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. (###)