US Department of State Daily Press Briefing #126,
Tuesday, 8/27/91
Boucher
Source: State Department Deputy Spokesman Richard
Boucher
Description: 12:58 PM, Washington, DC
Date: Aug 27, 19918/27/91
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, E/C Europe, Southeast Asia,
Eurasia, East Asia
Country: Iraq, Croatia, Turkey, Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Cambodia, USSR (former), Philippines,
Cuba
Subject: Mideast Peace Process, Regional/Civil Unrest,
Democratization, Military Affairs,
International Law
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. If I
can start off with one announcement and one statement. The
announcement is that we've been looking at the briefing schedule
this week and have decided, for several reasons, that it's probably
best for us to brief again on Friday rather than Thursday. So we'll
be back here on Friday to talk to you all and not on Thursday.
Q What about Wednesday?
[Phillipines: US Signs Base and Other Agreements]
MR. BOUCHER: No, we hadn't planned on doing one on Wednesday,
to begin with.
The statement is about the U.S.-Philippine treaty on bases.
Representatives of the United States of America and the Republic
of the Philippines today signed a Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation,
and Security at Malacanang Palace in the Philippines. U.S.
Ambassador Frank Wisner and the Philippine Secretary of Foreign
Affairs, Raul Manglapus, signed the agreement in the presence of
President Corazon Aquino.
The signing of the new agreement brought to a successful close a
negotiating process which began in May 1990. Among its provisions
are arrangements which would permit U.S. forces to continue
operating at Subic Naval Base for a term of 10 more years and to
continue defense cooperation into the 21st century. The agreement
also includes provisions for continued bilateral cooperation in the
areas of economics, culture and education, science and technology,
and veterans affairs. Also signed today were supplementary
agreements on the Status of Forces, Installations and Military
Operating Procedures, and an agreement on Cultural and Educational
Cooperation.
This is a solemn undertaking under international law. The two
sides agreed that the manner in which the parties will bring this
agreement into legal force under their respective domestic systems
is a matter of sovereign prerogative for each.
The Philippine side, in accordance with its
constitution, will submit the document to the Senate of the
Philippines for ratification. The American side, in accordance
with its customary practice regarding similar arrangements
around the world, will bring the document into legal force
through the process of an executive agreement. In this manner,
the constitutional requirements and customary practices of both
sides have been fully respected and preserved.
The United States is gratified that the Government of
the Philippines has taken a positive step toward reaffirming the
historic friendship, which has characterized this unique
relationship, and we look forward to the confirmation of
President Aquino's decision by the Senate of the Philippines.
A somewhat more lengthy version of that will be posted.
At this point, I would be glad to take your questions.
Q Richard, on that, since it's a treaty, why is it
not then submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification and
advice?
MR. BOUCHER: We agreed with the request from President
Aquino that this document be called a "treaty" in order to
emphasize, as I said, that it's a solemn undertaking. We will
handle the document in terms -- each side will handle the
documents in terms of its own constitutional procedures, and our
usual procedure for these arrangements is to handle them under
something called the Case-Zablocki Act as an executive
agreement. They will be registered with the United Nations and
published in both the United States Treaties and Other
International Acts Series and the United States Department of
State's annual Treaties in Force documents.
Q Richard, will the full text of the treaty be
available?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll have to check on that. I'm not sure
when it will be.
Q Clark Air Base was damaged by the volcano. Are
there any plans to have any other sort of air base in the
Philippines? What's the status of that?
MR. BOUCHER: What it provides is that U.S. forces will
continue to have access to installations made available at Subic
Naval Base for a period of 10 years. If at the end of 10 years,
the parties have not agreed on subsequent arrangements, there
will then be a period for an orderly withdrawal.
All U.S. forces will leave Clark Air Base by September
1992 and the other smaller facilities in the Philippines, by
September 16, 1991. Clark and the other facilities, as you
know, have been rendered inoperable by the Mt. Pinatubo
volcano. So that's what it provides for -- essentially, the
continuation of Subic.
Q Are there air strips and such -- can the air force
operate out of Subic?
MR. BOUCHER: You'll have to ask the Pentagon. I just
don't know.
Q If the Philippine Senate does not ratify it, then
the treaty or agreement -- whatever you're going to call it --
does not go into effect?
MR. BOUCHER: That's right. They have to do that. We
understand, I think, that they have a deadline for that --
September 16. In order for it to be approved by the Philippine
Senate, no less than 16 affirmative votes are required. We
expect that the Senate will act on this matter on or before
September 16. So we'll see what happens there. Of course, if
they didn't approve it, then we would have to look to institute
procedures for withdrawal.
Q Renewal of this base agreement had been a real
political issue over in the Philippines. What does the fact
that we've gotten an agreement mean in terms of the politics
over there?
MR. BOUCHER: The politics over there, as far as
particular people, I'm not about to comment on. In terms of the
agreement itself, we think it's a good agreement. We think it
solidifies a relationship that goes back for many years, and it
continues a military presence of the United States. It serves
the interests of stability of the region as well as the
interests of the Philippines in that stability.
So we think it's a good agreement. We hope it's
ratified by the Philippine Senate.
Q Have you got the dollar sums?
MR. BOUCHER: The compensation package, as it's known;
for this fiscal year, we're dealing with what the U.S. Congress
is dealing with. There is a committee process in the House of
Representatives. It's already completed. The Senate has not
yet acted, but it appears likely that the U.S. Congress will
appropriate about $223 million in security assistance grants for
the Philippines in fiscal year 1992 -- sorry, that's next year.
The security assistance package will probably consist
of $100 million in foreign military financing; $120 million in
economic support funds; and $2.8 million in international
military education and training. In addition, there will be a
special development assistance Grant of $100 million.
The President will seek not less than $203 million in
security assistance -- that is, these three categories -- from
Congress for subsequent years of the agreement.
We will also continue a number of other assistance
programs.
- The excess defense and medical equipment program,
under which the U.S. will continue to provide modern,
serviceable defense and medical equipment, excess to the U.S.
defense needs, to the Philippines over the life of the
agreement.
- The "Buy Philippine" program, under which U.S.
military forces in the Philippines and other parts of the
Pacific will continue to purchase Philippine goods, under a
balance-of-payments waiver, for the life of the agreement.
In addition to that, there is our contribution to the
Multilateral Assistance Initiative, which is not counted in the
compensation package for the base. As early as 1988, both U.S.
and Philippine negotiators agreed that the Multilateral
Assistance Initiative -- both in terms of U.S. pledges and the
pledges of other countries -- would not be linked to the bases.
For the coming fiscal year, President Bush has asked
Congress to contribute $160 million to this vital program as
well.
Q You've lost me. For fiscal 1992, what is the
bottom line? How much money will change hands?
MR. BOUCHER: Fiscal '92, we're looking at $223
million. That's based on what action the House committees have
taken so far. Assuming that that passes, that would be the
number. The President will not seek less than $203 million for
subsequent years of the agreement. Not counted in this is the
multilateral assistance package for which we're looking for $160
million this year.
Q You mentioned another development --
MR. BOUCHER: This coming year. Sorry. That would be
'92.
Q And you mentioned another figure of $100 million
for development assistance?
MR. BOUCHER: That's the breakdown of the $223.
Q You're saying that if the Philippine Senate says
"no," you're going to withdraw rather than re-negotiate?
MR. BOUCHER: What I'm saying, in that case, the United
States will institute procedures which will lead to the
withdrawal of U.S. military forces from the Philippines.
Q Sixteen votes is required for ratification?
MR. BOUCHER: That's right.
Q I believe there are 23 members of the -- they have
to have two-thirds majority?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not a constitutional scholar for the
Philippines. But my understanding is that they need 16
affirmative votes.
[USSR: Situation Update]
Q New subject. Two questions on the Soviet Union.
First of all, the Common Market today recognized the Baltics
unanimously -- agreed to recognize them. When is the United
States going to do the same thing? And, secondly, what can you
tell us about the meetings that have been going on in this
building about what the future U.S. policy should be toward the
Soviet Union, specifically, on the question of economic
investment and aid and so on?
MR. BOUCHER: The EC declaration, we're aware of it.
It just happened. I have nothing at this point that would
change our position, which I think was amply expressed by the
President yesterday. I think there's never been any question
that we support the independence and freedom of the Baltic
states. We never recognized their forcible incorporation.
As the President said yesterday, there's a few things
he wants to see settled out before he decides on his next steps;
and I'm sure when he decides, he will make it known to you.
As far as meetings that are going on, we have people,
obviously, who are following the situation in the Soviet Union
and in the Baltic states very closely. There are many issues
that are being discussed out there right now.
We have been discussing in preparations for the
upcoming meetings, for example, the G-7 sherpas. I guess all I
can really say is we're following these issues closely.
Q Can you give us any more specifics than that? I
mean, for example, is there any discussion of lifting COCOM
restrictions or Smoot-Hawley restrictions or some of the other
things that are preventing Western investment in the Soviet
Union?
MR. BOUCHER: The package of things that we were
working on was expressed during the London summit and then
during the Moscow summit. I think the White House put out 10 or
so Fact Sheets, some of which dealt with things like the
investment treaties and tax treaties that were under
negotiation. They dealt with the restrictions and various
legislation that we were lifting and talked about other
technical assistance programs that we have.
The President has said that he has lifted the freeze on
those kind of programs, and those things will be going forward.
Q Richard, what about MFN status for the Soviet
Union now that this has all taken place?
MR. BOUCHER: The President submitted the trade
agreement to the Senate in early August. So, as the President
said, he had lifted the freeze on all the economic programs, and
we would intend to proceed with those things, too.
Q Richard, the President talked yesterday about
giving food aid to the Soviet Union. I'm little unclear on
exactly what he's offering -- if he's just speeding up
agricultural credits, or if we're actually giving them a
boatload of food right now?
MR. BOUCHER: I think, if I remember correctly, he said
two things. The first was if there is hardship, we stand ready
to help. That's always been our position and the position of
other members of the international community. When there is
emergency circumstances or undue hardship, we've always stepped
up to the plate and helped people out.
The second was, he announced that $315 million of
credit guarantees for the agricultural programs, that had been
originally slated to start after October 1, that that was being
moved up. That was a request from the Soviets about mid-August,
I think. They asked for that amount to be speeded up, and he
announced yesterday that we were able to do so.
Q Richard, Ambassador Strauss met with President
Yeltsin and President Gorabchev. Did they discuss Soviet aid to
Cuba? Was the Ambassador assured that the Soviet Union would,
indeed, cut off military aid and/or suspend economic aid? What
is your understanding of the situation?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know that we've received any
assurances of that kind. I think Ambassador Strauss has just
talked in Kennebunkport a little bit more about his meetings
with President Gorbachev and President Yeltsin. From the
briefing I got, nothing like that came up nor am I aware that
those subjects were discussed in his meetings.
Q Richard, the Baltics aside, there is a whole
series now of Soviet republics which are declaring their
independence. What is the U.S. view of this whole development?
And are there concerns about potential ethnic and economic
problems that would result from those declarations?
MR. BOUCHER: The President talked yesterday about our
support for independence -- specifically, for the Baltics -- and
the general issue of self-determination for others in the Soviet
Union. He also made clear that those issues of future
relationships, whether they're the political ones or economic
ones or whatever they work out, that those things are to be
worked out by the Soviet peoples.
We've always held that they should take into account
the interests of various parts of Soviet society. I think that
would be our basic view, but it's really something for them to
work out peacefully.
Q Are you saying that there is some concern about
minority rights, ethnic turbulence under these circumstances?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, the President spoke yesterday
about not wanting to contribute in any way to potential
instability or anarchy, or anything like that, within the Soviet
Union by statements that we make. We've always held in these
situations -- and specifically in this one -- that the interests
of various peoples needs to be taken into account in the process
that they use to establish the future arrangements and
relationships.
Q Richard, is it being discussed in this building
how to deal with the question of nuclear weapons security if,
indeed, the central government is in deterioration?
MR. BOUCHER: The information I have on nuclear weapons
-- and this is to the best of our knowledge -- that Soviet
nuclear weapons remain in the control of the Soviet central
authorities. They have a record of tight, redundant controls
over such systems.
I think you've heard the President say, and I said the
other day, that we had seen nothing during the course of the
coup that lead to any heightened concern in that respect.
Q But a number of tactical weapons are scattered
throughout some of these republics that are claiming
independence now. Is there concern that something could be done
with these? Some of these older weapons don't have the newer
lock-and-key kind of technology.
MR. BOUCHER: It's a subject that we follow. As you
know, the military relationships between the republics and the
center and, indeed, the future relationships between the
republics are issues that are being discussed in Moscow right
now.
I can't predict how they will come out, nor exactly
what arrangements will be made with any specific set of weapons.
But our knowledge of the program and where things stand right
now tells us that the weapons remain under the control of the
Soviet central authorities.
Q Richard, is there some confusion in this building
as to who exactly we should be dealing with in foreign policy
over there?
MR. BOUCHER: The Soviet Union has a President --
President Gorbachev. They have a Foreign Ministry. They don't
at this point, I think, have a Foreign Minister; at least I
haven't seen any new announcements today.
We expect -- we continue to have dealings with those
institutions that the Soviets have made responsible for foreign
policy. How internally they work, the various relationships,
again is something for them to determine. But we have said that
we would deal with various authorities in the Soviet Union in
various areas, depending on what they have authority for.
Q Richard, on the secession question, I understand
what you're saying about it's a matter for them largely, but
there seems to be a legal difference which would involve a U.S.
decision.
The Baltics' annexation was never recognized by the
United States Government. That, however, does not apply to the
Ukraine or Armenia or places like that. Could you tell us or
find out for us what would be the legal distinction between
recognizing something like the Ukraine as opposed to recognizing
something like Latvia?
MR. BOUCHER: The legal distinction is basically the
one you've said, and I think we've put up in the past the
carefully crafted and accurate guidance on our views of the
status of different republics.
Clearly, we've never recognized the forcible
incorporation of the Baltic states, but beyond that, the
relationships of different republics to each other and to the
center is something for them to work out. We would hope that
those would be worked out peacefully on the basis of democracy
and self-determination and that any solution should be part of a
process that takes into account the interests of all of the
parties.
Q Richard, if such a procedure were worked out
between the center and a republic, then the United States would
be willing to extend recognition to a republic such as Russia or
the Ukraine?
MR. BOUCHER: I can't predict anything specific on that
at this point, Jim, because, as you know, these subjects are
being discussed very actively right now in Moscow. There are
various statements and ideas out there. Some of the republics
have referenda scheduled for later this year, and we're
following this process closely. But I can't, at this point,
predict some specific step on the part of the United States
until we see how the Soviets themselves start deciding these
questions.
Q But, Richard, isn't it a fact that the United
States already has recognized the Ukraine as a voting nation in
the United Nations? The Ukraine belongs to the United Nations,
and it has a vote.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know how that fact would affect
the legal status. I just don't know.
Q Richard, the Russian Republic has a Foreign
Minister. Is the State Department on a daily-basis contact with
them?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if we are on a daily basis
in contact with them. Certainly we've had contacts and meetings
with the Russian Republic. The Secretary met with the Foreign
Minister in Brussels last week for what was his fourth meeting
with the gentleman; and we've been in touch, I think, all along
with the President of the Russian Republic, Mr. Yeltsin, as
well.
Q Can you give any examples of the kinds of issues
that are discussed with the Foreign Ministry of the Russian
Republic?
MR. BOUCHER: No, not specifically at this point. I
mean, we are discussing developments and issues of mutual
concern, I'm sure.
Q Richard, you said that no assurances had been
received from the Russians regarding continuance in supplying
Cuba.
MR. BOUCHER: I said I wasn't aware of any.
Q Now, isn't that question going to be important as
the question of aid is raised again? What are you going to do
about that?
MR. BOUCHER: I just don't think I'm in a position, at
this point, until the Soviets answer these questions for
themselves, to talk about specific Soviet foreign policies and
what they're going to do in each of these directions. Military
spending and assistance and things like that are part of the mix
of issues being discussed in Moscow, and we'll see how they
settle out and continue our policies accordingly. I think our
views on that are pretty well known.
Q Richard, the Russian Foreign Minister -- I think
you "visa'd" him to come to the United States. Is he coming to
Washington soon?
MR. BOUCHER: After he met with the Secretary in
Brussels, I think he went back to Paris and then he returned to
Moscow. So at this point I don't think he has any current
travel plans.
Q Is the U.S. concerned that the change in the
Soviet Union is going too fast?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have a judgment like that for
you, Pat. We're following the situation closely. The President
expressed concerns about not contributing to or encouraging any
sort of instability there. But there are a great many issues
that they have to deal with, that they are dealing with now, and
we're following closely how they do that.
Q Could you clarify? One of the things the
President said yesterday was that a reason for delaying
recognition is that some territorial questions have to be
settled; that Lithuania today isn't the same as it was in 1940.
Does that mean that we're retreating from the idea of
treating borders according to the Helsinki principles, which was
the position some few months ago?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not familiar with the exact status of
borders there. The President, I think, also referred to the
questions of control of territory. He also referred to the fact
that he wanted to see how the European Community and the Supreme
Soviet dealt with some of these issues over the course of the
coming days. So there are a number of issues that are not clear
at this point.
Q What is the U.S. view of the rest of the borders
within the Soviet Union? Do we recognize them as existing
borders? Do we see them as somehow imposed and, therefore,
flexible, open to negotiation? You know, the comment yesterday
about "maybe we'll have to deal with these borders" from a
Yeltsin spokesman. What's the U.S. view of that?
MR. BOUCHER: Our understanding is the Russian Republic
actually issued a decree in which it reserved the right to raise
with contiguous republics seeking independence the issue of
revision of borders.
Our view is that settlement of any outstanding
territorial and border disputes within the Soviet Union is a
matter for those concerned to resolve through good-faith
negotiations.
Q Richard, do you have anything about the
probability of delaying the peace conference of the Middle East
because of the Soviet events?
MR. BOUCHER: No.
Q Richard, on the matter of borders and
disintegration and secession, is one of the concerns of the
United States that any precipitous breakup of the Soviet Union
might contribute to parallel breakups of countries in Eastern
Europe such as Yugoslavia?
MR. BOUCHER: The President mentioned Yugoslavia
yesterday. I don't really have any amplification, but he did
talk about what he expressed as special considerations in how he
approaches and how we express ourselves on the issue. And I
think Prime Minister Mulroney also recognized that -- that that
is one of the considerations in how we approach the issue.
Q To put it bluntly, is there concern that any
encouragement of secession in the Soviet Union would lead to
similar breakups in Eastern Europe?
MR. BOUCHER: I'd just have to stick with the way the
President expressed it yesterday. I can get those quotes for
you, but I don't want to try to advance it from there.
Q Richard, is the START treaty on hold now, or what
is the exact status now with the developments in the Soviet
Union?
MR. BOUCHER: As for arms control agreements: First of
all, on the INF agreement, the destructions that were called for
have taken place. As to CFE and START, we intend to proceed
with ratification. We expect the Soviets to do the same. We
expect the U.S.S.R. to continue to observe its obligations under
international law regarding arms control.
I believe the CFE agreement has already been sent up to
the Hill and that the START treaty is still in the process of
cleaning up the text for submission.
Q Richard, what has been your general statement
toward communism? And aren't you going to prepare one new one
toward the world communism, that only four or five nations are
keeping the ideology with the downfall of the Communist Party --
Soviet Communist Party?
MR. BOUCHER: The President yesterday spoke about the
death knell of communism and about the people who were probably
sweating, having seen the events that occurred.
Q Richard, Israel was not invited to the regional
water conference to be held in Turkey in November this year. Do
you have any comment on that?
MR. BOUCHER: That's something I wasn't aware of. I'll
look into it and see what the structure of the conference is.
I'm not familiar with it.
Q Another part of the world? O.K.? Do you have
anything on the continued fighting in Yugoslavia?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes. The United States is increasingly
concerned about the ongoing violence in Croatia which has now
escalated to the level of attacks by Serbian militants and
elements of the Yugoslav military on major urban centers in
eastern Croatia.
We, the European Community, and the entire CSCE
community have sent a clear message to the peoples of Yugoslavia
over recent months that the international community stands ready
to help them address and reconcile their legitimate concerns
through a process of peaceful dialogue and that the use of force
to solve political differences or to change external or internal
borders is simply not acceptable.
In fact, on Monday, we called in the Yugoslav
Ambassador to express our views and our concerns, and we would
call upon all parties to implement immediately an unconditional
cease-fire and to create the conditions for the EC mission
endorsed by the CSCE to monitor the cease-fire without delay.
Q Do you feel that the army in Yugoslavia is under
the control of communist elements?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything new on their
control. I think what has concerned us particularly in the
present situation is that elements of the army are joining with
Serbian militants in these attacks on eastern Croatia. We don't
think that that is an appropriate course for them. I think that
only exacerbates the violence and exacerbates the tragedy.
Q In yet another area, do you have any reaction to
the latest apparent improvement in the negotiations over
Cambodia and its settlement?
MR. BOUCHER: We welcome the progress that they appear
to have made. I'd point out that the United States and other
Perm Five members are not formally participating in the August
26-28 meeting of the Cambodian Supreme National Council. Our
Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Richard
Solomon, is heading the United States delegation to an August
29-30 Perm Five meeting in Pattaya immediately after that
Supreme National Council meeting.
At the Perm Five meeting, the U.S. delegation, other
Perm Five members, and Indonesia will be reviewing the progress
made by the Cambodian Supreme National Council members, headed
by Prince Sihanouk. They are trying to arrive at agreement on
the remaining issues relating to a final comprehensive
settlement.
The major remaining issues were the extent of the
demobilization of the factional forces and the role of the
United Nations during the transitional period with respect to
the military arrangements and then to the conduct of the
election.
We understand that the members have agreed on a 70%
demobilization of the factional forces before the election. The
remaining 30% would be placed in cantonment, with weapons stored
under joint supervision of U.N. and factional commanders.
The Supreme National Council has also requested that
the United Nations send an observer team to monitor the current
cease-fire and the arms moratorium. Their members will continue
to meet for a third day. We expect more reports about the
results in a day or two.
As I said, we welcome the progress that has been made
thus far toward a comprehensive settlement. We continue to
believe that a settlement based on the Perm Five framework
offers the best chance for a successful outcome in Cambodia.
I'd defer any further comment until after the SNC and the Perm
Five talks are concluded this week.
Q Where are those Perm Five talks?
MR. BOUCHER: In Pattaya, Thailand.
Q Richard, would you care to take a swing at the
number of editorial comments that are appearing in the
newspapers in recent days -- for instance, from Messrs. Allison
and Blackwill of Harvard -- criticizing the Bush Administration
for being too cautious about the Soviet Union at the moment and
for not coming out and saying now, not that they will send money
tomorrow, but that money is there in large quantities when the
reform process has reached the right point? There's a certain
amount of editorial criticism. Would you care to respond to it?
MR. BOUCHER: If you ask if I'd care to take a swing,
I'd say the President took a pretty big swing at it the other
day, and I'll be glad to get you exactly what he said. We've
stressed all along that the program that we put together in
London with the other members of the G-7 was a good program. It
provided the kind of assistance that the Soviets can use and the
kind of assistance that their leaders, including President
Gorbachev and President Yeltsin themselves, have said they need.
It's a program that helps them along on the process of
economic reform. It provides the kind of assistance and advice
they need directly through technical experts as well as through
the IMF. In cases where there are specific needs, like for the
grain credits or medical assistance, it provides that kind of
assistance as well. So we have a good program that we intend to
proceed with.
Q And is it adequate in size and scope?
MR. BOUCHER: It's a good program, and we intend to
proceed with it.
Q Are you discussing the possibility of expanding
the size and scope of this sort of program that you're talking
about?
MR. BOUCHER: At this point, there's no new package
under preparation, if that's what you're talking about.
Q I have a question on Kuwait. Do you intend to
communicate very soon on the defense agreement with Kuwait
following the departure of U.S. troops?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm sure we'll have one at the
appropriate time. I believe the Pentagon talked about it a
little bit today if I'm right. Cynthia, is that right?
MS. WHITTLESEY: The discussed rotation of U.S. troops.
MR. BOUCHER: Yes. The Pentagon talked about the
rotation of troops today. I think I'd best refer you to that
for the moment.
Q Nothing about a defense agreement between Kuwait
and the United States?
MR. BOUCHER: Not right now.
Q Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:31 p.m.)