchange of environmental information, programs for public information, and emergency response and emissions reporting procedures for toxic chemicals. As a result of this agreement, the National Wildlife Foundation--the largest conservation organization in the United States--announced its support for NAFTA's environmental provisions. "We are satisfied that substantial progress has been made toward establishing protection of the environment as a cornerstone of NAFTA," Foundation President Jay Hair said on September 30. -- Susan Holly, Dispatch Staff
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 48, November 30, 1992 Title:

President Signs Climate Change Treaty Ratification

Bush Source: President Bush Description: Statement, Washington, DC Date: Oct, 13 199210/13/92 Category: Speeches, Testimony, Statements Region: Whole World Country: United States Subject: Environment, United Nations [TEXT] Today I have signed the instrument of ratification for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which I submitted to the US Senate for advice and consent on September 8, 1992. The Senate consented to ratification on October 7, 1992. With this action, the United States becomes the first industrialized nation (and the fourth overall) to ratify this historic treaty. I signed this convention on June 12, 1992, in Rio de Janeiro at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). The convention was also signed by 153 other nations and the European Community. Today, I am calling on them to join us in ratifying the convention as soon as possible and making a prompt start in its implementation. The Climate Convention is the first step in crucial, long-term, international efforts to address climate change. The international community moved with unprecedented speed in negotiating this convention and thereby beginning the response to climate change. As proposed by the United States, the convention is comprehensive in scope and action oriented. All parties must inventory all sources and sinks of greenhouse gases and establish national climate change programs. Industrialized countries must go further, outlining in detail the programs and measures they will undertake to limit greenhouse emissions and adapt to climate change, and quantifying expected results. Parties will meet on a regular basis to review and update those plans in the light of evolving scientific and economic information. Since UNCED, the United States has begun to refine its national action plan, based on the US Climate Change Strategy first announced in February 1991 and updated in April 1992. The United States was one of the first nations to lay out its action plan, which will reduce projected levels of net greenhouse gas emissions in the year 2000 by as much as 11%. Through such measures as the newly enacted national energy legislation, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1992, and other programs and policies of this Administration, I am confident the United States will continue to lead the world in taking economically sensible actions to reduce the threat of climate change. The United States is also assisting developing nations with their treaty obligations. Specifically, we are committed to providing $25 million to help such nations fund "country studies" that will inventory each country's sources and sinks of greenhouse gases and identify options for mitigating and adapting to climate change. The United States hosted an international workshop from September 14-16 at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California to plan these country studies. We look forward to the December session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, December 7-10 in Geneva, to discuss with other parties how best to move forward in promoting the objectives of the treaty. (###)
Dispatch, Vol 3, No 48, November 30, 1992 Title:

What's in Print: Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960

HO Source: Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs Date: Oct, 13 199210/13/92 Category: Features Region: Southeast Asia, South Asia Country: India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Philippines, Thailand, Afghanistan Subject: History, Security Assistance and Sales, Trade/Economics, Regional/Civil Unrest [TEXT] Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960, Volume XV, South and Southeast Asia This volume released by the Office of the Historian, records the efforts of President Eisenhower's Administration to pursue policies that fostered the external security and internal stability of the nations of South and Southeast Asia. It presents the official record of US policy drawn from documents originating in the Department of State, White House, and Defense Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is the third of five volumes covering US policy in East Asia for the period. The US tried to help settle the India-Pakistan disputes over Kashmir and the use of Indus River waters, but a US attempt to bring about a total solution failed. US policy during this period aimed to keep Afghanistan neutral in the Cold War and to encourage Afghan reconciliation of ethnic and border disputes within Pakistan. In Ceylon (Sri Lanka), the United States was concerned about growing political and economic instability after the prime minister was assassinated in September 1959. Policy toward Nepal focused on US endeavors, with modest aid and advice, to counter Soviet influence while avoiding a challenge to Nepal's close relationship with India. The related hope of encouraging democracy suffered a setback when King Mahendra dissolved the elected government. In the Philippines, the United States increased aid and negotiated several revisions of the 1947 Military Bases Agreement, including transfer of substantial baselands back to the Philippines. In Thailand, the US provided sufficient economic and military aid to consolidate relations with Thai Field Marshall Sarit Thanarit, who dominated the Thai Government informally prior to becoming Prime Minister early in 1959. Volume XV, South and Southeast Asia, 1958-1960 (GPO Stock No. 044-000- 02326-1) may be purchased for $45.00 domestic postpaid (international customers please add 25%) from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, New Orders, PO Box 37154, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. For further information, contact Glenn W. LaFantasie, General Editor of the Foreign Relations series at (202) 663-1133. (###)