Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
470766560
label
Central America: Public Mail to the President - January 20, 1989-December 31, 1989
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
470766560
contentType
document
title
Central America: Public Mail to the President - January 20, 1989-December 31, 1989
citationUrl
identifierLocal
CF00195-003
collections
Records of the National Security Council (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Latin American Affairs Directorate Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
470766560
coverageEndDate
day
31
logicalDate
1989-12-31
month
12
year
1989
coverageStartDate
day
20
logicalDate
1989-01-20
month
1
year
1989
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
12a8da1bc93760cf
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
2015-0017-S
2015-0017-S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin: National Security Council
Series:
Latin American Affairs Directorate Files
Subseries:
Subject Files 1989
OA/ID Number:
CF00195
Folder ID Number:
CF00195-003
Folder Title:
Central America: Public Mail to the President - January 20, 1989-December 31, 1989
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
V
8
5
7
3
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
Embargoed until delivery--approx. 1:00 p.m.
April 14, 1989
TEXT OF REMARKS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT
TO THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEWSPAPER EDITORS
J.W. MARRIOTT HOTEL
WASHINGTON, DC
As you know, my grandfather was a newspaperman. Throughout
my public life, I've always liked to quote the statement on the
front page of each Pulliam paper. They carry this message:
"America Is Great Because America is Free." I've tried to bring
this ideal -- and some of my grandfather's common sense -- to
Washington. And I've tried to support his fervent belief that an
educated and informed public is the foundation of a sound
democracy.
One area of the world where it's especially important for
the public to be accurately informed is Latin America. The
nations of Latin America are undergoing fundamental changes, and
are claiming their rightful place in the democratic community.
But Latin America also faces major problems. I'm sure you all
were as impressed this morning by President Barco's eloquence and
sincerity, as I was when I met with him two months ago in
Caracas. His struggle against the narco-terrorists -- the
alliance between Colombia's leftist guerrillas and the drug
kingpins -- is a struggle that deserves our strong support.
Today I would like to talk about another, related, struggle --
the struggle for peace and democracy in Central America.
2
I think it's correct to say that we in the Administration
and the leaders of both parties in the Congress have succeeded in
uniting on a common approach that enables us, finally, to speak
with one voice in this area. As Secretary of State Baker said on
Wednesday, Congressional approval of a bipartisan aid plan to the
Nicaraguan Resistance will put the United States "back in the
ballgame" in Central America. "We were totally out of it," the
Secretary of State stressed, "because we had a legislature going
in one direction and we had an executive branch going in
another.' Now, however, both branches have joined to support the
promise of democracy, security and peace contained in the
Agreement signed at Esquipulas by the five Central American
Presidents. The United States is in compliance with the peace
process developed at Esquipulas, and we support it in full.
We support what the Central American leaders demand, and
what the Esquipulas Accord requires: free, open political
processes in which all groups can fairly compete for political
leadership. We are prepared to work in good faith with the
democratic governments of Latin America for a political solution
that results in freedom and democracy in Nicaragua.
The Sandinista government, however, has run out of excuses
for delaying compliance with the commitments they made at
Esquipulas. Are the Sandinistas finally willing to take the
course that all the Central American governments committed
themselves to at Esquipulas? Are they prepared to negotiate with
the internal opposition and the Nicaraguan Rèsistance in order :
3
promote national reconciliation among all Nicaraguans? Are they
prepared to help bring an end to the anti-democratic insurgency
in El Salvador that they and the Cuban government support?
We will know the answers to these questions, and we will
know them relatively soon. Elections are scheduled in Nicaragua
next February, but first, ground rules must be negotiated with
the democratic opposition parties. These parties have bravely
held on through the years against the heavy-handed oppression of
the Communist Sandinista government. They deserve a fair chance.
The united internal opposition -- some 15 political parties --
has made an election reform proposal which the democratic
Resistance has endorsed. The Sandinistas seem to be using
legalistic excuses to avoid negotiating with the opposition on
this proposal. They have waged instead a media campaign to
downplay and discredit its significance. This is directly
counter to the spirit of the Central American agreements at
Esquipulas and El Salvador.
There is a role for all of us here in testing Sandinista
performance. The Nicaraguan opposition is taking the lead, as
indeed it must, but the regional democracies and European
democratic parties, too, are insisting that the Sandinistas live
up to commitments previously made to their neighbors at
Esquipulas and in subsequent negotiations. President Arias of
Costa Rica, President Perez of Venezuela, and other democratic
leaders have told me and the President in recent weeks that they
are monitoring events closely. You in the press can also play a
4
crucial role as the Nicaraguan people seek to reclaim their
rights. The spotlight of media attention should shine as
brightly in Nicaragua as it did in the Philippines and in Chile.
For the press and the media are the eyes and ears of democracy.
Whether you focus on the Sandinistas will make a major difference
in how they behave.
In El Salvador, too, events have been moving quickly.
Despite guerrilla attacks on election day, elections took place
in March and a new President was chosen. We look forward to
working with President-elect Cristiani, whom I had the pleasure
of receiving earlier this week. I made it clear to him that,
even as El Salvador's government fights terrorism from the left,
it cannot countenance violence from the right. We have
emphasized that adherence to high standards of human rights is
critical if his government is to enjoy the respect and
cooperation of the international community, and, even more
importantly, of its own people. President-elect Cristiani
understands and accepts these points. I believe he is completely
committed to improving the well-being of the Salvadoran people
and to achieving peace.
We will be with the Salvadoran people as they struggle
against the violent minority that seeks to bypass democratic
procedures. The FMLN now calls for the democratically-elected
government to resign after it refused to participate in the
election and after the gucrrilla-aligned Democratic Convergence
5
received only 4% of the vote. The people of El Salvador will not
accept this -- nor should they.
The tasks for El Salvador are formidable, as the country
seeks to modernize its economy, and to professionalize its public
administration, judiciary and armed forces. They do this in the
face of a systematic war waged by guerrilla forces which still
receive outside aid in violation of the Esquipulas agreement. It
will not be easy, but it can be done -- provided that both El
Salvador and the United States live up to their commitments.
For the newly-elected government of El Salvador, living up
to its commitments means being steadfast in support of democracy
and human rights. In conversations with President Bush and with
me, President-elect Cristiani has made it clear that he
understands the connection between democracy and human rights,
and that he is committed to progress on both fronts.
For the United States, living up to its commitments means
supporting the peaceful transition of power recently brought
about in El Salvador in free, fair, and honest democratic
elections. We have an obligation to support the results of the
democratic process in El Salvador. If we fail to do so, we will
only serve to weaken respect for democracy and human rights in
that country. If our support wavers, we will weaken those who
are committed to democracy and human rights; and a weakening of
American support would foster violence, and human rights abuses.
So we must support the democratic government in El Salvador, and
at the same time we call on the Soviet Union, Cuba and Nicarag...
6
to end their support for subversion and destabilization in
Central America. The problem in Central America is not El
Salvador. It is Nicaragua.
We all are closely following current developments in the
Soviet Union. We recognize that the self-evident failure of the
Soviet system is a powerful inducement to dramatic departures
from the past, both in domestic and foreign policy. In
Afghanistan and Southern Africa, General Secretary Gorbachev has
apparently recognized that old ways of thinking about
international relations have served his country poorly. But such
a recognition must also come in regard to Central America.
If the Soviet Union seeks a new relationship with the world,
and with the United States, Soviet "New Thinking" should be
indivisible. The Soviet Union cannot use this hemisphere as a
dumping ground for its lethal weapons and its discredited
political theories.
General Secretary Gorbachev has the opportunity to chart a
new course. In Havana he said he is "resolutely against any
theories and doctrines justifying the export of revolution."
what is Castro's support for the FMLN if not the attempt to
export revolution to El Salvador? Surely this is the time, and
Central America is the place, to repudiate the old theory and
practice and put some of the new thinking into practice.
In the last decade, Soviet aid to Cuba and Nicaragua
totalled some $50 billion. The annual costs for Cuba alone have
gone up from $1 billion dollars per year in the mid-1970's to
7
$5 billion dollars per year in the late 1980's. I have to
believe that the Soviet Union has the influence and leverage to
lead its clients away from the path of violence and dictatorship
and toward approaches that favor democracy and peace. This would
be new thinking.
Moreover, even as we have held off on seeking lethal aid to
the democratic Resistance, Soviet aid to Nicaragua and Cuba
continues supporting the infrastructure for the anti-democratic
insurgency in El Salvador which remains intact and functioning.
Once again, that is not "New Thinking." That is old thinking.
The times have changed profoundly since the Soviet Union, 27
years ago, installed in Cuba a brigade of its own soldiers --
which is still there, along with Soviet intelligence
installations and military aircraft which fly along our shores.
Today, Cuba and Nicaragua are among the few remaining military
dictatorships in the Americas. General Secretary Gorbachev spoke
in Cuba about the need to "march in step with the times." Well,
these are times in which the democracies are setting the pace.
The people are sovereign and governments change through
elections.
If Nicaragua is to keep in step with its neighbors then it
must open itself to political competition and turn off the
regional insurgencies. Otherwise it will find itself, as Genera.
Secretary Gorbachev himself put it, on the "sidestreets of
progress." And if Cuba is not to find itself totally isolated 1:
the region, then Castro must heed the advice of President Arias
8
of Costa Rica, and "step down from the Sierra Maestra.' As the
Nobel Peace Prize winner advised President Gorbachev, on April 4,
"If he (Gorbachev) supports sincerely the Central American peace
plan, he has to be consequent with that and persuade Fidel Castro
not to ... support the guerrillas in El Salvador."
We had hoped that Mr. Gorbachev would use his recent visit
to Cuba to demonstrate his support for Central American peace,
and his understanding that times have indeed changed in the
Americas. We had hoped that Mr. Gorbachev would answer the
questions posed by the democratic community in Latin America, the
questions Secretary Baker posed again on Wednesday: "Will the
Soviet Union keep its promise to the people of Central America to
support the peace process? Will the Soviet Union halt aid to
Cuba and Nicaragua who provide weapons, ammunition and training
for Marxist guerrillas in El Salvador?"
Unfortunately, Mr. Gorbachev failed to answer these
questions in the affirmative. Indeed, in his continuation of old
policies in Central America, and in providing advanced SU-24
fighter bombers to Libya, Mr. Gorbachev has raised even more
troubling questions. But there is still time for a change of
course; we would welcome one.
So far, then, it has been the President of the United
States, and not the leader of the Soviet Union, who's
demonstrated "new thinking" about Central America. We have
chosen to pursue the diplomatic route; we have worked with the
Central American presidents; we have sought to create a new
opening for peace in the region. Now the ball is in the Soviet
9
court. As President Bush has said, "The Soviet Union has an
obligation and an opportunity to demonstrate that its proclaimed
commitment to new thinking is more than a tactical response to
temporary setbacks, but represents instead a new and principled
approach to foreign policy."
The requirements for peace cannot be one-sided. The Soviet
Union has a choice. It can decide to play a positive role in
Central America. It can help there -- as it has begun to help in
other regions of the world -- to resolve longstanding problems in
constructive ways. Or it can play the part of a sponsor of war:
funding, arming and otherwise supporting military dictatorships,
massive armies, and anti-democratic insurgencies. Whatever it
decides to do, whichever way it decides to go, is bound to have a
major impact on Soviet-American relations.
We would welcome a new Soviet policy in Central America.
Thus far it appears the Soviet Union is prepared to continue to
finance the exporting of revolution in our hemisphere, despite
their "new thinking."
We would hope the Soviet Union would adopt the "new
thinking" of President Bush and the Central American Presidents
in Central America. This new thinking is one of commitment to
peace, democracy, human rights, respect for national sovereignty
and economic growth. Soviet adoption of the Bush strategy for
Central America would go a long way toward improving U.S.-Soviet
relations.