US Department of State Daily Press Briefing #169,
Wednesday, 11/15/91
Boucher
Source: State Department Deputy Spokesman Richard
Boucher
Description: 12:53 PM, Washington, DC
Date: Nov 15, 199111/15/91
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, E/C Europe, Eurasia,
Southeast Asia, East Asia, Caribbean
Country: Libya, Syria, China, North Korea, Iran, India,
Pakistan, Indonesia, Haiti, USSR (former),
Kazakhstan, El Salvador, Yugoslavia (former)
Subject: Terrorism, Science/Technology, Trade/Economics,
Military Affairs, POW/MIA Issues,
Nuclear Nonproliferation, Regional/Civil Unrest, United Nations
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I
don't have any new statements or announcements for you. I'd like to
tell you that we're making available two new pieces of paper on
the Pan Am 103 question. They're in the photocopier right now
and will be available immediately after the briefing in the
Press Office.
One is a paper on the exploration of the PFLP-GC activities,
and how the evidence led us away from that and towards Libya.
The second is a longer paper than my statements of yesterday
that describes the bombing itself and how it was arranged and
carried out.
George?
Q Do you have anything more today about your
consultations and other activities following the indictments?
MR. BOUCHER: I can, I think, run through a couple of things
here. First of all, you've seen the Libyan public statement,
the official reaction, I guess, where they denied any
involvement. Obviously, that means Libya's aware of the
indictments from our public statements.
We'll also be transmitting the indictments in diplomatic
channels in the coming days. We haven't had any contact at this
point, even indirectly.
In terms of other governments, we're considering any number
of international responses. The President has already raised
this issue with some foreign leaders, and you've seen some like
President Mitterrand speak himself about it. We'll be raising
it with others in the very near future. Governments throughout
the world have been briefed on the charges and the extensive
evidence of Libyan Government culpability.
As the White House said yesterday, and I think we said
yesterday, no options have been ruled out.
In addition to that, we've been keeping in close contact
with the families, as we have done ever since the tragic bombing
of Pan Am 103 in December of 1988.
Yesterday as the Justice Department began its
briefings, the Bureau of Consular Affairs began calling the Pan
Am 103 families. Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs
Elizabeth Tamposi called the leadership of the two family
organizations, Pan Am 103/Lockerbie, and the Victims of Pan Am
Flight 103.
Among those she talked to were Mr. Paul Hudson,
President of Pan Am 103/Lockerbie; Ms. Aphrodite Tsairis,
Chairwoman, Victims of Pan Am 103; and Bert Ammerman, the
President of Victims of Pan Am 103.
These are the people that Assistant Secretary Tamposi
and other Bureau principals have met with many times since the
bombing. Consular officers informed the rest of the families of
the indictment, they answered questions, and they informed the
families of the new developments.
The Justice Department will be sending them a copy of
the indictment, and our Bureau of Consular Affairs will be
sending the families the White Papers and the other materials
that we've also made available to you.
Q Richard, are any of the consultations you're
making with foreign governments being undertaken within the
framework of the United Nations?
MR. BOUCHER: At this point we've been contacting
governments through capitals.
Q Richard, the indictments don't address another
subject which is involved in this Pan Am 103 business. Does the
State Department think that any other governments or any other
airlines were negligent in permitting the time bomb to get into
the stream of international luggage?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure I can give you a definitive
answer on that at this point, Jim. I think the Justice
Department said that there were no indications of involvement of
Pan Am employees, passengers, people like that, in this. As
we've said, we've tracked down the evidence of culpability, and
we've said it led to the Libyans, and we didn't have evidence of
others.
As far as your sort of asking a "lessons learned" from
the way the bombing happened, over the last several years,
obviously, we've done a lot to improve security -- airline
security in particular -- and we've been fairly successful in
that.
Q Well, to take it beyond either governments or
airlines, does the State Department see anything wrong with this
Swiss firm building 20 electronic timers designed to explode and
then selling them only to the Libyans?
MR. BOUCHER: Obviously, we don't like it. Whether
it's a violation of specific laws or something like that, that
is something the Swiss would have to determine.
Q Richard, did you say that you will be transmitting
the indictments through diplomatic channels to Libya? Did I
hear you say that?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes. I think that's what I said.
Q What channels are those?
MR. BOUCHER: We have a protecting power. It's
Belgium.
Q So would you expect to transmit it both here and
through the -- in other words, through the Libyan office here?
Their protecting power here is --
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know exactly how it will be done.
As I said, it will be done in coming days.
Q Will that transmission include a request for
extradition?
MR. BOUCHER: As I think I said yesterday, we do not
have a extradition treaty with Libya. That's a technical matter
of fact. Libya, obviously, could expel the perpetrators and
give them to us.
Q Yeah. The fact that there's no treaty doesn't --
MR. BOUCHER: But the intention at this point is to
transmit the indictments in diplomatic channels in the coming
days. Whatever else might be transmitted, I'm not going to
predict at this point.
Q O.K. As I understand the law, the fact that
there's no treaty does not at all prevent the United States from
requesting extradition.
MR. BOUCHER: I haven't looked into the law on that,
Doyle. As I said, there's various means of turning over people
or getting people for custody and trial.
Q So as far as you know, there's been no decision on
that, or there's been a decision that you can't tell us about?
MR. BOUCHER: As far as I know, there's been no
decision on what additional requests might be transmitted along
with the indictment.
Q Richard, I've been reading your booklet, which is
admirable, and there's a lengthy list --
MR. BOUCHER: I'll pass that on to the authors.
(Laughter)
Q -- a lengthy list of atrocities in the back pages,
a chronology of attacks all around the world, which the United
States attributes to Libya or guerrillas that were trained or
financed or otherwise backed by Libya, throughout the world in
Karachi, in Costa Rica, in Barcelona, in which scores of people
have been killed and hundreds have been wounded.
I was a bit surprised at the magnitude. Were there any
indictments on any of those cases? What has the United States
been doing to protect its citizens and others against this
stream of Libyan-backed actions?
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, I don't know if there were specific
indictments in all these incidents. As you know, with this
particular case, it was thoroughly and carefully investigated,
and we were able to reach an indictment that charges criminal
responsibility, and that has been done.
What we've been doing to protect our citizens has been
a campaign for many years, working by ourselves, with other
governments, etc., not only to improve security, but to crack
down on state sponsors of terrorism.
Q What about the -- since we're talking about Pan Am
-- the attempted hijack of Pan Am Flight 73 in Karachi,
Pakistan, in which 21 people were killed, including two
Americans, and 120 were injured. Is that a serious incident?
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, all these incidents are serious,
especially the state sponsorship of terrorism we see as a very,
very serious matter. Whether there are specific indictments in
specific cases is not a question that I can answer for you here.
That's something you might check with the Justice Department
about.
Q Has anything been done to bring the perpetrators
of that or the people that backed them from the Libyan People's
Bureau in Islamabad to justice?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, Alan, whether there are specific
indictments and the judicial process in a specific case is not
something I can answer for you here.
Q Richard, can you tell us whether the -- among the
methods that the U.S. will use to transmit the indictments will
be through the U.N. Ambassador -- Libyan U.N. Ambassador -- or
is there some reason why you're not using the U.N.? I guess
that's what I --
MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, at this point I'm not in a
position to specify in any more detail. We have a protecting
power that's in Libya -- that's Belgium -- and that's obviously
one means that's available to us. But we'll do this when we
decide how and when to do it.
Q And is there any explanation you care to give as
to why you've transmitted this document to many other
governments, as you said you did yesterday, but have not done so
to the Libyans yet, the one country that's most --
MR. BOUCHER: I guess I would only give you the
explanation that I gave yesterday that we will transmit it. We
see no particular urgency to that. They know what they've done.
They're aware of what we've said publicly, and what we've been
making available publicly.
We are at the point now of making this information and
evidence available to other governments, so that they can look
at it and digest it. And we're talking to other governments
about what steps we need to take.
Q Do you see any particular urgency, to use your
phrase, in developing a response -- the international response
that you talked about yesterday?
MR. BOUCHER: It's something that I said we were doing
and Marlin has said we were doing, and we're working on it.
Q But do you see any particular urgency in doing
that?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to characterize it one way
or the other.
Q Richard, I'm not sure I understood correctly what
you meant when you referred to the denial by the Libyan
Government. You are not commenting in any way on that denial?
MR. BOUCHER: Obviously, we don't think it has any
grounds that one might think of believing. I mean, obviously,
it's not something that we give too much credit to.
Q The denial contains a kind of proposal for the
World Court to look at the evidence you have, and things like
that. You mean you don't have any comment?
MR. BOUCHER: There's been a very thorough
investigation of this by U.S. and United Kingdom authorities. A
statement about further looks at it is really just an obvious
attempt on the part of the Libyans to stall. We reject the
idea. It's not a matter for international arbitration of some
kind. Murder of U.S. citizens is properly a matter for the
investigation and the adjudication by U.S. courts.
Q Richard, I read the White Paper and like Alan was
impressed by that list because it detailed, I think, more than
two dozen incidents since 1986. Are you able to characterize
Libya's involvement in terrorism -- I don't think you were asked
this specifically yesterday -- since '86 as increasing, as
unabated, as waning? Do you have any sort of an evaluation of
the trend?
MR. BOUCHER: We did talk about this somewhat
yesterday, Doyle, and I don't have my information with me today,
so it's an imperfect reconstruction.
After the bombing in 1986, there was a period -- I
don't remember, I don't know if I can characterize it as how
long -- when Libyan direct sponsorship and involvement in acts
seemed to have died down. But they never took the next steps.
They never took the steps of kicking people out and closing
training camps, stopping their financing. And over time since
then, for example, they rebuilt some of their networks in Europe
that have been closed down.
And I think we characterized it yesterday as saying
that there has been specific involvement in some terrorist acts
and specific support in some terrorist acts. But, all along,
Libya has maintained these training camps -- as I detailed some
of the financing that's also in the booklet yesterday.
Q So that, in other words, their direct involvement
seems to have gone through a rather brief hiatus and then it's
come back or --
MR. BOUCHER: It's come and gone. In some cases, you
know, you have to allow for the fact that it often takes some
time to establish evidence in these cases. It took three years
in this case. So the fact that we have not specifically
established evidence over the past year or so in other attacks
is not necessarily an indication they haven't been involved. It
may be an indication that the only lesson they learned was to
try to hide it better.
Q Given the list that the State Department has
published regularly on Libya's involvement in terrorism, how
would you characterize the U.S. Secretary of State's comment in
1986 that, "Qadhafi had been put back in his box." Was he in
fact, by the bombing?
MR. BOUCHER: I think our discussion here was that, for
a period of time, that was probably true by the bombing and the
closing down of the networks. But, as I said, he didn't take
the next steps that would really stop his support for terrorism.
And over time he rebuilt networks and kept in the business.
Q And that's all still active today?
MR. BOUCHER: As detailed in the paper and the
statements I made yesterday, there's still -- we still see a
continuing and consistent pattern of support for terrorism on
the part of Libya.
Q Richard, one more question about the book which
identifies the current Foreign Minister of Libya, Ibrahim
Bishari, as a key figure in the terrorists up until at least
last year when he was head of External Intelligence.
Does the State Department intend to grant him a routine
visa on his visits, for example, to the United Nations?
MR. BOUCHER: I mentioned him yesterday as well, Jim.
I'm not aware that there's been such a request from him, but I'm
sure it's something we'd want to look at very carefully.
Q Could you take Doyle's question as to whether
extradition will be sought at the time you transmit the
indictment?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to, George, because, as I
said yesterday, I'm not in a position to predict for you what
our specific next steps might be. We're consulting with other
governments on the next steps that we want to take in
cooperation with the international community. When we have
something to say, we'll say it.
Q Well, you said as far as you knew, no decision had
been made. So you opened or allowed for the possibility that a
decision had been made that you didn't know about. So I just
wanted to give you the opportunity to --
MR. BOUCHER: That may be true, but, if I find out, I'm
probably not going to be in a position to tell you.
Q Richard, yesterday you said, I think,
categorically that the U.S. Government is not reconsidering the
place of Syria on the list of states sponsoring terrorism. But
did you receive any requests from the Syrian Government for
their name to be omitted from the list?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I'll take it and see.
That, again, may be a question you'd more properly address to
the Syrian Government and what they're asking for.
Q Do you have any comment today on the report in the
New York Times, which alleges that the United States Department
of State essentially sat on information about China transmitting
nuclear technology to Algeria which helped Algeria build a
nuclear facility under some question about what that facility
would be used for?
MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, as you know from our usual
practice here, we're not in a position to comment on specific
reports or specific intelligence information. I can tell you
that any information that bears on intelligence matters, which
we might receive, is made available to the appropriate
intelligence authorities.
Q Was it made in -- was that done in 1988?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not in a position to comment on these
specific reports or pieces of information.
Q Well, but if you say it is made, then one could
draw the conclusion that you're denying that it wasn't made
available at that time. Would that be an inaccurate conclusion?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm afraid that's as far as I can go,
Ralph.
Q Well, Richard, let me ask you, without reference
to any piece of information, has Ambassador Kennedy followed
that policy consistently, or does Ambassador Kennedy have a
problem?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think Ambassador Kennedy has any
problem. I'll put it that way. As you know, Ambassador Kennedy
is our representative who goes to the IAEA meetings. He's
expressed himself there. We've expressed ourselves here about
these issues.
Q Well, that story says that at an IAEA meeting,
others got the impression that the United States was not
particularly concerned about this transfer.
MR. BOUCHER: I can't speak for others' impressions,
Jim, but it's very clear to us, I think, that Ambassador Kennedy
has represented the United States at those meetings; that we
have, I think, voiced our concerns about various proliferation
developments consistently and clearly here, and that he has done
so at the IAEA as well.
Q Richard, is there anything you'd care to comment
on or criticize about the report as published?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't see how I could try to do that
without getting into questions about specific reports or
intelligence information.
Q You're making a deliberate choice to leave that
report standing without commenting on it.
MR. BOUCHER: I am not in a position to go into it,
Ralph, one way or the other. I'm sorry that I'm constrained,
but you know our usual standards here.
Q I know that the standards are not always applied
in every instance, so that's why we're asking those questions.
Q On the same subject: Have you got any reaction to
the report that India proposes to sell a nuclear reactor to
Iran? And has the U.S. sent them a demarche either favoring or
not favoring such a sale?
MR. BOUCHER: We have been aware, from previous press
reports, of discussions between India and Iran regarding
possible supply by India of a research reactor to Iran. We
understand that no final decisions have been made.
Yes, we have raised this question with the Indian
Government. We've spoken to the Indian Ambassador both
yesterday and today. As you know from our previous statements,
the United States has urged all nuclear-supplier countries,
including India, to avoid any form of nuclear cooperation with
Iran, even under safeguards, because there is not adequate
evidence that Iran is genuinely committed to the exclusively
peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Q Who spoke with the --
Q Richard, just to follow up --
MR. BOUCHER: You asked who spoke to the Indian
Ambassador. The answer is Ed Djerejian.
Q Richard, just to follow that up. Iran is a
signatory to the NPT, and if India decides to have all the
safeguards in the export, what are the problems that the U.S.
has? Isn't it simply a sort of trading that goes on?
MR. BOUCHER: There are research reactors around the
world under safeguards. I think there are some 150 that are
under IAEA safeguards around the world.
The question of Iran is one that we've addressed before
when reports have come up. What we've said is that while
research reactors are not necessarily associated with nuclear
weapons developments, there have been recent public statements
by Iranian officials that call into question the sincerity of
Iran's commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and raise the
possibility that Iran might misuse civilian nuclear materials,
equipment, and technology. It's for that reason that we believe
that any assistance in developing Iran's nuclear infrastructure
is not acceptable at this time.
Q Just to follow that up, I believe Reggie
Bartholomew is getting out into the region. Have you nailed
down the dates when he is going to Islamabad and Delhi? And
also, I'm sure this is going to become a priority item on his
agenda, I believe?
MR. BOUCHER: Exactly how his agenda will work out, I
think I'll leave to him. I think we've expressed our views on
this, and I will double-check and see if we have dates for his
trip.
Q Just to follow up. What is the general attitude
towards IAEA? Do you think the safeguards of IAEA are
inadequate in light of what happened in Iraq? Is that the
reason you said this is not adequate?
MR. BOUCHER: What I am saying here with regard to Iran
is what we've said publicly before with regard to Iran, and
that's that we doubt the sincerity of their commitments; that
they have made statements, and that we have urged all potential
suppliers not to contribute to Iran's nuclear activities at this
point.
As regards IAEA safeguards, generally, that is
something we've addressed as well. We think they're important.
We think the regime is useful, but we have also been supporting
and working with other members of the IAEA to strengthen those
efforts and the information that's available to the IAEA
inspectors, for example.
Q One follow-up on that, Richard. The U.S. has been
pushing for regional rapproachement between India and Pakistan.
Secretary Baker told that to the Indian and Pakistani Foreign
Ministers, and I think Arnold Kanter met with the Indian
Ambassador and said the same thing.
Will Reggie Bartholomew be taking that message and
trying to get India to respond to the Pakistani proposal for a
regional detente nuclear non-proliferation type of thing?
MR. BOUCHER: Once again, as you know, that's something
that we've discussed before. But I don't want to predict a
precise agenda for the talks that Bartholomew may have. When I
check on the dates, I'll see if we can give you anything more on
the subjects that he'll be discussing.
Q When can you post the dates, Richard?
MR. BOUCHER: As soon as I have the information
available.
Q Can I come back to the Algerian reactor --
facility for a moment? Can you tell us whether the U.S. has
raised that issue with the Government of China?
MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, I believe that we have said in the
past that we have when the reports appeared. As you know, the
Secretary is currently in China and will be discussing
proliferation issues on his agenda.
Q Can you tell us when the United States first
raised the issue with China?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have that information with me.
I'll check and see if I can get you that.
Q Could you, please? Thank you.
Q Do you have any readouts on yesterday's meeting
here between the Indonesian Ambassador and somebody in the
Department in connection with Tuesday's massacre in East Timor?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I didn't do one because I think we
ran through and advanced the issues that we were going to raise.
Q Do you have any further details coming from the
mission of the American Embassy in Jakarta that is supposed to
have gone to East Timor?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't have any further details at
this point.
Q I would like to have just two comments.
Congressman Tony Hall, commenting on the massacres, says -- and
these are his words -- "That Indonesia's illegal takeover of
East Timor and Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait are
situations with a certain parallel."
Would the Department comment on this?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any further comment on that.
Our views of East Timor, I think I stated for you the other
day.
Q One more comment, Richard. Yesterday, you said
the military aid which, for this fiscal year, goes to $2.3
million, I think, to Indonesia is destined principally to
further the aims of democracy. Does the record of the Jakarta
government, over the past two years and this latest tragedy,
does it make you consider whether these aims are being really
pursued with success there, or will you re-evaluate the
situation in light of the new information that's coming from the
country?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I said yesterday that we certainly
did have concerns about the shootings there, and that we've
raised these; we're raising these with the Indonesian
Government. When it came to the question of the military
training, I said that we believe the program should continue,
that it was important to help with the professionalization of
the Indonesian military forces. We felt that our training did
contribute to greater democracy and respect for human rights on
the part of the military.
Q So you will not re-evaluate the situation?
MR. BOUCHER: At this point, that's where we stand.
Q Have you seen the text of the concurrent
resolution introduced last night by Senator Pell and others?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I have, Jim. But I think
the general question was addressed yesterday. I talked about
the fact that we shared the concerns of Senator Pell, that we
shared his condemnation of the incident. We have no problems
with the sense of Congress resolution that expressed that
condemnation.
Q Richard, yesterday, the FMLN made an unprecedented
cease-fire offer. Your reaction to that as well as the fact
that President Christiani has not offered to accept that
cease-fire?
MR. BOUCHER: Our reaction is that we see it as a very
positive step. We think that an end to the FMLN's offensive
actions and attacks on the electric power system and other
infrastructure can be important contributions to the achievement
of a definitive peace.
We hope both sides will continue to show flexibility so
that they can clear away remaining issues in the negotiations,
agree on an internationally monitored cease-fire, and move ahead
to the task of reconstruction and national reconciliation.
Both sides have shown a strong desire to reach a final
accord by year's end, and we believe that goal can be achieved.
My understanding is that President Christiani has
welcomed the announcement; that he said it will contribute to
reaching a definitive cease-fire, and he said that his armed
forces would take corresponding measures when the FMLN's
operations are suspended.
Q In a follow-up, Congressman Moakley presented
legislation yesterday that would greatly restrict future aid to
El Salvador -- military aid as well as economic aid. Any
reaction to that proposal?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any specific reaction at
this point.
Q Richard, also on Latin America: Does the
Department have any observations about the sentencing today of
its former Assistant Secretary for Latin America?
MR. BOUCHER: No.
Q Richard, another subject, if I may. Any update on
the search for the alleged U.S. POW in Kazakhstan?
MR. BOUCHER: No real update, Frank. Our Embassy in
Moscow is pursuing it, trying to determine what further
information it can develop. They've looked again at the article
and found that some of the information is less definitive than
it might first appear, particularly in translation. But they're
pursuing this issue, and I don't think they've come to the point
where they're dispatching someone to -- where someone has left
for Kazakhstan yet.
Q So no one has gone yet to --
MR. BOUCHER: No. As far as I know, at least from
reporting last night, they have not yet sent somebody. They
wanted to pursue it more in Moscow.
Q That means you have doubts about the story? The
fact that you haven't really dispatched anyone -- you've known
about this case for a few days.
MR. BOUCHER: No, it's still our intention to do that,
and it's still their intention to do that. They wanted to
pursue all the possible leads in Moscow and look at the
situation carefully to make sure that they had as concrete
information as possible before they went out there.
Q Do you have any indications from any of their
contacts in Moscow that there's anything more to this story than
just what's published there? They certainly had an opportunity
to talk with Soviet officials at this point.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any definitive report at
this point, Ralph.
Q If you find someone, will you let us know?
MR. BOUCHER: Sure.
Q Maybe he'll pick up a phone and call somebody.
MR. BOUCHER: If he's there, he could.
Q The situation with the Haitian boat people, I
think their numbers have now ballooned to over a thousand.
Where are they and what's happening to them?
MR. BOUCHER: It's at least close to a thousand. I
think probably about that or more.
The numbers I have are about 480 Haitians remain at
Guantanamo. They're receiving temporary humanitarian
assistance. There are about 500 on Coast Guard vessels at sea.
We and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees continue
to work urgently to find a solution to the problem. INS
personnel on board the ships continue to conduct detailed
interviews with the Haitians. We're doing this with a view
toward taking in only those who qualify for asylum.
Interviews conducted so far indicate that a very small
percentage appear to qualify for asylum.
Q Have you actually granted anyone asylum yet?
MR. BOUCHER: I think these are initial interviews, and
that we take in those who would qualify. I don't think there's
been any transfers or formal grants at this point.
Q Richard, back to Libya --
Q Can we stay on this for a second, please? Senator
Mack of Florida has called on the INS to take these people in to
the mainland -- the United States. What do you say to that?
MR. BOUCHER: I'd say what I just said, that we
continue to work the problem urgently, to find a solution to
this problem. I'd say what I've said in the past days, that
we're talking with other countries about finding arrangements so
that they can take some of the people in; and I said what I said
today, which is that our intentions are to take only those who
would qualify for asylum. So far, the interviews indicate that
only a very small percentage would qualify for that.
Q Have any been returned to Haiti?
MR. BOUCHER: Not that I know of, no.
Q Do you have any idea when they will be returned --
those who don't qualify?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, George, we're trying to deal with
the problem on a regional basis. We're talking to other
countries. I think we've said we're talking to other countries
about taking some of these people in, at least temporarily. I
don't have an arrangement yet.
Q Can you confirm that in addition to Belize,
Venezuela and Honduras also have agreed to accept some Haitians?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't go into specific countries at
this point.
Q Richard, on the question of a World Court for this
Libyan affair, today, you said that it's all out of the
international jurisdiction. Yesterday, you were not ready to
take it as a question among other options. You were not ready
to talk about any options.
Does this come as a result of the Libyan statement,
denial statement, or a change of policy or a policy decision, or
what?
MR. BOUCHER: Yesterday, I think I was asked about
going to the World Court, meaning the United States taking it to
the World Court as part of a series of questions on what our
intentions were and what we plan for our next steps, and I
declined, I think fairly consistently yesterday, to go into our
intentions on next steps.
This morning we have a proposal, one might call it,
from the Libyans that talks about their wanting to do that and
we're rejecting it.
Q Richard, on the Middle East, has the State
Department seen the reports that the Israelis are thinking of
prosecuting Hanan Ashrawi for contacts with the PLO?
MR. BOUCHER: We've seen those reports, Jim. My
understanding is that the Israeli police have advised the
Attorney General that Hanan Ashrawi should stand trial for
meeting with the PLO. We really don't have much more
information than that.
Q Do you think that's a constructive, helpful sign
for the Middle East negotiations?
MR. BOUCHER: Jim, it's obviously a matter of concern
to us. We've just completed the historic opening of direct
bilateral talks between Israel and its Arab neighbors. We think
now it's in everyone's interest to create a climate that
promotes negotiations and gives them a greater chance of
succeeding.
Q That doesn't answer quite the question, though.
Do you think that the report that you referred to about the
police advising the government to prosecute falls into the
category of creating a climate that's conducive to peace?
MR. BOUCHER: At this point, I said we had certain
information. We don't have further information, and I'm not in
a position to characterize it.
Q You said, however, the report is a matter of --
you said the report is a matter of concern to you?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, the report, situation is obviously a
matter of concern.
Q Have you, or do you plan to convey that concern to
the Government of Israel?
MR. BOUCHER: We've been in touch with the Government
of Israel.
Q Richard, on the same thing: Hanan Ashrawi had a
press conference and said this was one of the reasons that you
couldn't have continuing talks either in Israel or in the
Middle East because they were being harassed and telephones were
being tapped and all that type of thing. Doesn't this give
additional cause for some sort of neutral place like
Williamsburg or some place for further talks?
MR. BOUCHER: I have nothing new for you on the
question of venue.
Q Richard, on Libya, U.S.-Libyan relations are
virtually nil for many years now. But what is the status of
those American oil companies? Is it only their foreign
subsidiaries that still operate there? Has there been any
change in that status in the last few months?
MR. BOUCHER: Chris, that's something that I think the
Treasury Department can probably get to you since they
administer the regulations. It's something that I thought about
checking on and, frankly, I just forgot.
Q One more question -- on Yugoslavia. Now that both
the Croats and Serbs have agreed to Lord Carrington's proposal
for a U.N. peacekeeping force there, is the U.S. going to leave
this only up to the Europeans or is it going to offer specific
help financially or by sending experts to the area?
MR. BOUCHER: I think you may be a little bit ahead of
the curve. My understanding is that consultations are
continuing, for our part, with other governments on possible
Security Council resolutions on Yugoslavia. We think it's
premature to speculate as to the elements that will be in any
such resolution.
We consider it encouraging that all the parties in
Yugoslavia have endorsed, in principle, the idea of a
peacekeeping force, as you say, and Lord Carrington has
reported.
We want to emphasize, however, the consideration of any
form of peacekeeping force is contingent on the acceptance of
such a force and the observance of a general cease-fire by all
parties in Yugoslavia.
The EC countries and the Security Council have made
this very clear, and we share that view wholeheartedly.
Remember that President Bush said in The Hague on November 9th
that we strongly support the EC's efforts in Yugoslavia.
Q Richard, has a U.S. decision been made on whether
to propose a venue and time for the next set of bilateral talks
for the Middle East peace process?
MR. BOUCHER: No.
Q A decision has not been made?
MR. BOUCHER: The decision has not been made to do so
nor has a decision been made on what to propose if it comes down
to our doing that.
Q One more, if I could, please. You said in your
consultations with everybody on the Libya thing -- can you be
more specific about with whom you are consulting? For example,
is the United States presenting the indictment and additional
information to Arab nations in the Middle East? Is it doing so
with NATO, with the EC, or any kinds of groups? Any way to be
more specific about with whom that information is being shared?
MR. BOUCHER: I believe virtually every country in the
world.
Q Except Libya so far?
MR. BOUCHER: Except Libya so far. As I said, they
seem to be aware of what we said.
Q Haiti hasn't been told yet either?
Q Iran included?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know.
(Press briefing concluded at 1:30 p.m.)