US Department of State Daily Briefing #6:
Friday, 1/10/92
Boucher
Source: State Department Deputy Spokesman Richard
Boucher
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Jan, 10 19921/10/92
Category: Briefings
Region: Eurasia, MidEast/North Africa, Subsaharan Africa,
Caribbean, E/C Europe
Country: USSR (former), Israel, Zaire, Yugoslavia (former),
Cuba
Subject: Cultural Exchange, Immigration,
Mideast Peace Process, Refugees, Nuclear Nonproliferation,
Military Affairs, Regional/Civil Unrest, Arms Control,
State Department
12:20 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I
thought I'd start off by giving you some more information on the
trip of Under Secretary Bartholomew.
He and his delegation plan to depart Washington on Tuesday,
January 14. He should arrive in Moscow on the 15th. He will
visit Russia, Ukraine, Byelarus, and Kazakhstan -- not
necessarily in that order. Arrangements for the last three
places are still being finalized. He and his team plan to
return on January 22.
The team will include representatives of the Departments of
State, Defense, and Energy; the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency; and the National Security
Council staff. Among the people are people who work on the
policy issues, people who know about export controls, in
particular, and scientists and engineers.
Among the topics that they're prepared to discuss is
essentially what Margaret told you yesterday. They expect to
discuss a very wide range of subjects, the vast majority of
which come out of issues that the Secretary raised during his
trip. Major subjects include nuclear safety and security,
chemical and nuclear weapons, disabling and dismantling, and
proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.
They'll focus on establishing strict export controls and legal
obligations under international agreements.
Q Richard, is there room there for negotiations as well,
meaning, of course, the follow-on to START and the unilateral
offers that Mr. Gorbachev made?
MR. BOUCHER: As I said, they'll be discussing a whole wide
range of subjects. Exactly how they will discuss those issues,
I don't think I can predict at this time. Obviously, this whole
process of dismantling nuclear weapons has a lot to do with the
initiatives that the President took in terms of what we were
going to do and the response from President Gorbachev about what
they were going to do, and then the
subsequent agreements out there in Minsk and Alma-Ata where the
republics and the states of the commonwealth stated their
intentions. It has a lot to do with that.
Q Richard, I noticed that you mentioned chemical
weapons for the first time. This is something new, I believe.
MR. BOUCHER: It is, I think, the first time that I've
mentioned it specifically, although, we've always said that
proliferation and destruction of weapons is something that's
been of concern to us. As you know, we're negotiating various
chemical weapons agreements. The two sides -- the U.S. and the
Soviet Union -- in the past have had various undertakings in
that area as well.
Q Is it the United States aim that not only the
nuclear weapons should end up with Russia, away from the three
other republics, as Yeltsin proposed, but also the chemical
weapons would end up ultimately with Russia, or be eliminated?
MR. BOUCHER: Frank, you can correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm not sure that we've ever specified that they should do X, Y,
or Z with particular weapons systems. They have announced their
intentions to do things, and I think we've welcomed that. So
I'm not going to try to specify anything specific on chemical
weapons here other than to say that it's obviously an area that
we want to talk to them about.
We have in the past. Each side has taken various
initiatives on these weapons, and I'm sure they'll want to
discuss where we stand on some of those.
Q Richard, would you expect the dispute between the
Ukraine and Russia over the Black Sea fleet to come up inasmuch
as if Ukraine makes good on its pledge to bring this fleet under
its control, it would give it something like over a million
troops?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if it would come up or not.
If it would affect some of the topics that they're discussing,
it might come up. I don't think we would necessarily raise that
in and of itself.
Q It would seem to reflect directly on the CFE
Treaty and the limits that were set in that accord.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know enough about the Black Sea
fleet to say that.
On the whole question, let me say something. And
that's that the whole question of military relationships among
the new independent states is a subject of on-going discussion.
Among those states, we expect that these matters will be worked
out among the states through negotiations and in a way that is
consistent with CSCE principles and with the other international
obligations.
We'd also like to see this matter done in a way that
strengthens stability and the common interests of the states in
pursuing responsible security policies and in building
democratic and free market systems.
During this transition period, the states of the
commonwealth have managed to reach amicable agreements in a
number of areas. We trust that they will be able to do so in
the important military sphere as well. A conflict over these
issues is in no one's interest and will only detract from the
real need to push forward with necessary economic and political
reform.
Q Can you turn the pie upside down? Is the conflict
threatening to stability?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I would go that far. As I
said, they've managed to reach amicable agreements on other
military issues. We trust that they should be able to do that
in this sphere as well, but we do point out that continued
debate and conflict is not in anyone's interest. We continue to
maintain our strong interest in seeing the process of political
and economic reform move forward.
Q There are various ways to look at what's going on,
but one might be that the Ukrainians are resisting Yeltsin's
assumption of greater and greater control in the military and in
other areas. He's all but succeeded -- the Soviet leader -- as
the leader of the former Soviet republic, some would say.
Does the U.S. have any qualms about the amassing of
power of Boris Yeltisn?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any analysis for you, Barry.
I don't think I could try to address the second part of your
question without buying into the analysis on the first part.
Q Can I approach this from this point of view:
There are reports today, I believe, that the Ukrainians are in
control of an awful lot of tactical nuclear weapons. The whole
question, of course -- you emphasized that the United States is
concerned about nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons safety,
proliferation of weapons.
What is your understanding? Whose finger is on the
nuclear button in the former Soviet Union exactly?
MR. BOUCHER: Frank, there are reports every day about
these things. I saw one wire service report that said they
weren't moving them. I saw another TASS report this morning
where a TASS or Ukranian fellow -- reporter -- had gone to a
location where he said they were being moved. That report
quotes a colonel as saying that they're proceeding apace with
their plans to remove all the tactical nuclear weapons from
Ukraine to Russia by, I think it's July 1st of next year.
So the indications, I think, are what we put up in our
answer yesterday, that they've pledged to do this, and they keep
saying that they are doing it. So that's kind of the answer to
that one.
Q But on the strategic weapons, is the United States
perfectly satisfied that it is not only under a unified command
but of a single command, perhaps, of Yeltsin's command? The
long-range missiles that are capable of hitting the United
States?
MR. BOUCHER: Frank, I'd go back to what the Secretary
said -- and I think it was in his Princeton speech -- the
differentiation between a single unified control over nuclear
weapons. We continue to see those kinds of assurances coming
from the various parties in the commonwealth and the military
structure. He differentiated between that single unified
control over nuclear weapons, which was very, very important to
us, in saying that collective decision-making over their use or
non-use was a separate issue.
I think the reports you're referring to are more on the
collective decision-making side.
Q In your statement, you said that the republics
have been able to work things out amicably in some of the other
spheres, such as economics and some of the political struggles
and we trust that they will be able to do the same in the
military sphere as well.
That comment sort of has blinders on it. First of all,
the commonwealth has not been able to work out a lot of
important issues, economically and in the other spheres. What
makes you trust that they will do so amicably in the military
sphere? In fact, indications are just the opposite; that things
are starting to come apart in not only the military but in the
other spheres as well?
MR. BOUCHER: The point, John, is there are a lot of
things that they are working through. They have worked out many
of them amicably. We think that they should be able to work
this one out as well.
Q You hope they will work it out.
MR. BOUCHER: We think it's possible to work out this
issue without coming to any great sense of conflict.
Q Once there was a joint commission -- a U.S.-Soviet
joint commission -- on nuclear proliferation. Does it still
exist, or it was inherited by the Russian federation or going to
be re-established as a U.S.-Russian, or what?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't exactly remember what joint
commission you're talking about.
Proliferation certainly has been a consistent topic
that we have discussed with leaders of the former Soviet Union.
It has been a consistent topic that the Secretary has raised and
discussed during his trips and during his meetings with leaders
from the various republics and the new states, and it's a
subject that we continue to raise and discuss in the form of
this trip by Under Secretary Bartholomew.
Q As far as I remember, there was a kind of periodic
meeting that was held one time and another for the proliferation
issues between the two countries.
MR. BOUCHER: Are you talking about the discussions
that Under Secretary Bartholomew had with Obukhov. I think
there were a couple of meetings like that. At the second one,
there was some --
Q It's even all the --
MR. BOUCHER: One last fall, there were some
representatives of the republics. Certainly, we continue to
discuss these issues with all the parties involved.
Q Richard, will the State Department be serving
stale coffee again Sunday? Will the Arab and Israelis resume
their negotiations here?
MR. BOUCHER: We'll probably serve some stale coffee no
matter what the Arabs and Israelis do.
Let me give you the status as far as we know it on
that. The joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation arrived in
Washington yesterday evening, and the Syrian delegation arrived
this morning. We expect the Lebanese delegation to arrive this
afternoon.
We do not know at this time when the talks will resume,
but we hope it will be as soon as possible.
We've been encouraging the parties to promptly set a
starting time for the negotiations.
Q Let's jump ahead. Does the United States have a
position whether they would like to see the talks go on
indefinitely or would it be -- or does the U.S. agree with the
Israeli view that 4 days are pretty ample for this round? I
think they're making plans to go home Wednesday.
MR. BOUCHER: As in previous rounds, we haven't set a
closing bookend to the facilities or to our willingness to help
out.
Q Richard, Hanan Ashrawi said that the letters of
invitation for the original talks weren't clearly laid out; that
there should be two tracks -- a Jordanian track and a
Palestinian track. That was in your letter of invitation,
according to her. What's your view of that?
MR. BOUCHER: My view of that is that we've discussed
this issue before, that we've made the letter of invitation
public. We provided copies. I can get you one from the Press
Office right after the briefing. You can do any sort of
examination you want on your own.
Q Would you agree with her interpretation?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll stand by the language in the letter
of invitation, and we'll provide you a copy.
Q Richard, will you honor my request, too?
MR. BOUCHER: Joe, you can have five copies.
Q While we are in the area, Richard, Israel, in an
attempt to circumvent the Security Council Resolution 726 about
the deportation of Palestinians, it is playing with some ideas
like the idea of the Chief of Staff, Ehud Barack deporting 1,200
Palestinians for a year and a half -- a limited period of time.
Yesterday, there was a story in Ma'ariv saying that --
the Lebanese paper in Israel -- that Israel is thinking about a
sort of population exchange, deporting people from the West Bank
to Gaza and from Gaza to the West Bank. What does the State
Department -- the U.S. Government -- think about such schemes
and ideas that the Israelis are inventing now?
MR. BOUCHER: As you yourself point out, there have
been a variety of different kinds of reports coming out in the
Israeli press. I think I'm just not going to start commenting
on each and every one of them.
Q About this latest thing, which is -- they are
discussing at the Cabinet level, or at the security apparatus in
Israel.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any comment at this point on
it.
Q Richard, does the State Department have a
situation report on Zaire? Has it disintegrated perceptibly in
the last few weeks? There are reports of food running out. I
know the Ambassador is still there. But I wonder, is there any
unusual concern now about the country's survival?
MR. BOUCHER: I haven't seen any unusual concern, but I
have to admit not to having asked for an update for awhile. Let
me see if I can get you something on the situation.
Q Is the United States now using satellite imagery
to track the settlement growth in the occupied territories?
MR. BOUCHER: John, that was a story that I saw this
morning, and I have to admit, knowing that whatever the facts
may be of the matter, that I would not be in a position to
comment, that I didn't even ask about it.
Q Why, pray tell, would satellite imagery of
civilian things in a friendly country be classified? I mean,
talking about that?
MR. BOUCHER: All questions involving satellite imagery
of anything are classified. They haven't been discussed as far
as I know, certainly not from here.
Q Even though the same information is available
commercially on Landsat, for example?
MR. BOUCHER: If it is, then don't ask me.
Q Are tje experts still meeting on the aid
conference, and can you say anything about that? And, if they
[inaudible] ask for a meeting, is this going to continue through
next week still?
MR. BOUCHER: Margaret talked about that yesterday. It
was a meeting on Wednesday through most of the day, and Margaret
gave a readout about how it looked at the end of that. And we
expect the various participants to continue to be in touch with
each other as we approach the conference itself.
Q So they're no longer in this building having a
meeting?
MR. BOUCHER: No. It was a meeting through most of the
day Wednesday, and that was it.
Q Richard, can you say whether or not there was --
that the -- you say you can't comment on this satellite
business, but can you tell us whether or not this story is right
or wrong? (Laughter)
MR. BOUCHER: No. I'm afraid I can't.
Q You can't. Let me go back to the business of the
resolutions. Can we get copies of these resolutions? It's
quite interesting to point out -- I mean, I'm asking for the
copies, because in the 3 years of the Bush Administration, there
were five times in which the representative at the United
Nations voted on the word "Palestine" favorably. Whereas in
the Reagan Administration and three yeses, and it goes on from
there -- I'd like to see just where this works out, because they
started with Jimmy Carter after the Camp David accords. Can you
get the texts of those resolutions?
MR. BOUCHER: I think these are all public U.N.
documents, and you can get them all from the U.N., I'm sure.
Q Now, in connection -- a little further about the
dealing with the fact about the so-called spy planes and so on
and the satellite imagery, the Treasury Department now admits --
the U.S. Treasury Department now admits that it was a report to
the effect that Israel owed $700,000 in postal charges or
something like that. The United States is wrong. It's
inaccurate, and they've published something officially on it,
and it will go -- in their quarterly publication it will go a
little further.
Isn't this another indication that some of this
material that we've been seeing about Israel's economic status
and obligations pretty much in there, if not maliciously
distorted, in order to destroy Israel's relationship with the
United States?
MR. BOUCHER: Joe, I don't know, because I don't know
what you've been seeing, and I don't know what the Treasury
Department has said about overdue postal bills. So you'll just
have to check with them and do whatever you want to do.
Bill.
Q Richard, what's the status of U.S. recognition of
Croatia as a separate state, and what's the response to the
charges being made by them and their supporters of a de facto
U.S. tilt toward the established order in Yugoslavia, which is
to say the Serbian control?
MR. BOUCHER: Bill, the status of our policy on
recognition is that it hasn't changed. I think it's opportune
to reiterate what we said in Wednesday's statement after Under
Secretary Kanter's meeting with the Bosnian Foreign Minister.
Like the European Community, the United States is
firmly opposed to any attempt to change external or internal
borders by force. The U.S. would strongly condemn any attempt
by any side to use force or intimidation to threaten the
territorial integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
I would also refer you to what we've said regarding the
so-called Serbian republic of Krajina, which is that we do not
accept territorial changes achieved by force, intimidation, or
ultimata. We've repeatedly said that any settlement must
include strong protections for the rights of all national groups
in all republics, and we've repeatedly said that we will accept
any outcome that is chosen peacefully, democratically, and
through negotiation.
Q So you're stating that there will be no
recognition as long as fighting continues, and that change is
achieved by force?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm stating that we do not accept changes
that are made by force, and that we would accept any outcome
that they can achieve peacefully and democratically.
Q Richard, who do you have relations with in that
area of conflict? What part of the fractionated society are we
dealing with?
MR. BOUCHER: At this point, I believe that our
Ambassador is in touch with people throughout the country,
throughout the different republics, different parts of the
political spectrum. I think you've seen from the series of
people who have visited Washington that we've met with them;
that we meet with a whole variety of people.
Q Which is the government? Which do we recognize as
the legitimate government?
MR. BOUCHER: John, that's a pretty complicated
question right now. It's a confused situation. As I said, we
continue to deal with people throughout the country. We
continue to tell them the U.S. view, and that's the way we
operate.
Q In actuality, we don't know which -- I mean, the
U.S. at this point hasn't really decided which is the legitimate
government there?
MR. BOUCHER: It's for them to work out peacefully,
democratically and through negotiation. We'll accept whatever
outcome they work out that way.
Q There are those who believe that U.S. policy tilts
toward the Serbs who used to govern with undisputed authority.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know why you would say that,
Bill. I think I've made very clear that we don't accept
solutions that are being imposed by violence; that we look
forward to seeing them work out something through peaceful
negotiation. We've supported the efforts of the European
Community and its negotiator and of the U.N. envoy, Cyrus Vance,
to try to work out a political settlement on that basis, and
that's what we've been urging all parties to do.
We've also said that we don't accept what's called the
Serbian "rump" government or presidency, and the changes -- some
of the resignations that have occurred in the former federal
institutions.
Q Richard, we asked yesterday about the conditions
and the parameters of the visit by our PLO guests this coming
week, I guess. Do you have something on that?
MR. BOUCHER: You're talking about Nabil Shaath. He
applied for his visa in Cairo on January 4. We understand at
the time, and I think we've told you, that he will address the
annual conference of the Arab-American Institute later this
month.
There was a waiver recommendation approved here on
January 6. Immigration and Naturalization Service subsequently
waived his ineligibility. The waiver is for a B-1 visa valid
for a single entry.
At this point I don't have any information yet that he
has picked up his visa or come to the United States.
Q Richard, could I go back to the settlement
question for a moment. Is the United States satisfied with the
adequacy of the information it is getting from the Government of
Israel about new settlements being established?
MR. BOUCHER: That's not something I've looked at
recently, John. I'm afraid I can't give you a judgment at this
point.
Q Could you take the question?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure it's a question I can
address at this point.
Q Richard, on Nabil Shaath, the B-1 visa that he was
granted, you say is for one entry. But does it have a required
departure time, and does it have any restrictions on things he
can do while he's exercising his rights under that visa?
MR. BOUCHER: As I understand it, there are no
restrictions that will be annotated on it.
Q What about the departure time?
MR. BOUCHER: Let me put up later sort of the whole
procedural aspect of this to you about how waivers are done.
But as for the period of stay, the period of stay is normally
decided, for someone who comes to the United States, by the INS
officers when they reach the port of entry, and they determine
what's the appropriate period of stay for the purpose of the
visit.
Q Richard, on the settlements, does the State
Department take any position on the so-called Leahy plan or
Leahy proposal in which the costs of settlements would be
deducted from any housing loan guarantees?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware that we have.
Q Richard, the appointments schedule for the
Secretary and the other top people here is a total blank today
which makes me think something's got to be going on. [Laughter]
Is there a change in listing the activities, or is he
just sort of -- I don't know what --
Q Napping.
Q I don't know about napping, but contemplating or
something?
MR. BOUCHER: Barry, there's no change in our listing
of his activities.
Q Shorter and shorter list every day.
MR. BOUCHER: As you know, we list public appointments
with foreign visitors. There's no change. When the Secretary's
in his office working with people in the building, as he is
today, just nothing ends up on his public schedule.
Q Is he doing anything today you want to tell us
about?
MR. BOUCHER: Nothing particular, no.
Q Does the visit to Prague still stand?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes.
Q Richard, the Russian competitors in the America's
Cup race are apparently being subjected to travel restrictions
which date from the time of those restrictions against the
Soviet Union, and I was wondering if there'd been any thought
being given to lifting those travel restrictions so as they can
sail off the waters of San Diego without an escort -- [laughter]
-- or travel in the area without an escort?
MR. BOUCHER: Bill, I'm a little perplexed by your
question. You mentioned it to me earlier, and I tried to check
a little bit into it, because, when you originally called me, I
didn't know anything at all.
The travel restrictions -- the reciprocal travel
restrictions that we've had with the Soviet Union had been for
diplomats and officials -- people resident or assigned here to
embassies and official offices. They had not been for ordinary
travels/sports people, and even those restrictions in closed
areas that we had, there were procedures for people to apply for
waivers as we have been required and done in the former Soviet
Union, and we used to get waivers much of the time.
So I'm not exactly sure what restrictions there might
be that you are referring to. Whether the Navy has any
restrictions as far as people approaching its facilities there,
I think is something you might ask them.
But in general, our reciprocal restrictions with the
Soviet Union have only applied to diplomats and officials and
not to sportsmen and yachtsmen.
Q And do those restrictions still apply, Richard?
MR. BOUCHER: We were undertaking a process with the
central government -- the government of the former Soviet Union
-- to drop those restrictions on a reciprocal basis. I think
you are familiar with what we used to call the "Open Lands"
proposal, and we had some discussions, but we never finalized
those at this point, so they still exist, and we're still
interested in dropping them.
Q Richard, did you have anything new today on the
three exiles who were arrested by the Cubans?
MR. BOUCHER: The first thing I would like to say is
that the Cuban Government's allegations of U.S. Government
involvement in a terrorist incident are untrue and unacceptable.
We're telling this to the Cuban Government through diplomatic
channels.
We are also again requesting information on the alleged
incident to assist the FBI in its investigation. To date, Cuba
has shown no signs of pursuing this investigation in a serious
manner and has instead concentrated on propaganda.
We're also making a second request to the Cuban
Government for information on the individuals arrested. If any
are U.S. citizens, we will request immediate consular access.
Preliminary information indicates that none of these people are
U.S. citizens. We're checking U.S. Government records, however,
to confirm their status.
Q What do you base it on?
Q MR. BOUCHER: What is their citizenship , if
they're not Americans?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know precisely what their
citizenship is, George.
Q Do you know their residency?
MR. BOUCHER: They were reported -- and, again, all I
think we really have are the Cuban Government press reports, and
maybe a few reports from our own media. They were reported to
be residents of Miami. And, therefore, the prospects exist that
they were green-card holders or had some other status in the
United States.
But, as I said, we're continuing to follow up on this.
We'll continue to press the Cuban Government. We're consulting
with other U.S. Government agencies for information. We'd
encourage family members to contact the State Department if they
know that a U.S. citizen relative is among those held.
Q But you've asked the Cuban Government? You've put
these questions to the Cuban Government, and they've either
refused information or just said nothing? I mean, what
specifically?
MR. BOUCHER: As far as I know, we don't have any
response at all, but I'm sure we don't have any specific or
informative response. As I said, they showed no signs of
pursuing this investigation seriously, so we're going back to
them again.
Q Richard, there was a report this morning --
Q Do you also intend to bring this up --
Q There was a report this morning --
MR. BOUCHER: Let's stick on this one.
Q Did you --
MR. BOUCHER: Could you hold on a second, Joe?
He had a follow-up.
Q Did you ask to interview the people charged in
Cuba?
MR. BOUCHER: We've asked for information on them, and
we've said that if any of them are U.S. citizens that we should
have immediate consular access.
Q You are not entitled to consular access if they
are not American citizens?
MR. BOUCHER: That's my understanding, yes.
Q There was a report this morning that Saudi King
Fahd has openly endorsed President Bush for reelection, and
driving down the prices -- it's in a respectable paper -- to
stimulate the U.S. economy and help President Bush gain
reelection. Do you know anything about this and can you say
anything?--
MR. BOUCHER: No, I'm afraid I don't.
Q Does that mean he's a "fat cat" [inaudible]?
(Laughter)
Q Would you say that's a welcome endorsement or
anything like that? [Laughter]
MR. BOUCHER: I don't speak on behalf of the President
on things like that.
Q Richard, may I ask a question that you probably do
not have an answer for but which, perhaps, you can find one.
How many uniformed security people work for the State
Department now in this building? Is the number going up? What
do they cost? And what are they protecting everybody against?
There appear to be more and more of them roaming around
and checking, etc. And with the collapse of the Cold War and
the Soviet Union, one could assume that the espionage threat has
diminished.
Is there some big terrorist threat the U.S. continues
to be afraid of? Street crime? What is this phalanx of
security people protecting everybody against?
Q [Inaudible]
MR. BOUCHER: Let me answer that one just by saying,
"All of the above." And as far as how many guards we have, I'll
try to get you that.
Q Can you?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes.
Q And what -- is it increasing, and how much --
MR. BOUCHER: What does it cost.
Q -- does it cost?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll see if I can find those pieces of
information out for you.
Q I'd like to follow up on that, if I may. Is there
any thought being given by the State Department to issuing
members of the press corps security clearances?
MR. BOUCHER: Not that I have heard of, Bill.
Q Then may I ask why it's necessary for members of
the press corps, when filing for accreditation or reissuance of
a pass, to fill out waivers of the Privacy Act, release of
information forms, and to be fingerprinted each time this pass
is renewed -- since it appears that we are not going to be
allowed to handle classified information.
Were we to be allowed to handle classified information,
I would, of course, withdraw my question. [Laughter]
MR. BOUCHER: As usual, when we're presented with two
choices, we take neither of the above.
The question of access to this building, Bill, is one
that is of concern to all of us who work here. It's, as John
said, a question of many different things and not just the issue
of espionage but terrorism and security threats. And you're
aware that at various times, we've tightened security here in
order to prevent anyone in the building from being harmed by
terrorism.
It's something that we go through carefully, and this
remains a secure building where classified information is being
handled; and, therefore, we reserve the right to control access
to this building. And we offer passes to the press people who
work here with us, but we want to know who they are before we
give them a badge.
Q Richard, is there a decision to no longer have
stakeouts in the lobby and C Street? There seem to me more and
more as it gets colder [laughter]. And as the number of
countries multiply and despite your confidence that they all
adhere to the five or 47 principles that the Secretary brings to
them --
MR. BOUCHER: None of which involve stakeouts.
Q None of them. But the market economy, I'm sure,
they all believe in.
But why is it that reporters no longer -- maybe it's
just a coincidence, but the last several stakeouts -- you know,
the reporters, and of course the Secretary's guest -- for
instance, the Armenian Foreign Minister -- have to do their
standup outside where, you know, the planes get in the way of
any audio, etc. Is that some new security concern?
MR. BOUCHER: Barry, there's been no particular change
on that either. There's been, I think, a fairly consistent
policy of when we do stakeouts inside the building and when we
don't. And I think we continue to follow that policy.
Q Also, I find it disturbing -- when you're working
on a story, you can be surprised if you really get absorbed in
this dynamic stuff we do every day -- to find a large and very
well-tailored policeman standing next to you. And I don't think
he's checking your lead. [Laughter]
I don't know why you have -- maybe it's just every guy
with a gun and a club gets to choose his own parameters
[laughter], but I don't know why these people wander into the
Press Room and look and stand alongside you and sort of either
tell you "Good morning" or sort of stare blankly at the sheet of
paper in your typewriter.
They may not like the lead, but we're getting invaded
--
MR. BOUCHER: Barry --
Q We're getting invaded by an excess of security
forces is what the people before me are saying rather politely,
and perhaps I'm not saying so politely.
MR. BOUCHER: Barry, as John pointed out, there are
guards throughout this building. This remains a U.S. Government
building where classified information is handled, where we
control access, where we do have guards in our building.
When I see them I usually say "Hello." If you don't
like where they're standing, you might ask them to move.
Q No, no. I say -- Bill's point is we don't have
access to classified material. I'd personally give up -- would
like to surrender -- the protection of these people with clubs
who seem to appear in the News Room to inquire into my
well-being. I don't really need them around.
MR. BOUCHER: Barry, if you'd like to relinquish your
building pass you can do that any day.
Q No, no. I would like to keep the Press area
secure from wiretapping -- which I don't suppose is going on
again, although it did in the Nixon-Kissinger era -- and I'd
certainly like to keep it apart from all your guards.
I don't mean yours; the State Department's phalanx of
guards -- your answer to the jobs problem.
MR. BOUCHER: Barry, if you want to set up your own
press center and work outside of this building anywhere, you can
go do that any day of the week. You are inside a building which
remains a U.S. Government building where we handle classified
information; and we, I think, have the right and the imperative
to control access to this building and to make sure it remains
secure.
Q You talk about access to the building. Talking
about the Press Room, where there is no classified information
-- God only knows -- there's hardly any information at all.
[Laughter] And the question is: Why are guards entering the
Press Room and looking over what you're doing?
That's all I'm asking.
Q Could you also take the question as to why it is
necessary to reauthorize Privacy Act waivers and access to
information each time a pass is renewed -- not to mention
fingerprinting each time?
MR. BOUCHER: Bill --
Q My fingerprints have, as far as I know, not
changed [laughter] since they were first taken by the military
when I was approximately 2l years old. And I just wondered why
--
MR. BOUCHER: I'll check and see if they do that. I'll
-- O.K., let's -- Bill, I will check and see if there's any way
we can make the procedures easier for you.
Q On the buildings though, this may have been
covered in my absence -- but what happens now with the raising
of the flags at the various republics? Has anything been done
about that? Is there a ceremony when other flags are going to
go up?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware that we'd address that. I
really don't know at this point.
Q So could you ask about that? We already have
diplomatic relations with Russia. I don't think the Russian
flag is flying there.
MR. BOUCHER: No. We've had some other responses now.
We had formal responses from republics soon to be mentioned.
We've had formal responses from Russia, Ukraine, Armenia, and
Byelarus.
Therefore, as before, we consider full diplomatic
relations to exist between the United States and these four
countries.
We don't have formal letters from Kyrgyzstan and
Kazakhstan. But, as you know, we've been in close touch with
those people.
All indications are positive. In fact, the Secretary
has just sent a representative -- Deputy Under Secretary Bob
Fauver -- out to Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan to talk to them
about economic reform and things like that. So we're in close
touch with them.
Q What was the name? I didn't get the name.
MR. BOUCHER: Bob Fauver is --
Q Do you have a target date for relations with
Armenia? The Foreign Minister was confident that it's imminent.
MR. BOUCHER: It's happened. I don't have the date
that we received --
Q How many Embassies will there be and the
establishment of offices?
MR. BOUCHER: All of these?
Q Yes.
MR. BOUCHER: The establishment of an office?
Q Yes.
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't think I have a date for you.
If I remember correctly, when the Armenian Foreign
Minister came in, he gave the letter -- the recognition letter
-- to the Secretary at that time.
Q Richard, the conference on the 22nd and 23rd,
which is going to be held here in the State Department -- will
the State Department be issuing special credentials for press
who may be coming from overseas to cover this event, which we
understand is going to involve up to 60 Foreign Ministers and
other dignitaries?
MR. BOUCHER: That's something I'll have to check on,
Alan.
Q Are you going to set up a special Press Center, or
do you expect them to work out of the confined space that we
have? I mean, it's perfectly adequate for our day-to-day needs;
and I wouldn't want you to understand that I'm complaining in
any way [laughter], and I don't want to set up another one
outside. But if there's an influx of journalists, it might find
itself a little bit confined.
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, I'll see if we're in a position yet
to talk about the press arrangements for the coordinating
conference.
Q Thank you.
Q I would like to pose a question -- one more
question.
MR. BOUCHER: O.K., we got one more from Sonia.
Q The Bulgarians go to the polls on Sunday for the
first time to directly elect a President. Have you got a
comment?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm afraid I don't.
(The briefing concluded at l2:59 p.m.)