Rosenfeld Susan. Encyclopedia of American Historical Documents

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

bank is a party. This includes making all necessary pay-

ments to the foreign members of these syndicates. An

additional $1.418 billion shall remain available to pay all

other loans as soon as any disputes as to the amounts

involved are settled and to pay additional interest to banks

upon agreement or arbitration with Iran. In addition, there

will be established an international tribunal to adjudicate

various disputed claims by U.S. nationals against Iran; and

the deposit of $1 billion by Iran from previously blocked

assets as released, which will be available for payments of

awards against Iran. Iran has committed itself to replenish

this fund as necessary. This tribunal, among other things,

will also hear certain disputes between Iranian nationals

and the United States Government and contractual dis-

putes between Iran and the United States.

In connection with this agreement, and to begin the

process of normalization of relations between the two

countries, I have issued and will issue, a series of Orders.

3. First, I have signed an Executive Order authorizing

the Secretary of the Treasury to enter into or to direct the

Federal Reserve Bank of New York to enter into escrow

and depository agreements with the Bank of England.

Under these agreements, assets in the escrow account

will be returned to the control of Iran upon the safe depar-

ture of the United States hostages from Iran. I have also by

this Order instructed the Federal Reserve Bank of New

York, as fiscal agent of the United States, to receive other

blocked Iranian assets, and, as further directed by the Sec-

retary of the Treasury, to transfer these assets to the escrow

account.

4. Second, I have signed an Executive Order directing

the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to transfer to its

account at the Bank of England and then to the escrow

account referred to in the preceding paragraph, the assets

of the Government of Iran, both transfers to take place as

and when directed by the Secretary of the Treasury.

In order to assure that this transaction can be exe-

cuted, and having considered the claims settlement agree-

ment described above, I have exercised my authority to

nullify, and barred the exercise of, all rights, powers or

privileges acquired by anyone; I have revoked all licenses

and authorizations of acquiring any rights, powers, or priv-

ileges; and I have prohibited anyone from acquiring or

exercising any right, power, or privileges, all with respect

to these properties of Iran. These prohibitions and nullifi-

cations apply to rights, powers, or privileges whether

acquired by court order, attachment, or otherwise. I have

also prohibited any attachment or other like proceeding or

process affecting these properties.

5. Third, I have signed an Executive Order which

directs branches and offices of United States banks located

outside the United States to transfer all Iranian govern-

ment funds, deposits and securities held by them on their

books on or after November 14, 1979 at 8:10 a.m. EST to

the account of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at

the Bank of England in London. These assets will be trans-

ferred to the account of the Central Bank of Algeria, as

escrow agent. The transfer is to include interest from the

date of the blocking order at commercially reasonable

rates. In addition, any banking institution that has exe-

cuted a set-off subsequent to the date of the blocking

order against Iranian deposits covered by this order is

directed to cancel the set-off and to transfer the funds that

had been subject to the set-off in the same manner as the

other overseas deposits.

This Order also provides for the revocation of licenses

and the nullifications and bars described in paragraph 4 of

this report.

6. Fourth, I will have signed an Executive Order

directing American banks located within the United

States which hold Iranian deposits to transfer those

deposits, including interest from the date of entry of the

blocking order at commercially reasonable rates, to the

Federal Reserve Bank of New York, to be held or trans-

ferred as directed by the Secretary of the Treasury. Half of

these funds will be transferred to Iran and the other half

(up to a maximum of $1 billion) will be placed in a secu-

rity account as provided in the Declaration and the Claims

Settlement Agreement that are part of the agreement we

have reached with Iran. This fund will be maintained at a

$500 million level until the claims program is concluded.

While these transfers should take place as soon as possi-

ble, I have been advised that court actions may delay it.

This Order also provides for the revocation of licenses and

the nullifications and bars described in paragraph 4 of this

report.

7. Fifth, I have signed an Executive Order directing

the transfer to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York by

non-banking institutions of funds and securities held by

them for the Government of Iran, to be held or transferred

as directed by the Secretary of the Treasury. This transfer

will be accomplished at approximately the same time as

that described in paragraph 6.

This Order also provides for the revocation of licenses

and the nullifications and bars described in paragraph 4 of

this report.

8. Sixth, I will sign, upon release of the hostages, an

Executive Order directing any person subject to the juris-

diction of the United States who is in possession or control

of properties owned by Iran, not including funds and secu-

rities, to transfer the property as directed by the Govern-

ment of Iran acting through its authorized agent. The

Order recites that it does not relieve persons subject to it

from existing legal requirements other than those based on

the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This

Order does not apply to contingent liabilities. This Order

1702 ERA 10: Contemporary United States

also provides for the revocation of licenses and the nullifi-

cations and bars described in paragraph 4 of this report.

9. Seventh, I will sign, upon release of the hostages, an

Executive Order revoking prohibitions previously imposed

against transactions involving Iran. The Executive Order

revokes prohibitions contained in Executive Order No.

12205 of April 7, 1980; and Executive Order No. 12211 of

April 17, 1980; and the amendments contained in Procla-

mation No. 4702 of November 12, 1979. The two Execu-

tive Orders limited trade and financial transactions

involving Iran and travel to Iran. The proclamation

restricted oil imports. In revoking these sanctions I have

no intention of superseding other existing controls relating

to exports including the Arms Export Control Act and the

Export Administration Act.

10. Eighth, I will sign, upon release of the hostages,

an Executive Order providing for the waiver of certain

claims against Iran. The Order directs that the Secretary

of the Treasury shall promulgate regulations: (a) prohibit-

ing any person subject to U.S. jurisdiction from prosecut-

ing in any court within the United States or elsewhere any

claim against the Government of Iran arising out of events

occurring before the date of this Order arising out: (1) the

seizure of the hostages on November 4, 1979; (2) their

subsequent detention; (3) injury of the United States

property or property of the United States nationals within

the United States Embassy compound in Tehran after

November 1979; (4) or injury to United States nationals or

their property as a result of popular movements in the

course of the Islamic Revolution in Iran which were not

an act of the Government of Iran; (b) prohibiting any per-

son not a U.S. national from prosecuting any such claim in

any court within the United States; (c) ordering the ter-

mination of any previously instituted judicial proceedings

based upon such claims; and (d) prohibiting the enforce-

ment of any judicial order issued in the course of such

proceedings.

The Order also authorizes and directs the Attorney

General of the United States immediately upon the

issuance of such a Treasury regulation to notify all appro-

priate courts of the existence of the Executive Order and

implementing regulations and the resulting termination of

relevant litigation. At the same time, I will create a com-

mission to make recommendations on the issue of com-

pensation for those who have been held as hostages.

11. Finally, I will sign, upon the release of the

hostages, an Executive Order invoking the blocking pow-

ers of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act

to prevent the transfer of property located in the United

States and controlled by the estate of Mohammed Reza

Pahlavi, the former Shah of Iran, or by any close relative of

the former Shah served as a defendant in litigation in

United States courts brought by Iran seeking the return of

property alleged to belong to Iran. This Order will remain

effective as to each person until litigation concerning such

person or estate is terminated. The Order also requires

reports from private citizens and Federal agencies con-

cerning this property so that information can be made

available to the Government of Iran about this property.

The Order would further direct the Attorney General

to assert in appropriate courts that claims of Iran for recov-

ery of this property are not barred by principles of

sovereign immunity or the act of state doctrine.

12. In addition to these actions taken pursuant to the

International Economic Emergency Powers Act, other rel-

evant statutes, and my powers under the Constitution, I

will take the steps necessary to withdraw all claims now

pending against Iran before the International Court of Jus-

tice. Copies of the Executive Orders are attached.

Jimmy Carter

The White House, January 19, 1981.

Source:

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, Jimmy

Carter, 1980–81. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing

Office, 1981–88. pp. 3,040–3,043.

Ronald Reagan, Address to the Nation on

Events in Lebanon and Grenada, 1983

Broadcast speech given by President Ronald Reagan on Octo-

ber 27, 1983, in which he defended the deployment of U.S.

forces in Lebanon and Grenada. He discussed the October 23

killing of more than 200 U.S. marines by a suicide bomber in

Lebanon and reminded Americans that the marines were in

Lebanon as part of a multinational force designed to help end

factional violence in Lebanon and promote peace in the Mid-

dle East.

He then defended the U.S. invasion of the Caribbean

island nation of Grenada following a coup in which a Marx-

ist government was replaced by one even more radical. He

described Grenada’s recent political history, the coup, and

the invasion. He stated that the United States had acted

principally to ensure the safety of American students attend-

ing medical school in Grenada and that it had acted only at

the request of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States. In

his address, Reagan emphatically defended the invasion,

describing Grenada as a “Soviet-Cuban colony being readied

as a major military bastion to export terror and undermine

democracy.” A pro-American government took over after the

invasion.

Reagan blamed the Soviet Union for encouraging and

providing support for violence in both Grenada and Lebanon.

Foreign Policy Issues 1703

________________________

_______________________

My fellow Americans:

Some 2 months ago we were shocked by the brutal

massacre of 269 men, women, and children, more than 60

of them Americans, in the shooting down of a Korean air-

liner. Now, in these past several days, violence has erupted

again, in Lebanon and Grenada.

In Lebanon, we have some 1,600 marines, part of a

multinational force that’s trying to help the people of

Lebanon restore order and stability to that troubled land.

Our marines are assigned to the south of the city of Beirut,

near the only airport operating in Lebanon. Just a mile or

so to the north is the Italian contingent and not far from

them, the French and a company of British soldiers.

This past Sunday, at 22 minutes after 6 Beirut time,

with dawn just breaking, a truck, looking like a lot of other

vehicles in the city, approached the airport on a busy, main

road. There was nothing in its appearance to suggest it was

any different than the trucks or cars that were normally

seen on and around the airport. But this one was different.

At the wheel was a young man on a suicide mission.

The truck carried some 2,000 pounds of explosives,

but there was no way our marine guards could know this.

Their first warning that something was wrong came when

the truck crashed through a series of barriers, including a

chain-link fence and barbed wire entanglements. The

guards opened fire, but it was too late. The truck smashed

through the doors of the headquarters building in which

our marines were sleeping and instantly exploded. The

four-story concrete building collapsed in a pile of rubble.

More than 200 of the sleeping men were killed in that

one hideous, insane attack. Many others suffered injury

and are hospitalized here or in Europe.

This was not the end of the horror. At almost the same

instant, another vehicle on a suicide and murder mission

crashed into the headquarters of the French peacekeeping

force, an eight-story building, destroying it and killing

more than 50 French soldiers.

Prior to this day of horror, there had been several

tragedies for our men in the multinational force. Attacks

by snipers and mortar fire had taken their toll.

I called bereaved parents and/or widows of the victims

to express on behalf of all of us our sorrow and sympathy.

Sometimes there were questions. And now many of you

are asking: Why should our young men be dying in

Lebanon? Why is Lebanon important to us?

Well, it’s true, Lebanon is a small country, more than

five-and-a-half thousand miles from our shores on the

edge of what we call the Middle East. But every President

who has occupied this office in recent years has recognized

that peace in the Middle East is of vital concern to our

nation and, indeed, to our allies in Western Europe and

Japan. We’ve been concerned because the Middle East is

a powderkeg; four times in the last 30 years, the Arabs and

Israelis have gone to war. And each time, the world has

teetered near the edge of catastrophe.

The area is key to the economic and political life of the

West. Its strategic importance, its energy resources, the

Suez Canal, and the well-being of the nearly 200 million

people living there—all are vital to us and to world peace.

If that key should fall into the hands of a power or powers

hostile to the free world, there would be a direct threat to

the United States and to our allies.

We have another reason to be involved. Since 1948 our

Nation has recognized and accepted a moral obligation to

assure the continued existence of Israel as a nation. Israel

shares our democratic values and is a formidable force an

invader of the Middle East would have to reckon with.

For several years, Lebanon has been torn by internal

strife. Once a prosperous, peaceful nation, its government

had become ineffective in controlling the militias that

warred on each other. Sixteen months ago, we were watch-

ing on our TV screens the shelling and bombing of Beirut

which was being used as a fortress by PLO bands. Hun-

dreds and hundreds of civilians were being killed and

wounded in the daily battles.

Syria, which makes no secret of its claim that Lebanon

should be a part of a Greater Syria, was occupying a large

part of Lebanon. Today, Syria has become a home for

7,000 Soviet advisers and technicians who man a massive

amount of Soviet weaponry, including SS-21 ground-to-

ground missiles capable of reaching vital areas of Israel.

A little over a year ago, hoping to build on the Camp

David accords, which had led to peace between Israel and

Egypt, I proposed a peace plan for the Middle East to end

the wars between the Arab States and Israel. It was based

on U.N. resolutions 242 and 338 and called for a fair and

just solution to the Palestinian problem, as well as a fair and

just settlement of issues between the Arab States and Israel.

Before the necessary negotiations could begin, it was

essential to get all foreign forces out of Lebanon and to

end the fighting there. So, why are we there? Well, the

answer is straightforward: to help bring peace to Lebanon

and stability to the vital Middle East. To that end, the

multinational force was created to help stabilize the situa-

tion in Lebanon until a government could be established

and a Lebanese army mobilized to restore Lebanese

sovereignty over its own soil as the foreign forces with-

drew. Israel agreed to withdraw as did Syria, but Syria then

reneged on its promise. Over 10,000 Palestinians who had

been bringing ruin down on Beirut, however, did leave the

country.

Lebanon has formed a government under the leader-

ship of President Gemayal, and that government, with our

assistance and training, has set up its own army. In only a

1704 ERA 10: Contemporary United States

year’s time, that army has been rebuilt. It’s a good army,

composed of Lebanese of all factions.

A few weeks ago, the Israeli army pulled back to the

Awali River in southern Lebanon. Despite fierce resis-

tance by Syrian-backed forces, the Lebanese army was

able to hold the line and maintain the defensive perimeter

around Beirut.

In the year that our marines have been there, Lebanon

has made important steps toward stability and order. The

physical presence of the marines lends support to both the

Lebanese Government and its army. It allows the hard work

of diplomacy to go forward. Indeed, without the peace-

keepers from the U.S., France, Italy, and Britain, the efforts

to find a peaceful solution in Lebanon would collapse.

As to that narrower question—what exactly is the

operational mission of the marines—the answer is, to

secure a piece of Beirut, to keep order in their sector, and

to prevent the area from becoming a battlefield. Our

marines are not just sitting in an airport. Part of their task

is to guard that airport. Because of their presence, the air-

port has remained operational. In addition, they patrol the

surrounding area. This is their part—a limited, but essen-

tial part—in the larger effort that I’ve described.

If our marines must be there, I’m asked, why can’t we

make them safer? Who committed this latest atrocity

against them and why?

Well, we’ll do everything, we can to ensure that our

men are as safe as possible. We ordered the battleship New

Jersey to join our naval forces offshore. Without even fir-

ing them, the threat of its 16-inch guns silenced those who

once fired down on our marines from the hills, and they’re

a good part of the reason we suddenly had a ceasefire.

We’re doing our best to make our forces less vulnerable to

those who want to snipe at them or send in future suicide

missions.

Secretary Shultz called me today from Europe, where

he was meeting with the Foreign Ministers of our allies in

the multinational force. They remain committed to our

task. And plans were made to share information as to how

we can improve security for all our men.

We have strong circumstantial evidence that the attack

on the marines was directed by terrorists who used the

same method to destroy our Embassy in Beirut. Those

who directed this atrocity must be dealt justice, and they

will be. The obvious purpose behind the sniping and, now,

this attack was to weaken American will and force the

withdrawal of U.S. and French forces from Lebanon. The

clear intent of the terrorists was to eliminate our support

of the Lebanese Government and to destroy the ability of

the Lebanese people to determine their own destiny.

To answer those who ask if we’re serving any purpose

in being there, let me answer a question with a question.

Would the terrorists have launched their suicide attacks

against the multinational force if it were not doing its job?

The multinational force was attacked precisely because it

is doing the job it was sent to do in Beirut. It is accom-

plishing its mission.

Now then, where do we go from here? What can we

do now to help Lebanon gain greater stability so that our

marines can come home? Well, I believe we can take three

steps now that will make a difference.

First, we will accelerate the search for peace and sta-

bility in that region. Little attention has been paid to the

fact that we’ve had special envoys there working, literally,

around the clock to bring the warring factions together.

This coming Monday in Geneva, President Gemayel of

Lebanon will sit down with other factions from his country

to see if national reconciliation can be achieved. He has

our firm support. I will soon be announcing a replacement

for Bud McFarlane, who was preceded by Phil Habib.

Both worked tirelessly and must be credited for much if

not most of the progress we’ve made.

Second, we’ll work even more closely with our allies in

providing support for the Government of Lebanon and for

the rebuilding of a national consensus.

Third, we will ensure that the multinational peace-

keeping forces, our marines, are given the greatest possi-

ble protection. Our Commandant of the Marine Corps,

General Kelley, returned from Lebanon today and will be

advising us on steps we can take to improve security. Vice

President Bush returned just last night from Beirut and

gave me a full report of his brief visit.

Beyond our progress in Lebanon, let us remember

that our main goal and purpose is to achieve a broader

peace in all of the Middle East. The factions and bitterness

that we see in Lebanon are just a microcosm of the diffi-

culties that are spread across much of that region. A peace

initiative for the entire Middle East, consistent with the

Camp David accords and U.N. resolutions 242 and 338,

still offers the best hope for bringing peace to the region.

Let me ask those who say we should get out of

Lebanon: If we were to leave Lebanon now, what message

would that send to those who foment instability and ter-

rorism? If America were to walk away from Lebanon, what

chance would there be for a negotiated settlement, pro-

ducing a unified democratic Lebanon?

If we turned our backs on Lebanon now, what would

be the future of Israel? At stake is the fate of only the sec-

ond Arab country to negotiate a major agreement with

Israel. That’s another accomplishment of this past year, the

May 17th accord signed by Lebanon and Israel.

If terrorism and intimidation succeed, it’ll be a devas-

tating blow to the peace process and to Israel’s search for

genuine security. It won’t just be Lebanon sentenced to a

future of chaos. Can the United States, or the free world,

for that matter, stand by and see the Middle East incorpo-

Foreign Policy Issues 1705

rated into the Soviet bloc? What of Western Europe and

Japan’s dependence on Middle East oil for the energy to

fuel their industries? The Middle East is, as I’ve said, vital

to our national security and economic well-being.

Brave young men have been taken from us. Many oth-

ers have been grievously wounded. Are we to tell them

their sacrifice was wasted? They gave their lives in defense

of our national security every bit as much as any man who

ever died fighting in a war. We must not strip every ounce

of meaning and purpose from their courageous sacrifice.

We’re nation with global responsibilities. We’re not

somewhere else in the world protecting someone else’s

interests; we’re there protecting our own.

I received a message from the father of a marine in

Lebanon. He told me, “In a world where we speak of human

rights, there is a sad lack of acceptance of responsibility. My

son has chosen the acceptance of responsibility for the priv-

ilege of living in this country. Certainly in this country one

does not inherently have rights unless the responsibility for

these rights is accepted.” Dr. Kenneth Morrison said that

while he was waiting to learn if his son was one of the dead.

I was thrilled for him to learn today that his son Ross is alive

and well and carrying on his duties in Lebanon.

Let us meet our responsibilities. For longer than any

of us can remember, the people of the Middle East have

lived from war to war with no prospect for any other

future. That dreadful cycle must be broken. Why are we

there? Well, a Lebanese mother told one of our Ambas-

sadors that her little girl had only attended school 2 of the

last 8 years. Now, because of our presence there, she said

her daughter could live a normal life.

With patience and firmness, we can help bring peace

to that strifetorn region—and make our own lives more

secure. Our role is to help the Lebanese put their country

together, not to do it for them.

Now, I know another part of the world is very much on

our minds, a place much closer to our shores: Grenada.

The island is only twice the size of the District of

Columbia, with a total population of about 110,000 people.

Grenada and a half dozen other Caribbean islands

here were, until recently, British colonies. They’re now

independent states and members of the British Common-

wealth. While they respect each other’s independence,

they also feel a kinship with each other and think of them-

selves as one people.

In 1979 trouble came to Grenada. Maurice Bishop, a

protege of Fidel Castro, stage a military coup and over-

threw the government which had been elected under the

constitution left to the people by the British. He sought

the help of Cuba in building an airport, which he claimed

was for tourist trade, but which looked suspiciously suit-

able for military aircraft, including Soviet-built long-range

bombers.

The six sovereign countries and one remaining colony

are joined together in what they call the Organization of

Eastern Caribbean States. The six became increasingly

alarmed as Bishop built an army greater than all of theirs

combined. Obviously, it was not purely for defense.

In this last year or so, Prime Minister Bishop gave

indications that he might like better relations with the

United States. He even made a trip to our country and met

with senior officials of the White House and the State

Department. Whether he was serious or not, we’ll never

know. On October 12th, a small group in his militia seized

him and put him under arrest. They were, if anything,

more radical and more devoted to Castro’s Cuba than he

had been.

Several days later, a crowd of citizens appeared before

Bishop’s home, freed him, and escorted him toward the

headquarters of the military council. They were fired

upon. A number, including some children, were killed, and

Bishop was seized. He and several members of his cabinet

were subsequently executed, and a 24-hour shoot-to-kill

curfew was put in effect. Grenada was without a govern-

ment, its only authority exercised by a self-proclaimed

band of military men.

There were then about 1,000 of our citizens on

Grenada, 800 of them students in St. George’s University

Medical School. Concerned that they’d be harmed or held

as hostages, I ordered a flotilla of ships, then on its way to

Lebanon with marines, part of our regular rotation pro-

gram, to circle south on a course that would put them

somewhere in the vicinity of Grenada in case there should

be a need to evacuate our people.

Last weekend, I was awakened in the early morning

hours and told that six members of the Organization of

Eastern Caribbean States, joined by Jamaica and Barba-

dos, had sent an urgent request that we join them in a mil-

itary operation to restore order and democracy to

Grenada. They were proposing this action under the terms

of a treaty, a mutual assistance pact that existed among

them.

These small, peaceful nations needed our help. Three

of them don’t have armies at all, and the others have very

limited forces. The legitimacy of their request, plus my

own concern for our citizens, dictated my decision. I

believe our government has a responsibility to go to the aid

of its citizens, if their right to life and liberty is threatened.

The nightmare of our hostages in Iran must never be

repeated.

We knew we had little time and that complete secrecy

was vital to ensure both the safety of the young men who

would undertake this mission and the Americans they were

about to rescue. The Joint Chiefs worked around the clock

to come up with a plan. They had little intelligence infor-

mation about conditions on the island.

1706 ERA 10: Contemporary United States

We had to assume that several hundred Cubans work-

ing on the airport could be military reserves. Well, as it

turned out, the number was much larger, and they were a

military force. Six hundred of them have been taken pris-

oner, and we have discovered a complete base with

weapons and communications equipment, which makes it

clear a Cuban occupation of the island had been planned.

Two hours ago we released the first photos from

Grenada. They included pictures of a warehouse of military

equipment—one of three we’ve uncovered so far. This

warehouse contained weapons and ammunition stacked

almost to the ceiling, enough to supply thousands of terror-

ists. Grenada, we were told, was a friendly island paradise

for tourism. Well, it wasn’t. It was a Soviet-Cuban colony,

being readied as a major military bastion to export terror

and undermine democracy. We got there just in time.

I can’t say enough in praise of our military—Army

rangers and paratroopers, Navy, Marine, and Air Force

personnel—those who planned a brilliant campaign and

those who carried it out. Almost instantly, our military

seized the two airports, secured the campus where most of

our students were, and are now in the mopping-up phase.

It should be noted that in all the planning, a top pri-

ority was to minimize risk, to avoid casualties to our own

men and also the Grenadian forces as much as humanly

possible. But there were casualties, and we all owe a debt

to those who lost their lives or were wounded. They were

few in number, but even one is a tragic price to pay.

It’s our intention to get our men out as soon as possi-

ble. Prime Minister Eugenia Charles of Dominica—I

called that wrong; she pronounces it Dominica—she is

Chairman of OECS. She’s calling for help from Common-

wealth nations in giving the people their right to establish

a constitutional government on Grenada. We anticipate

that the Governor General, a Grenadian, will participate in

setting up a provisional government in the interim.

The events in Lebanon and Grenada, though oceans

apart, are closely related. Not only has Moscow assisted

and encouraged the violence in both countries, but it pro-

vides direct support through a network of surrogates and

terrorists. It is no coincidence that when the thugs tried to

wrest control over Grenada, there were 30 Soviet advisers

and hundreds of Cuban military and paramilitary forces on

the island. At the moment of our landing, we communi-

cated with the Governments of Cuba and the Soviet Union

and told them we would offer shelter and security to their

people on Grenada. Regrettably, Castro ordered his men

to fight to the death, and some did. The others will be sent

to their homelands.

You know, there was a time when our national security

was based on a standing army here within our own borders

and shore batteries of artillery along our coasts, and, of

course, a navy to keep the sealanes open for the shipping

of things necessary to our well-being. The world has

changed. Today, our national security can be threatened in

faraway places. It’s up to all of us to be aware of the strate-

gic importance of such places and to be able to identify

them.

Sam Rayburn once said that freedom is not something

a nation can work for once and win forever. He said it’s like

an insurance policy; its premiums must be kept up to date.

In order to keep it, we have to keep working for it and sac-

rificing for it just as long as we live. If we do not, our chil-

dren may not know the pleasure of working to keep it, for

it may not be theirs to keep.

In these last few days, I’ve been more sure than I’ve

ever been that we Americans of today will keep freedom

and maintain peace. I’ve been made to feel that by the

magnificent spirit of our young men and women in uni-

form and by something here in our Nation’s Capital. In this

city, where political strife is so much a part of our lives, I’ve

seen Democratic leaders in the Congress join their Repub-

lican colleagues, send a message to the world that we’re all

Americans before we’re anything else, and when our coun-

try is threatened, we stand shoulder to shoulder in support

of our men and women in the Armed Forces.

May I share something with you I think you’d like to

know? It’s something that happened to the Commandant

of our Marine Corps, General Paul Kelley, while he was

visiting our critically injured marines in an Air Force hos-

pital. It says more than any of us could ever hope to say

about the gallantry and heroism of these young men,

young men who serve so willingly so that others might have

a chance at peace and freedom in their own lives and in the

life of their country.

I’ll let General Kelley’s words describe the incident.

He spoke of a “young marine with more tubes going in and

out of his body than I have ever seen in one body.”

“He couldn’t see very well. He reached up and

grabbed my four stars, just to make sure I was who I said I

was. He held my hand with a firm grip. He was making sig-

nals, and we realized he wanted to tell me something. We

put a pad of paper in his hand—and he wrote ‘Semper Fi.’”

Well, if you’ve been a marine or if, like myself, you’re

an admirer of the marines, you know those words are a

battlecry, a greeting, and a legend in the Marine Corps.

They’re marine shorthand for the motto of the Corps—

”Semper Fidelis”—”always faithful.”

General Kelley has a reputation for being a very

sophisticated general and a very tough marine. But he

cried when he saw those words, and who can blame him?

That marine and all those others like him, living and

dead, have been faithful to their ideals. They’ve given will-

ingly of themselves so that a nearly defenseless people in a

region of great strategic importance to the free world will

have a chance someday to live lives free of murder and

Foreign Policy Issues 1707

mayhem and terrorism. I think that young marine and all

of his comrades have given every one of us something to

live up to.

They were not afraid to stand up for their country or,

no matter how difficult and slow the journey might be, to

give to others that last, best hope of a better future. We

cannot and will not dishonor them now and the sacrifices

they’ve made by failing to remain as faithful to the cause of

freedom and the pursuit of peace as they have been.

I will not ask you to pray for the dead, because they’re

safe in God’s loving arms and beyond need of our prayers.

I would like to ask you all—wherever you may be in this

blessed land—to pray for these wounded young men and

to pray for the bereaved families of those who gave their

lives for our freedom.

God bless you, and God bless America.

Source:

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Ronald Rea-

gan, 1983. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,

1952–92. pp. 1,517–1,522.

Iran-Contra Affair, 1986–1987

The Iran-Contra affair, which surfaced in November 1986, cre-

ated a constitutional crisis. At issue was the charge that the

Ronald Reagan administration had illegally sold arms to Iran

in exchange for the release of American hostages in Lebanon,

and had illegally diverted profits from the sale to the rightist

contra rebels fighting to overthrow Nicaragua’s communist

Sandinista government. Such a diversion of government funds

allegedly violated the Boland amendment, introduced by Sen-

ator Edward P. Boland of Massachusetts, passed by Congress

December 20, 1982, and signed the next day by President

Reagan. The amendment specifically prohibited the U.S. gov-

ernment from using defense funds to support the military and

paramilitary forces (the contras) fighting against Nicaragua’s

leftist Sandinista government. The law, part of an emergency

spending bill, barred the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and

the Defense Department (DOD) from furnishing equipment,

training, advice, or support “for military activities for the pur-

pose of overthrowing the government of Nicaragua or provok-

ing a military exchange between Nicaragua and Honduras.”

The amendment expired August 8, 1985, and afterward any

U.S. agency apart from the CIA and DOD could legally aid the

Nicaraguan contras.

Following the congressional hearings, on August 12,

1987, President Reagan broadcast a speech defending his

administration’s actions, saying his government had initially

sought purely diplomatic contact with Iran, but that the diplo-

matic talks “rapidly got all tangled up in the sale of arms, and

the sale of arms got tangled up with hostages.” He blamed his

preoccupation with the hostages for influencing his decision

to go ahead with the sale, which he called a mistake. He

insisted that he had known nothing of the diversion of profits

to the contras. The speech incorporated several other issues,

including the recent Supreme Court nomination of Judge

Robert Bork, arms control, a balanced-budget amendment to

the Constitution, and Nicaragua.

Two congressional reports, both issued November 18,

1987, emerged from the Joint House Select Committee to

Investigate Covert Arms Transaction with Iran and the Senate

Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the

Nicaragua. The 472-page majority report was signed by three

Republican senators and all 15 Democrats of both commit-

tees. It said that “the common ingredients of the Iran and con-

tra policies were secrecy, deception, and disdain for the law.”

Reagan was blamed for failing to “take care that the laws be

faithfully executed,” as required by the Constitution. More-

over, the White House violated the Boland amendment ban-

ning military aid to the contras. This majority report stated that

while the president did not know about the diversion of funds,

“he should have.” A minority report, issued by two Republican

senators and all six Republicans on the House committee,

condemned the majority’s charges as “hysterical.” Reagan

may have made “some mistakes,” it said, but there was “no

administration-wide dishonesty and cover-up.”

________________________

_______________________

Boland Amendment, 1982

Joint Resolution

Making further continuing appropriations and providing

for productive employment for the fiscal year 1983, and for

other purposes.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

That the following sums are appropriated, out of any

money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out

of applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and

funds, for the several departments, agencies, corporations,

and other organizational units of the Government for the

fiscal year 1983, and for other purposes, namely:

Sec. 793. None of the funds provided in this Act may

be used by the Central Intelligence Agency or the Depart-

ment of Defense to furnish military equipment, military

training or advice, or other support for military activities,

to any group or individual, not part of a country’s armed

forces, for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of

Nicaragua or provoking a military exchange between

Nicaragua and Honduras.

Source:

Statutes at Large, Vol. 96, pp. 1,831.

1708 ERA 10: Contemporary United States

________________________

_______________________

Ronald Reagan,

Address on Iran-Contra, 1987

My fellow Americans:

I’ve spoken to you from this historic office on many

occasions and about many things. The power of the Presi-

dency is often thought to reside within this Oval Office. Yet

it doesn’t rest here, it rests in you, the American people,

and in your trust. Your trust is what gives a President his

powers of leadership and his personal strength, and it’s

what I want to talk to you about this evening.

For the past 3 months, I’ve been silent on the revela-

tions about Iran. And you must have been thinking: “Well,

why doesn’t he tell us what’s happening? Why doesn’t he

just speak to us as he has in the past when we’ve faced

troubles or tragedies?” Others of you, I guess, were think-

ing: “What’s he doing hiding out in the White House?”

Well, the reason I haven’t spoken to you before now is this:

You deserve the truth. And as frustrating as the waiting has

been, I felt it was improper to come to you with sketchy

reports, or possibly even erroneous statements, which

would then have to be corrected, creating even more

doubt and confusion. There’s been enough of that. I’ve

paid a price for my silence in terms of your trust and con-

fidence. But I’ve had to wait, as you have, for the complete

story. That’s why I appointed Ambassador David Abshire

as my Special Counselor to help get out the thousands of

documents to the various investigations. And I appointed a

Special Review Board, the Tower board, which took on the

chore of pulling the truth together for me and getting to

the bottom of things. It has now issued its findings.

I’m often accused of being an optimist, and it’s true I

had to hunt pretty hard to find any good news in the

Board’s report. As you know, it’s well-stocked with criti-

cisms, which I’ll discuss in a moment; but I was very

relieved to read this sentence: “ . . . the Board is convinced

that the President does indeed want the full story to be

told.” And that will continue to be my pledge to you as the

other investigations go forward. I want to thank the mem-

bers of the panel: former Senator John Tower, former Sec-

retary of State Edmund Muskie, and former national

security adviser Brent Scowcroft. They have done the

Nation, as well as me personally, a great service by sub-

mitting a report of such integrity and depth. They have my

genuine and enduring gratitude.

I’ve studied the Board’s report. Its findings are honest,

convincing, and highly critical; and I accept them. And

tonight I want to share with you my thoughts on these find-

ings and report to you on the actions I’m taking to imple-

ment the Board’s recommendations. First, let me say I take

full responsibility for my own actions and for those of

my administration. As angry as I may be about activities

undertaken without my knowledge, I am still accountable

for those activities. As disappointed as I may be in some

who served me, I’m still the one who must answer to the

American people for this behavior. And as personally dis-

tasteful as I find secret bank accounts and diverted

funds—well, as the Navy would say, this happened on my

watch.

Let’s start with the part that is the most controversial.

A few months ago I told the American people I did not

trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions

still tell me that’s true, but the facts and the evidence tell

me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a

strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementa-

tion, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to

my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the origi-

nal strategy we had in mind. There are reasons why it hap-

pened, but no excuses. It was a mistake. I undertook the

original Iran initiative in order to develop relations with

those who might assume leadership in a post-Khomeini

government.

It’s clear from the Board’s report, however, that I let

my personal concern for the hostages spill over into the

geopolitical strategy of reaching out to Iran. I asked so

many questions about the hostages welfare that I didn’t ask

enough about the specifics of the total Iran plan. Let me

say to the hostage families: We have not given up. We

never will. And I promise you we’ll use every legitimate

means to free your loved ones from captivity. But I must

also caution that those Americans who freely remain in

such dangerous areas must know that they’re responsible

for their own safety.

Now, another major aspect of the Board’s findings

regards the transfer of funds to the Nicaraguan contras.

The Tower board wasn’t able to find out what happened to

this money, so the facts here will be left to the continuing

investigations of the court-appointed Independent Coun-

sel and the two congressional investigating committees.

I’m confident the truth will come out about this matter, as

well. As I told the Tower board, I didn’t know about any

diversion of funds to the contras. But as President, I can-

not escape responsibility.

Much has been said about my management style, a

style that’s worked successfully for me during 8 years as

Governor of California and for most of my Presidency.

The way I work is to identify the problem, find the right

individuals to do the job, and then let them go to it. I’ve

found this invariably brings out the best in people. They

seem to rise to their full capability, and in the long run you

get more done. When it came to managing the NSC staff,

let’s face it, my style didn’t match its previous track record.

I’ve already begun correcting this. As a start, yesterday I

met with the entire professional staff of the National

Security Council. I defined for them the values I want to

Foreign Policy Issues 1709

guide the national security policies of this country. I told

them that I wanted a policy that was as justifiable and

understandable in public as it was in secret. I wanted a

policy that reflected the will of the Congress as well as of

the White House. And I told them that there’ll be no

more freelancing by individuals when it comes to our

national security.

You’ve heard a lot about the staff of the National Secu-

rity Council in recent months. Well, I can tell you, they are

good and dedicated government employees, who put in

long hours for the Nation’s benefit. They are eager and

anxious to serve their country. One thing still upsetting me,

however, is that no one kept proper records of meetings or

decisions. This led to my failure to recollect whether I

approved an arms shipment before or after the fact. I did

approve it; I just can’t say specifically when. Well, rest

assured, there’s plenty of recordkeeping now going on at

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

For nearly a week now, I’ve been studying the

Board’s report. I want the American people to know that

this wrenching ordeal of recent months has not been in

vain. I endorse every one of the Tower board’s recom-

mendations. In fact, I’m going beyond its recommenda-

tions so as to put the house in even better order. I’m

taking action in three basic areas: personnel, national

security policy, and the process for making sure that the

system works.

First, personnel—I’ve brought in an accomplished

and highly respected new team here at the White House.

They bring new blood, new energy, and new credibility

and experience. Former Senator Howard Baker, my new

Chief of Staff, possesses a breadth of legislative and for-

eign affairs skills that’s impossible to match. I’m hopeful

that his experience as minority and majority leader of the

Senate can help us forge a new partnership with the

Congress, especially on foreign and national security poli-

cies. I’m genuinely honored that he’s given up his own

Presidential aspirations to serve the country as my Chief of

Staff. Frank Carlucci, my new national security adviser, is

respected for his experience in government and trusted for

his judgment and counsel. Under him, the NSC staff is

being rebuilt with proper management discipline. Already,

almost half the NSC professional staff is comprised of new

people.

Yesterday I nominated William Webster, a man of

sterling reputation, to be Director of the Central Intelli-

gence Agency. Mr. Webster has served as Director of the

FBI and as a U.S. District Court judge. He understands

the meaning of “rule of law.” So that his knowledge of

national security matters can be available to me on a con-

tinuing basis, I will also appoint John Tower to serve as

member of my Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. I am

considering other changes in personnel, and I’ll move

more furniture, as I see fit, in the weeks and months

ahead.

Second, in the area of national security policy, I have

ordered the NSC to begin a comprehensive review of all

covert operations. I have also directed that any covert

activity be in support of clear policy objectives and in com-

pliance with American values. I except a covert policy that,

if Americans saw it on the front page of their newspaper,

they’d say, “That makes sense.” I have had issued a direc-

tive prohibiting the NSC staff itself from undertaking

covert operations—no ifs, ands, and buts. I have asked

Vice President Bush to reconvene his task force on terror-

ism to review our terrorist policy in light of the events that

have occurred.

Third, in terms of the process of reaching national

security decisions, I am adopting in total the Tower

report’s model of how the NSC process and staff should

work. I am directing Mr. Carlucci to take the necessary

steps to make that happen. He will report back to me on

further reforms that might be needed. I’ve created the

post of NSC legal adviser to assure a greater sensitivity to

matters of law. I am also determined to make the congres-

sional oversight process work. Proper procedures for con-

sultation with the Congress will be followed, not only in

letter but in spirit. Before the end of March, I will report

to the Congress on all the steps I’ve taken in line with the

Tower board’s conclusions.

Now, what should happen when you make a mistake

is this: You take your knocks, you learn your lessons, and

then you move on. That’s the healthiest way to deal with

a problem. This in no way diminishes the importance of

the other continuing investigations, but the business of

our country and our people must proceed. I’ve gotten

this message from Republicans and Democrats in

Congress, from allies around the world, and—if we’re

reading the signals right—even from the Soviets. And of

course, I’ve heard the message from you, the American

people. You know, by the time you reach my age, you’ve

made plenty of mistakes. And if you’ve lived your life

properly—so, you learn. You put things in perspective.

You pull your energies together. You change. You go for-

ward.

My fellow Americans, I have a great deal that I want

to accomplish with you and for you over the next 2 years.

And the Lord willing, that’s exactly what I intend to do.

Good night, and God bless you.

Source:

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Ronald Rea-

gan, 1983. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,

1952–92. pp. 208–211.

1710 ERA 10: Contemporary United States

George Bush,

Panama Invasion Address, 1989

On the evening of December 20, 1989, President George

Bush gave a nationally televised speech announcing that he

had ordered U.S. troops to Panama that morning in an effort to

overthrow the government of General Manuel Antonio Nor-

iega. Bush said he had acted in response to Panama’s Decem-

ber 15 declaration that it was “in a state of war” with the

United States because of economic sanctions imposed by the

U.S. government in 1988. The move capped months of non-

military efforts by the Bush administration to force Noriega

from power. In his speech, Bush said that his goals were to

safeguard the lives of Americans living in Panama, to defend

democracy in Panama, and to protect the integrity of the

Panama Canal Treaty. Once this “Operation Just Cause” was

launched it took only 24 hours to succeed but at the cost of 23

American fatalities and 394 wounded. Noriega was tried in

the United States in 1992 and convicted on charges that

included drug trafficking, money laundering, and racketeer-

ing. As of fall 2002 he remains in prison.

The American invasion of Panama also marked the first

time American women engaged in direct combat as women–

previous female combatants had dressed as men. Captain

Linda Bray became the first American woman to command

troops in battle. Because federal law forbade women from

combat units, they were actually from the military police help-

ing to secure the areas that the combat troops had captured,

including dangerous outposts. Approximately 10 percent of

these companies were female and many of them, like Bray,

were officers.

Despite Bray’s actions and lobbying on the part of

women’s organizations, Congress, through 2002, has contin-

ued to exclude women from combat.

________________________

_______________________

My fellow citizens, last night I ordered U.S. military forces

to Panama. No President takes such action lightly. This

morning, I want to tell you what I did and why I did it.

For nearly 2 years, the United States, nations of Latin

America and the Caribbean have worked together to

resolve the crisis in Panama. The goals of the United States

have been to safeguard the lives of Americans, to defend

democracy in Panama, to combat drug trafficking, and to

protect the integrity of the Panama Canal treaty. Many

attempts have been made to resolve this crisis through

diplomacy and negotiations. All were rejected by the dic-

tator of Panama, General Manuel Noriega, an indicted

drug trafficker.

Last Friday, Noriega declared his military dictatorship

to be in a state of war with the United States and publicly

threatened the lives of Americans in Panama. The very

next day, forces under his command shot and killed an

unarmed American serviceman; wounded another;

arrested and brutally beat a third American serviceman;

and then brutally interrogated his wife, threatening her

with sexual abuse. That was enough.

General Noriega’s reckless threats and attacks upon

Americans in Panama created an imminent danger to the

35,000 American citizens in Panama. As President, I have

no higher obligation than to safeguard the lives of Ameri-

can citizens. And that is why I directed our Armed Forces

to protect the lives of American citizens in Panama and to

bring General Noriega to justice in the United States. I

contacted the bipartisan leadership of Congress last night

and informed them of this decision, and after taking this

action, I also talked with leaders in Latin America, the

Caribbean, and those of other U.S. allies.

At this moment, U.S. forces, including forces

deployed from the United States last night, are engaged in

action in Panama. The United States intends to withdraw

the forces newly deployed to Panama as quickly as possi-

ble. Our forces have conducted themselves courageously

and selflessly. And as Commander in Chief, I salute every

one of them and thank them on behalf of our country.

Tragically, some Americans have lost their lives in

defense of their fellow citizens, in defense of democracy.

And my heart goes out to their families. We also regret and

mourn the loss of innocent Panamanians.

The brave Panamanians elected by the people of

Panama in the elections last May, President Guillermo

Endara and Vice Presidents Calderon and Ford, have

assumed the rightful leadership of their country. You

remember those horrible pictures of newly elected Vice

President Ford, covered head to toe with blood, beaten

mercilessly by so-called, “dignity battalions.” Well, the

United States today recognizes the democratically elected

government of President Endara. I will send our Ambas-

sador back to Panama immediately.

Key military objectives have been achieved. Most

organized resistance has been eliminated. But the opera-

tion is not over yet. General Noriega is in hiding. And nev-

ertheless, yesterday a dictator ruled Panama, and today

constitutionally elected leaders govern.

I have today directed the Secretary of the Treasury

and the Secretary of State to lift the economic sanctions

with respect to the democratically elected government of

Panama and, in cooperation with that government, to

take steps to effect an orderly unlocking of Panamanian

Government assets in the United States. I’m fully com-

mitted to implement the Panama Canal treaties and turn

over the Canal to Panama in the year 2000. The actions

we have taken and the cooperation of a new, democratic

Foreign Policy Issues 1711