US Department of State Daily Briefing #9:
Wednesday, 1/15/92
Boucher
Source: State Department Deputy Spokesman Richard
Boucher
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Jan, 15 19921/15/92
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia, E/C Europe, East Asia,
Caribbean
Country: Cuba, Haiti, Algeria, North Korea,
Yugoslavia (former), Slovenia, Croatia, Syria, Jordan, Israel,
Russia, Iraq
Subject: Development/Relief Aid, Mideast Peace Process,
Arms Control, State Department, EC, Immigration
12:46 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
[Iraq: Announcement of Additional US Aid for Northern Iraq]
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Let me start
off with a couple of things. First of all, to say that we'll put up
a statement with more details later, but it's a statement to announce
our pledge of an additional $36 million to the extension of
humanitarian programs in northern Iraq. This comes in response to a
United Nations appeal for $145 million. The appeal was issued on
January 8, and there was a conference recently in Geneva where we
told them we'd be putting up another $36 million for these programs
in northern Iraq. And the longer statement I'll give you later. It
gives the breakdown of where it's going and what it will be used for.
[Former Soviet Union: Bartholomew Mission Arrives in Moscow]
There's been a lot of interest in Secretary Bartholomew's travel.
I'll try to update you as best as I can, and I think there's been
some interest in the Secretary's meetings with the various
delegations to the peace talks. I'll give you an update on that as
well.
On Bartholomew: Under Secretary Bartholomew and his interagency
party arrived in Moscow this morning after a delay due to mechanical
difficulties with the party's airplane.
Q Here?
MR. BOUCHER: Here. No. It was here. It was before they left.
They left about five hours late, I think. So when they got there
they went right to work.
A small interagency group met for a two-and-a-half hour working
lunch with Russian counterparts. The host was the Russian Federation
First Deputy Foreign Minister -- [Shelyov-Kovedayev] -- the First
Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation. I'll give you the
name later. The other Russian participants were from the Foreign
Ministry and from the General Staff.
Talks resumed late in the afternoon with larger interagency
groups on both sides. Russian participants came from the Foreign
Ministry, the General Staff and the Ministry of Atomic Power. There
are further talks planned in Moscow, including a meeting with Foreign
Minister Kozyrev.
Under Secretary Bartholomew and his team also plan to
visit Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Byelarus on this trip. That is
not necessarily the order in which he will visit these places.
The travel schedule is not yet final. It will be finalized by
the group in Moscow, so we'll keep you posted as the trip
proceeds.
Q Will the Embassy in Moscow staff keep the press
advised in Moscow of that itinerary or --
MR. BOUCHER: I expect they will.
Q If queried, will they be able to release that
information?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm sure if there are answers, we'll be
happy to give them to people who ask either here or in Moscow.
Q When are you going to do something about this
aging fleet of planes which keeps breaking down?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm sorry, Alan. Do you have a -- oh,
you mean these airplanes? [Laughter] I'm afraid that's a
question for the Air Force.
Q Richard, can you tell us, the last round of talks
that happened here with Bartholomew included representatives
from the various republics who have strategic nuclear weapons.
You didn't mention any of those representatives taking
part in the talks in Moscow. Are they only going to be holding
separate talks with the republics, and there's not going to be
any one forum that brings together both the elements of the
Russian Government and military and the republics?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know that yet. So far, you know,
they got there, and they met. They went immediately into
meetings and lunches. They met with Russian Federation
representatives. The Russian Federation was represented in the
last round of talks in Washington. I'm not sure if it's the
same people -- the Foreign Ministry, General Staff people and
Ministry of Atomic Power people. Whether there will be other
sort of more collective meetings with various republics, I don't
know.
Q Would you be concerned if there weren't collective
meetings? I mean, in concern with your central command and
control --
MR. BOUCHER: Let him work out his schedule. He's
going to work out his schedule in conjunction with his host to
in the most effective manner possible discuss these issues with
his counterparts over there.
Q Richard, you wouldn't have anything on substance
of the meetings?
MR. BOUCHER: Just that they -- the issues they took up
initially were nuclear dismantling and the treaty obligations.
Q I mean, is it like they walked in and the Russians
said, "What took you so long. When can you dismantle?" Or do
you have a sense of it?
MR. BOUCHER: No, Johanna. I wasn't there. I don't
have that kind of sense.
Q Do you know if the U.S. delegation offered the
Russian Federation a blueprint or whatever you might want to
call it -- an outline of how the Administration plans to --
proposes to spend the $400 million on the issue of nuclear
dismantlement?
MR. BOUCHER: I hadn't heard anything like that, Ralph,
although again I don't have a detailed substantive readout of
the discussions.
Do you want me to go on with the meetings the
Secretary's had with the heads of the delegations?
Q I want the Russian guy's name again. [Laughter]
MR. BOUCHER: I apologize to this gentleman whose name
I should have learned to pronounce better. Shelyov-Kovedayev is
as close as I can come.
Q May I ask one more on the Soviet Union?
MR. BOUCHER: Sure.
Q Do you have anything on the progress of
establishing diplomatic relations with the former Soviet
republics? I believe there are now six of them.
MR. BOUCHER: Yes. There were six that we'd wanted to
establish formal diplomatic relations with at this time. We had
heard from Russia, Ukraine, Byelarus, Kazakhstan and Armenia
when I last checked. I haven't checked recently on Kyrgystan.
O.K. The Secretary's meetings --
Q Maybe that could be a taken question -- what's the
status of those --
MR. BOUCHER: I'll check and see if there's something
new on that. And, as you all know, since we have expressed a
desire to have this relationship, once they respond to us, we
consider that that constitutes having a formal diplomatic
relationship with them.
Secretary Baker met with the head of the Syrian
delegation at 5:15 p.m. last night. At 6:15 p.m., he met with
the head of the Lebanese delegation. This morning at 8:00 a.m.,
he met with the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation heads --
Q What does that mean -- Jordanian-Palestinian?
MR. BOUCHER: --and with the -- and then later he met
with the Israeli delegation heads. I don't think I have the
right time for that one.
Q I thought the Jordanian delegation is one
delegation with one head.
MR. BOUCHER: I said he met with the
Jordanian-Palestinian delegation heads.
Q Heads. You've got an "s" at the end. What do you
mean? A Jordanian and a Palestinian?
Q A joint delegation.
MR. BOUCHER: He met -- I forget what the exact
language that we use in these cases is, Barry. I seem to
remember from Madrid that the more precise formulation was
something like the head of the Palestinian side of the joint
Jordanian-Palestinian delegation, and the head of the Jordanian
side of the joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation. That's what
he did.
Q Can you speak louder, or is the system dead, like
your airplane?
MR. BOUCHER: It could be my turning my head. I'll try
to talk louder for you, Connie.
Q Thank you.
MR. BOUCHER: The genesis of these meetings is that in
December and again during this round, various parties had
expressed an interest in meeting with Secretary Baker. Our
experts recommended to him yesterday afternoon that this would
be a good time to see all the parties.
The Secretary thought it would be appropriate to meet
with them and to hear firsthand where they are in the process.
In fact, that is the way the meetings went. Having held the
meetings, the Secretary felt that they were worthwhile, and he
did indeed hear their firsthand reports on where they are.
Q Well, Richard, Dr. Ashrawi says the talks are
deadlocked; that they will not proceed on to discuss any other
agenda items until the question of Israeli settlements is
addressed and until Israel ceases settlement activity; and
further said that there needs to be strict intervention by the
co-sponsors.
Did that come up in the talks? Did they ask the
Secretary to intervene in the talks to bridge this gap? What's
the status of the talks at the moment? Are they in the United
States' view deadlocked?
MR. BOUCHER: The status of the talks is that they have
still had meetings. I think each of the delegations again has
press conferences scheduled this afternoon, and each of the
delegations will --
Q A press conference is not a meeting.
MR. BOUCHER: Excuse me, John, if I can finish my
sentence. -- and, as in the past, I'm not going to try to
characterize for the parties what their views are on where they
stand. They have done so and will continue to do so for you.
In the meeting with the Secretary, each of the delegations
briefed the Secretary on the progress of the talks.
The Secretary reiterated the commitment of the United
States to remain actively engaged in the process. He urged that
all sides continue to work on resolving procedural issues that
arise and to continue to work on the substance of the issues.
The Secretary did not make any United States proposals.
That wasn't the purpose of the meetings, and that wasn't
anything that happened. He did offer some comments privately to
each delegation on various ideas and suggestions and views that
are in play. As we've done in the past, we won't comment on the
further details of that.
Q Well, Dr. Ashrawi says that her account is -- it's
almost word for word yours. It's almost as if the two of you
prepared a joint statement.
MR. BOUCHER: Maybe we're both telling the truth.
Q But she goes on to say, "He is sure that they are
willing to take an active role on issues of substance." Did the
Secretary tell this joint Palestinian-Jordanian -- whatever,
delegation head -- that he's prepared to come down on one side
or another on issues?
MR. BOUCHER: As I said, the Secretary reiterated his
commitment to remain actively engaged in the process.
Q Well, talking to them is not "actively engaged."
She says that he is prepared to take an active role on the
issues, which to me means he's prepared to say, "Here's how the
U.S. feels about this issue. Here's how we feel about that
issue." Maybe actively, energetically.
Is the Secretary going to abandon -- the U.S. has been
on the sidelines for about two days. You know, not doing much
and letting the people grope their way to their first ever
negotiations, for instance.
Is this about to change? Will the U.S. now take
positions on issues and inject those positions into the
negotiations?
MR. BOUCHER: Barry, the U.S. role remains what it has
always been. It has not changed. We're actively involved with
the parties. We're actively encouraging progress. We're
actively encouraging discussions of substance. We have
expressed our views on various issues in the past. As I've said
quite up front to you when various ideas and suggestions have
been discussed -- for example, today with the Secretary, and
Margaret's reported in the past as well. We've offered our
views as well. At the same time, the Secretary didn't make any
U.S. proposals this morning.
Q Richard, does the United States consider the talks
to be deadlocked?
MR. BOUCHER: I have not characterized the talks that
way, John.
Q Has the United States expressed a view in this
current near-deadlock, it certainly is, on settlements? Has the
United States said anything to the parties, "I would wish the
settlements issue would be dealt with now"?
MR. BOUCHER: Barry, first of all, I don't know. I
don't think we're inclined to go into that much detailed
discussions. I think you know our views on settlements. Those
views have not changed.
Q Will there be further meetings today between any
of the sides?
MR. BOUCHER: I didn't get an updated schedule as I
came in. [TO STAFF] Cynthia, do you know if they have more
schedules? I don't know. We'll find out.
Q One more question, please. Do you know if the
Israelis are planning to return home this afternoon?
MR. BOUCHER: We haven't been formally notified or
notified by the Israelis of their exact plans, but that is
certainly something you can ask them.
Q Richard, did the Secretary urge either the
Israelis or the Syrians to stay past today?
MR. BOUCHER: As I said, in a general sense he urged
all the sides to continue their work -- to continue their work
to overcome procedural problems, to continue their work on
substance. He did not specifically tell them the schedule that
they should keep.
Q Did the question of venue come up at all during
the talks?
MR. BOUCHER: I think that was discussed, among other
subjects. Yes.
Q What's the distinction you make between making
suggestions on various topics and making -- offering private
ideas, and the distinction between that and making proposals?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think there's any distinction
between that, Ralph. We are frequently asked here whether --
when two sides are not able to agree on something, we have put
forth a U.S. bridging proposal, or something like that. I'm
merely saying that we hadn't done that, although certainly we've
discussed, you know, the state of play and the ideas with the
different parties.
Q So offering a private idea is not the same as
offering a proposal? I mean, is that the distinction you're
making?
MR. BOUCHER: It's the same distinction we've drawn at
times in the past when we've had meetings, when, you know, the
two sides appeared not to agree on something; that we haven't
withdrawn ourselves from all discussion of it, but we haven't
said, "This is what you ought to do. This is the U.S. proposal
to bridge your problem."
Q Did the Secretary propose a time and place for the
next series of meetings?
MR. BOUCHER: No. As I said, he expressed our desire
to see the talks continue, but we did not try to dictate any
sort of schedule for them.
Q Did he suggest?
MR. BOUCHER: He said that we hoped that they would
work out any differences they have on these issues.
Q But he offered no U.S. ideas on time and place?
MR. BOUCHER: No. He didn't make U.S. proposals of
that sort.
Q Continue can mean "continue this round," or it
could mean, paren, "to be continued," close parenthesis.
MR. BOUCHER: "Continue" means "continue the process."
He did not attempt to dictate any specific schedule of meetings
for them. He expressed the hope that they would work that out.
Q So that doesn't mean he said, "Don't recess."
"Continue" means "keep talking, but you don't have to talk
Thursday and Friday," right?
MR. BOUCHER: He didn't tell them when to get together
next.
Q Did it come up in the Palestinian-Jordanian
delegation of whether the U.S. and Russia had attempted to
deliver the Palestinian delegation an invitation to the
multilateral talks last night?
MR. BOUCHER: The subject of the multilaterals was
discussed, but I don't think anything like Jerusalem came up.
Q The Baker meeting, we're talking about.
MR. BOUCHER: Yes. In the Baker meeting.
Q What about the instance of the report? Margaret
said that the invitations were sent out last night. Was the
invitation to the Palestinians delivered as previous invitations
have been, to Faisal Husseini in East Jerusalem, and did he
decline to accept that invitation?
MR. BOUCHER: O.K. I don't know who it was in East
Jerusalem, but let me step back a bit and as well answer one of
the questions we had yesterday about whether this was an
invitation that we could provide for you.
This was not an invitation that was a document that was
done -- it was not a document like the letter of invitation that
we put out that was issued before in Madrid. It was an
instruction to our embassies and overseas diplomatic posts to
contact the various parties to orally invite them, the way they
were invited -- for example, the way the proposal went out on
the bilateral talks in December.
So it was a cable of instruction and, as in December,
we're not going to be able to provide you with a copy of that
cable. Yes, our Consulate General in Jerusalem went to carry
out those instructions and was -- the invitation was not
accepted there.
Q What do you mean precisely, "the invitation was
not accepted"? Did they slam --
MR. BOUCHER: Let me continue.
Q Sorry.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know the exact circumstances, and
I'm going to leave it to the Palestinians to explain whether
that constitutes a rejection of the invitation or if they just
did not accept it there.
This morning at the State Department, Deputy Assistant
Secretary Kurtzer met with Palestinian representatives here at
the State Department. He extended the same oral invitation.
The Palestinian representatives expressed their views on the
representation issue, as they have in other meetings and as they
have in the past, and at the end of that meeting they were
considering the invitation. So that's where we stand right now.
Q Can I reprise my question from yesterday? This
invitation was to a joint delegation. Margaret said she was
almost sure that that was the case; that she was going to check.
MR. BOUCHER: Yes. The view of the co-sponsors is that
the terms of reference that were used for Madrid, the terms of
reference that were used for the bilateral, should be the terms
of reference and should be used in Moscow as well.
Q Do you know who it was in East Jerusalem, who she
spoke to?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't.
Q Richard, whether or not the Israelis stick around
tomorrow, are you going to open -- is the State Department going
to be open for business for these talks?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, as in the past --
Q Over the weekend and next week?
MR. BOUCHER: If we find out from them that they're not
having any meetings, I think we'll let the people back in their
offices, and we won't stand outside in the cold, nor do I expect
you to do that either.
Q As of now, do you --
MR. BOUCHER: But as in the past, our practice has been
if the sides tell us they want to have a meeting, we're here to
provide the facilities.
Q Richard, just to close the loop, the ground rules
provide that all sides -- both sides have to invite the
co-sponsors to actually enter the room, if that is to be the
case. Was that done by either side this morning?
MR. BOUCHER: Not that I've heard of. No.
Q Do you know about the delegation heads coming back
around 11:15 for a meeting? Was that with Mr. Djerejian,
or what? Wasn't there another meeting, or did they meet among
themselves?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think so. The only -- they're
the ones that the Secretary had this morning.
Q Yes. And then you had the bilateral.
MR. BOUCHER: Then there was the meeting with Deputy
Assistant Secretary Kurtzer with some of the Palestinian
representatives. Those are the only ones I've heard about.
Q You don't know of Djerejian meeting with Abu Shafi
and --
MR. BOUCHER: I'll check and see if Djerejian had any
other meetings, but not that I've heard of.
Q Just a follow-up on the Palestinian-Kurtzer
meeting. Did Kurtzer meet with -- when you say "some of the
Palestinian representatives," were they members of the
delegations that have been negotiating with the Israelis, or
were they other Palestinians who are in Washington at this time
and are associated with those delegations?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know the exact guest list. I
suppose it was some of both. As you know, we meet with various
different Palestinians.
Q Hanan Ashrawi was in the building today. With
whom did she meet -- and so was Sari Nusseibeh. Was that the
Kurtzer meeting, or was that yet another -- perhaps a different
round of meetings?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll leave it to them to describe their
attendance at the meeting.
Q Richard, can you tell us, do you think that this
conference in Moscow will go ahead and take place, even if the
Palestinians don't come, and how do you view the possibility
that they're not coming?
MR. BOUCHER: Mary, that's not something -- that's what
we call a hypothetical, really. At this point we'll continue to
discuss the issue with them. As I said, they've expressed their
views on the representation question before. I'm sure they'll
share them with you as well or have already.
We expect to continue discussing these issues. The
co-sponsors and many others believe that the issues to be
discussed at the multilateral talks in Moscow are very
important. They're important for the process, they're important
for the people there in the region, and they're important for
peace. So we'll continue to discuss it, and we'll hope to have
them there.
Q Since these invitations were made just orally, do
you have a pretty good idea now of who's coming, and were you
rejected by anybody? What kind of response did you get? I
assume Syria is still out of it. Did the other expected guests
shake their heads and say, "We'll be there?"
MR. BOUCHER: Barry, we're not in a position to start
putting out reactions, lists, or otherwise indicate the
attendance until we get closer to the conference. I think
Margaret indicated that yesterday.
Q You're dealing with the -- you're talking about
the Palestinians now, aren't we?
MR. BOUCHER: It was one specific issue, she talked,
that came up; and we're discussing it, yes.
Q Richard, what is your instruction to your
diplomats in Jerusalem? Are they going to attempt to deliver
this invitation again, or do you have an idea?
As you said, you're not sure whether they couldn't
accept it at that point in time and that place. Perhaps there
are other issues. What are you communicating to your diplomats?
Are you telling them to try to reschedule an appointment, to
deliver the invitation?
MR. BOUCHER: Frank, I hadn't heard of any new
instructions. As I said, at the point we're at now, we've had a
discussion here in Washington with Palestinian representatives.
We've expressed our interest in seeing them at the conference.
They've expressed their views on representation questions, and
we'll continue to discuss these things with the Palestinians.
Q Do you have a rundown on who actually met today?
Did the Israelis meet the Lebanese as planned? Did the Israelis
meet the Syrians as planned? Was there an Israeli-Jordanian or
Israeli-Palestinian meeting?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm sorry, Jan, I didn't get that
rundown.
Q Since you're the host -- as one of the sponsors
this time -- the host, too -- the U.S. is -- aren't the Israelis
obliged to let the U.S. Government know when they're going home?
You've got to shut off the coffee.
MR. BOUCHER: I think in the past the parties have kept
us informed of what their plans are. So, at this point I don't
have any -- I'm not aware that we've received any official word
from them. I think even if we had, Barry, it's not for me to
say when someone else is going home. I'm sure that you'll be
asking them that later today and they'll tell you.
Q We ask these questions -- believe it or not, we
ask it of all the parties, but we figure the U.S. is sort of a
player, a catalyst, so to speak. Since you're the host, I
wonder if the U.S. felt somewhat snubbed or you just think it's
normal that one of the main negotiating groups here may or may
not leave tonight and you guys sort of don't know? It's hard to
believe.
MR. BOUCHER: I'm sure --
Q Or is it a secret, classified perhaps?
MR. BOUCHER: Barry, we've not been informed officially
of the Israeli travel plans. I don't take that as a snub. I
just take that as a fact.
I told you that if we had been informed, I probably
wouldn't be telling you from here. At the same time, I'm sure
they'll tell us what their plans are and what their expectations
are before they leave.
Q Richard, since the objection of the Palestinians
is the fact that the people that are here represent only the
West Bank and Gaza and don't represent the diaspora among the
Palestinians. Is it the view of the co-sponsors that the same
people that attended in Madrid and here must attend in Moscow
and that they can't add people from Tunis and other
places?
MR. BOUCHER: As I said, our view is that the terms of
reference that were used for Madrid and the terms of reference
that were used for the bilaterals should be used in Moscow.
Q It means no one from East Jerusalem and no one
from other areas?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll just stick with what we said.
Q Is there any change -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
Q Barry, just one little minor thing. You described
the event in Jerusalem last night a certain way. You said they
did not accept it there. You described the event this morning
in Washington a slightly different way. It wasn't clear to me,
from what you described about the Washington event, as to
whether the Palestinians with whom Kurtzer met accepted it here.
MR. BOUCHER: As I said, Ralph, as that meeting ended,
they were considering our invitation.
Q Did they accept it to consider it, or did they
say, "Well, we'll think about accepting" -- or are they
considering accepting it?
MR. BOUCHER: My understanding is they're considering
the invitation.
[Former Yugoslavia: Recognition of Croatia/Slovenia by EC]
Q Do you have anything new to say today about
Croatia, Slovenia, and all of that? Any change from yesterday
now that there's been some formal action?
MR. BOUCHER: On the question of recognition, you're
probably aware as I am that the Portuguese Presidency has
announced that all EC members will recognize Croatia and
Slovenia. We understand their governments will decide for
themselves how best to address the Yugoslav situation.
As far as the U.S. view, I can repeat, I think, at some
greater length what it has been in the past.
Q But no change --
MR. BOUCHER: We see that the U.S. and EC share the
same objectives in Yugoslavia to stop the fighting to bring
about a peaceful settlement.
We continue to support the efforts of various envoys to
achieve peace. We believe that full observance of the ceasefire
and cooperation with the U.N. is at a critical opportunity now.
We're prepared to accept any outcome that's achieved peacefully,
democratically, and through negotiations.
Q (Multiple questions)
Q There's another sentence usually in the
formulation which --
MR. BOUCHER: If everybody wants the long version, here
we go.
Q No, no, I want to hear --
MR. BOUCHER: The U.S. and the EC have the same
objectives in Yugoslavia. That is, to help stop the fighting
and bring about a peaceful settlement based on CSCE principles.
We will continue to support both EC and U.N. efforts to
promote a peaceful settlement of the Yugoslav crisis. We
believe that full observance of the ceasefire and cooperation
with the U.N. effort is a crucial opportunity to move forward
with genuine dialogue and a political settlement in the context
of the EC conference.
We have made it clear from the start that we will
accept any outcome of this process which is arrived at
peacefully, democratically, and through negotiation.
Any settlement must include strong protections for the
rights of all national groups and all republics. We've also
made it clear that we are firmly opposed to any attempt to
change the borders of Yugoslav republics by force or
intimidation.
The primary consideration for us is to do everything
possible to bring an end to the fighting and the suffering that
the fighting has inflicted. We continue to urge the Serbian and
the Yugoslav military leadership and the Croatian leadership to
cooperate with U.N. efforts led by the Secretary General's
envoy, Cyrus Vance, and with the EC Conference chaired by Lord
Carrington.
Q But doesn't the recognition of two new countries
change the borders of Yugoslavia?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, we have supported the efforts to
reach a peaceful settlement, to have these issues
settled peacefully. As you know, we don't recognize forcible
changes in internal or external borders. We would expect that
part of an overall settlement would be things like borders, and
that is what we have been supporting. That is what the EC has
been supporting.
Q Yeah, but there are two new countries on the map
today because they're two countries that are now recognized by
Europe that weren't there yesterday and they are there today.
Doesn't that change the borders?
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, I can speak for U.S. policy. I'm
not going to draw that sort of implication out of what the EC is
doing.
Q Does the U.S. accept the borders to have been
changed by force or intimidation? Does the U.S. consider the
borders of Yugoslavia to have been changed by force or
intimidation at this point?
MR. BOUCHER: It's such a theoretical question, Ralph,
I don't know how to answer it. I guess the answer is --
Q Germany and the EC --
MR. BOUCHER: We have not at this point recognized any
further subdivisions or any changes in those borders. So, I
guess in the U.S. view we have not made any decisions that would
imply that there's been a change in borders.
Q So, you say there are no new borders?
MR. BOUCHER: At this point, I don't -- at this point,
I better check with the lawyers. (Laughter)
Q Richard, can you tell us --
Q Do you disagree with the EC, then? Has the U.S.
communicated with the EC and with the individual members who
have recognized new countries in what was formerly Yugoslavia?
And has the U.S. communicated with those allies and friends
about its disagreement on the existence of new countries, or
anything like that, or borders?
MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, when we get into these recognition
questions, I think, frankly, you guys make a bigger issue of
them than we do.
We are dealing with the situation there. We are
dealing with the parties in Yugoslavia, I said, to encourage a
peaceful settlement, to encourage the continuation of the
ceasefire, to encourage cooperation and support for the efforts
of Cyrus Vance and Lord Carrington to bring about a peaceful
settlement to this crisis.
We are united, I think, with the European Community
countries and many other countries around the world in
supporting and encouraging those efforts. We have not taken the
same steps as they have on the question of recognition, but I
think there's no doubt in our minds that we are all supporting
the efforts to bring about an overall settlement. We see the
developments and the evolution of policy in that context.
Q Richard, you're saying you are dealing with the
situation there. My question is, how do you deal with the
situation there? There is no Federal presidency, there is no
Federal Assembly, there is no Federal government.
You say there are no changes in the borders. So, in
the U.S. Government's view, who is representing a Yugoslovia, if
there is one?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, this is an issue, I think, that
you all seem to make more of an issue of than we do.
We have expressed our views on what has happened to the
Federal institutions in Yugoslavia. At the same time, we have
also said that our Ambassador there continues to deal with
officials in various republics and various parts of government
in the military to express the United States view and to support
these efforts towards peace.
Q Aren't you taking sides in this conflict by
stating that position? Because as far as the world is
concerned, the only people who still maintain that there is a
Yugoslavia are the Serbs, the Montenegrans, and you?
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, I haven't done any precise census
on this. Again, we don't sit in our offices and fret about
accreditation questions all day long. Our Ambassadors, whether
it's in Moscow with the changes that we've seen there or in
Belgrade with the changes that we're seeing there, continue to
work with various people throughout the country in various
positions to urge them to bring about a peaceful settlement.
Q With the greatest of respect, it's not journalists
kind of blowing off an issue about whether a country exists or
not. And with the greatest of respect, there's a difference
between your position in Russia where you recognize a certain
reality and your position in Yugoslavia where you don't.
MR. BOUCHER: Without engaging you in comparisons,
since we never do that, I would only say that we deal with the
realities at hand.
Q Are you suggesting that the existence or
non-existence of entities called Croatia and Slovenia is a
trivial matter that's being blown up by journalists?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I'm not, Alan, and I didn't say that.
I just didn't say that. Saul.
Q Richard, speaking of realities at hand, it appears
that there's a mounting ground swell of support for the elected
government of Georgia.
With regard to Georgia, what is our policy on support
for elected governments? Have we changed at all? Do we have
any idea that anything is changing there since a lot of people
seem to support the elected government?
MR. BOUCHER: I think we've explained our position on
the situation there before. I don't have anything new, no.
Q In talking to North Korea, is there anything newer
than yesterday?
MR. BOUCHER: No. We thought yesterday was going to be
the very, very near future; that we could talk to you about
this. I'd probably have to take out one of the "verys" today
based on the information we had yesterday. It's not the same as
today. But in the near future, we hope to be able to talk to
you about this. I think we've said in the past, we're
considering a meeting.
Q I'm sorry, I couldn't hear that question either.
But have you talked about the Iraqi nuclear admissions yesterday
at the U.N.? Do you have any comments on those?
MR. BOUCHER: The centrifuges?
Q Yes.
MR. BOUCHER: I think Margaret talked at some length
yesterday about that.
Q You have nothing else beyond that today?
MR. BOUCHER: Nothing particularly, no.
Q Going back to Yugoslavia, if I may. In light of
the European recognition, is the United States at least
examining its options and studying the feasibility of
recognizing at least Slovenia, which appears to meet conditions
laid out by Secretary of State Baker vis-a-vis the Russian
republics -- democracy, human rights, and so forth?
You could make an argument about Serbia, a lack of full
protection for minorities and so forth. But Slovenia appears to
meet that criteria.
MR. BOUCHER: Frank, you're aware of the process that
the European Community went through before reaching their
decisions. We've been in close touch with the European
Community. We continue to be in close touch with them.
At this point, our policy is the way I've stated it
today, and that's where I'm going to stand.
Q Any further adjustments in U.S. policy on Algeria
at this point?
Q Evolution.
Q Evolution -- yeah, that's good, Barry.
MR. BOUCHER: Do you want to know what's going on
there, Ralph -- where we stand?
Q We'd be interested in knowing what the U.S. -- how
the U.S. is dealing with the government in Algeria and whether
the U.S. considers there to be a government in Algeria.
MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, as you know, we recognize states
rather than particular governmental institutions. We conduct
business with governments.
In Algeria, I think, we put up an answer yesterday to
say that our Ambassador continues to meet with government
officials. We continue -- we will, of course, continue to meet
with people from across the political spectrum in Algeria and
continue to deal with government institutions, as we have
business with them.
Q Does the U.S. think that the continuing management
of the government by the military is appropriate under the
Algerian constitution?
MR. BOUCHER: As Margaret said yesterday, we are not
going to interject ourselves in the debate that's going on in
Algeria over questions of the constitution. It's an issue for
them, not us, to sort out.
The day-to-day government appears to remain in the
hands of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. We'll continue to
work with them. As we've said before, we hope a way can be
found as soon as possible to resume progress towards
implementation of democratic reforms. In the meantime, we urge
all parties to remain calm and to find a peaceful resolution to
the crisis.
Q On Haiti?
Q May I just come back shortly to Yugoslavia?
Because you say you do not recognize the independent republics
because you do not recognize forcefully changed borders. So, in
my understanding, there are no borders forcefully changed up to
now?
MR. BOUCHER: I did not say that.
Q May I complete my question? My question is, why
don't you recognize the --
MR. BOUCHER: Again, I just gave you a lengthy
explanation of the U.S. view of the situation there. We have
not changed our policy on recognition. We have not asked to
have diplomatic relations with any new governments or new states
there. That remains U.S. policy. The U.S. objectives and goals
and the situation in Yugoslavia are what I just stated.
Q Any progress on Haiti or a lack of progress?
MR. BOUCHER: In terms of the political situation
there?
Q Yes, and the OAS attempts to --
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have an update. I haven't had
one recently. I'll try to get one for you.
[Cuba: Families of US Residents Under Death Sentence/
US Reaction to Sentence/Appeal for Reduction/FBI Investigation]
Q Do you have something today on the Cuba issue? On
Cuba?
MR. BOUCHER: Which Cuba issue? The three people
there?
Q Yes.
MR. BOUCHER: I think I have two things to report for
you. Yesterday afternoon two officials of the Bureau of Human
Rights and Humanitarian officials met with family members of two
of the three individuals who are in jail in Cuba. The family
members asked that every effort be made to prevent the carrying
out of the death sentence imposed on these individuals.
Department officials stated that our view of the
verdict was that it was reached in haste and that the sentence
was disproportionate to the alleged crime. We pointed out that
the Cuban Government has not provided access to the details of
the investigation nor the trial.
Family members were told that the Department was
contacting the Cuban Government that same day -- that is,
yesterday -- to ask it, on a humanitarian basis, to show
leniency and not carry out the death sentence.
To do that yesterday, we called in the Acting Principle
Officer of the Cuban Interest Section in Washington to ask that
the death sentences against the three Cuban exiles be commuted.
We expressed the hope that the Cuban Supreme Court would show
leniency regarding the severe sentences on appeal.
The principal officer of our Interest Section in Havana
has raised our concerns and intends to review the issue with the
Cuban Government again today.
Q Just a technical one. Who in Cuba -- who was it
in Cuba that raised the concerns?
MR. BOUCHER: The principal officer of our Interest
Section.
Q And he met with somebody yesterday?
MR. BOUCHER: He raised our concerns with the Cuban
Government. I don't know exactly who it was. I assume it was
the Foreign Ministry.
Q Did you call someone here?
MR. BOUCHER: We called in the Acting Principal Officer
of the Cuban Interest Section in Washington.
Q Who is that protecting power?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't remember.
Q And who's yours there?
MR. BOUCHER: Ours is Switzerland down there. It may
be Switzerland up here for them.
Q Do you have any views of these paramilitary groups
who undergo military training in Florida with a view to
destabilizing and one day overthrowing the Cuban Government to
which these three individuals appear to have belonged?
MR. BOUCHER: As I think Margaret has said recently to
you, that the U.S. law makes it against our law to launch an
attack from U.S. soil against a foreign government.
The FBI has opened an investigation into the facts of
this matter, and they're looking at those things.
Q So if it transpires that these individuals came
from the United States, underwent military or paramilitary or
crypto-military training in the United States and then engaged
in these acts, they would have broken U.S. law?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, let me say there was no U.S.
Government involvement in this incident. The FBI is
investigating possible violation of the Neutrality Act. And as
for definitions of exactly what constitutes a violation, I'll
leave that to Justice.
Q You mentioned -- I think I just lost track of --
U.S. officials met with the family members of two of those in
Cuba. Were the representations that were made both here in
Washington and in Havana made on behalf of all three? Or is
there some reason why a third person is --
MR. BOUCHER: No, on behalf of all three. I'm not sure
whether the third wasn't here --
Q Okay. I just didn't know if somehow there was
some distinction between them.
MR. BOUCHER: The representations and our desire to see
the death sentence commuted, that was made on behalf of all
three. And, as I said, we did that both here in Washington and
yesterday in Havana.
Q Thank you.
(Press briefing concluded at 1:27 p.m.)