US Department of State Daily Briefing #12:
Tuesday, 1/21/92
Boucher
Source: State Department Deputy Spokesman Richard
Boucher
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Jan, 21 19921/21/92
Category: Briefings
Region: Subsaharan Africa, Eurasia, MidEast/North Africa,
East Asia, Caribbean
Country: Haiti, Cuba, Japan, Libya, North Korea, Israel,
USSR (former), Congo
Subject: Regional/Civil Unrest, Arms Control,
Nuclear Nonproliferation, Mideast Peace Process,
Human Rights, Immigration, United Nations, Terrorism,
Refugees
12:35 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
[Congo: US Urges Peaceful Solution]
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon. If I can, I'd like to
start out with a few things you may or may not be interested in.
The first is a statement on the Congo; the second is some
information about departure and return for the next trip; the
third will be something on Bartholomew's meeting; and the fourth
will be a little bit about the organization of the Coordinating
Conference.
So to start out with the Congo, I'd like to say the
U.S. Government is deeply concerned about the recent
developments in the Congo which appear to be a direct threat to
the peaceful democratic transition laid out by the national
conference last year and which are regrettable examples to other
democratizing countries in Africa.
We are strongly opposed to any change in the status quo
brought about through the use or threat of force. We call upon
the Congolese military authorities to respect the decisions of
the national conference and to avoid bloodshed. We urge all
parties to work peacefully towards reconciliation. Now is the
time to step back from the brink and to search for consensus.
Q Is "deeply concerned" more concerned than just
"concerned," which you were about the situation in Algeria last
week? (Laughter)
MR. BOUCHER: John, I have to remind you that we don't
do comparisons. We are deeply concerned about the situation and
"deeply concerned" is more concerned than just concerned. But
as far as how these different situations might compare, I'll
leave that for analysts and not me.
Q Is the U.S. -- other than your expressions, is the
U.S. doing anything else? Is there any aid cutoff?
MR. BOUCHER: At this point the situation, I'm told, is
still fluid. We're following it closely. I have nothing
further to announce at this time.
Q Richard, is the Ambassador still there?
MR. BOUCHER: I think so. I don't remember for sure.
I'll have to check that.
[Announcement: Secretary's Trip to Moscow/Prague/UN]
O.K. The upcoming trip to Moscow and Prague:
Departure is now -- looks like late Sunday night.
Q (Chorus of yeas)
Q Super Bowl time!
MR. BOUCHER: No promises on the exact timing and how
that might fit with other events that you might be interested
in.
Q But the penalty is that we come home three days
later.
MR. BOUCHER: No. The return is scheduled to return to
Washington on Thursday night. As you might expect, the
Secretary will be going to New York with the President on Friday
for the events up at the U.N. there.
Q Wonderful. And that's it? Those are the two
stops? Well, I guess that's all there's time for, I guess.
Q What nights do we have in --
Q No other republics?
MR. BOUCHER: That's all I've ever heard of, Barry.
Q What night is in Prague? Are there two nights?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have the exact schedule at this
point. I'd have to refresh my memory before trying to give it
to you from here.
Q Is there a stay-over in Prague, as you understand
it, or just a "day trip," as we would say?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll have to refresh my memory before
trying to give it to you, Barry. I forgot to check on that.
Q Richard, why the change? For the record.
MR. BOUCHER: For the record, I don't know. This is
the way it worked out. O.K.? (Laughter)
Q Good enough for me, Richard.
Q You've got two more to go.
MR. BOUCHER: I've got two more to go.
[Former Soviet Union: Bartholomew Mission Update]
Under Secretary Bartholomew's travel: They are in
Alma-Ata today. Under Secretary Bartholomew and his team also
traveled to Minsk and Kiev over the weekend. At all three of
these stops they discussed the same issues as we reported on
last week for their Moscow stop -- that is, safety, security and
dismantling of nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation and
particular export controls, and of course treaty obligations.
The group will travel on Wednesday to Brussels to brief
the NATO allies in Brussels, and they return to Washington on
Thursday.
Q Do you have any progress to report, or are they
just -- I mean, are they leaving people behind to help in any of
these processes?
MR. BOUCHER: At this point, John, I'd just stick with
what we said about the Moscow stops. He felt that there was
considerable progress. We felt that the meetings have been very
useful so far; but as far as a more detailed readout, we want to
wait until he gets back.
Q Richard, was the United States apprised of the
test firing of the SS-19, and do we know the circumstances
surrounding the firing of that missile?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any information on that for
you today. It's something I'd have to look into and get back to
you.
Q Richard, a standing question, and you may not have
the answer, but maybe you could in the next go-around with those
folks. Have they got into negotiating -- even negotiating in an
informal way -- further cutbacks, carrying out particularly the
unilateral pledges of Gorbachev, which we hold them to -- the
U.S. holds them to?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, Barry, as far as going beyond this
into defining some more of what they've accomplished and what
they've done on various issues, I think we want to wait for them
to complete their meetings and to get back to us.
Q Richard, if I may, as you know, this missile was
fired on the territory of Kazakhstan, and the Kazakh leadership
knew nothing -- says they knew nothing -- about it. And we're
not sure exactly whether we learned about it and when we learned
about it. And I wondered if --
MR. BOUCHER: Well, Saul, everything that you're
saying, as you know, I think, comes out of one commentator's
article yesterday. I haven't seen any other articles on this,
but --
Q No, this is now. This is now a story on the wire
that comes out --
MR. BOUCHER: -- maybe I'm not up to date on it.
Q There's now a story on the wire that comes out of
Moscow with the Russians saying they were aware of the firing,
that it was a test firing, they did not know whether the Kazakhs
knew about it, and they can't explain why they didn't know about
it.
I'm trying to find out whether we were notified of the
test firing; whether -- we understand that it was beyond the
bounds of the treaty. That is, 120 days had expired before
test, but since this is a firing from Kazakh territory of a
Russian missile -- one of their big ones -- I'd like to know
something about it and what we knew about it.
MR. BOUCHER: O.K., Saul. I promised I would look into
and see what I can find out for you.
Q I'd appreciate it.
Q Let me ask you a related question really linked to
this: Does the U.S. now have a position on whether there should
be one military in the former Soviet Union, or does the U.S. say
it is -- feel that it's up to the -- I think there were four
republics now who want their own military?
You know, there was a demonstration or a meeting of
officers late last week, appealing for keeping the Soviet
military as it was, intact under one joint command. I know you
have a position on nuclear. I'm talking about the army -- the
army, navy and air force.
MR. BOUCHER: I was going to say, Barry, we've talked
about these things in the past. We said that we felt that these
issues need to be worked out responsibly. As you know, on the
issue of particular concern, which is nuclear weapons, we said
that there should be safe, reliable, authoritative control by a
single unified authority for control of nuclear weapons in a
responsible manner.
Beyond that, we said that we felt that the other issues
involving the military should be worked out in accordance with
international obligations under various treaties and should be
worked out, we hope, peacefully and responsibly by the various
parties there.
Q But you've never taken -- the U.S. has never taken
a position whether this should be one unified military?
MR. BOUCHER: Not that I'm aware of.
Q Richard, given the fact that both Reggie
[Bartholomew] and the Secretary will be traveling on Thursday,
I wondered if you know whether there will be any special effort
to have Reggie brief --
MR. BOUCHER: You've got two different Thursdays.
Q I do?
MR. BOUCHER: Reggie's coming back Thursday, meaning
two days from now.
Q Oh. Correct.
MR. BOUCHER: And then the Secretary will be traveling
next week.
Q On the Secretary's trip to Moscow, the
Palestinians have still not accepted the invitation, as I
understand it; and some of the other Arab states are waiting to
see if they do. In the U.S. view, is that conference on, come
what may?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if -- this is getting ahead
of ourselves into other subjects, and we'll get back to the
Coordinating Conference in a second.
Q I'm not talking about the Coordinating Conference.
I'm talking about the Middle East conference.
MR. BOUCHER: No. I understand, Alan. I promised to
do something off the top on the Coordinating Conference.
Q This relates to point number two in your list
which --
[Middle EAst Peace Process: Multilateral Conference in Moscow]
MR. BOUCHER: O.K. I'd be glad to tell you about where
we stand in terms of the multilateral conference.
We have been discussing the conference with a variety
of governments -- and parties, I guess I should say. As for the
Palestinians, they have not formally responded. They have the
matter under active consideration.
As you know, the co-sponsors and many others believe
that the issues to be discussed at the multilateral talks in
Moscow are very important, especially for the regional parties.
Accordingly, we are urging and encouraging all parties to
attend.
Q Will you attend, though? Alan's question is that
if half these governments don't show up --
MR. BOUCHER: He said: Is the conference still on?
We're still encouraging others to attend, and we still intend to
attend ourselves.
Q Richard, you know, it's getting close, so this
question's fair, I think. They've been considering for several
days now. Is the U.S. view that the Palestinian refugee
problem, which is one of the key items in this conference, can
be dealt with in any credible, successful or -- what am I trying
to say? -- in any credible way, accomplish anything, without
Palestinian participation?
MR. BOUCHER: As I think Margaret said a week or two
ago, the refugee question is certainly one that's important for
people in the region and that certainly could be discussed in
Moscow. But as far as the rules of participation, we thought
that the formulas, the terms of reference, that were used for
Madrid, that were used for the bilats, should be the ones used
for Moscow.
As I said, we think it's important for all the parties
to be there, and we continue to urge them all to be there.
Q So you're going ahead on the conference and,
indeed, you would go ahead on the various items on the agenda --
water resources, refugees, arms proliferation?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we've gotten down into the
specific items yet in public, so I'm not prepared to do that
now.
Q Well, are you prepared to say that the State
Department -- that the U.S. would, you know, defer discussion of
the Palestinian refugees if the Palestinians aren't there?
You're not saying that either, of course.
MR. BOUCHER: No. I'm not saying that, Barry. I'm
saying it's our intention to proceed with the conference, and
we're encouraging other parties to be there, and we're working
with other parties and the co-sponsors on preparing the
conference.
Q After the Secretary's talks, I guess, last week
with Boutros Ghali, are you looking at changing the role of the
U.N. in the Moscow conference, or will you stick to the previous
terms and have it be simply an observer rather than a
participant?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to get into the status and
the attendance of specific parties beyond what we've done so
far, so I don't think that's a question I can address at this
point.
Q Well, you just said it's the same terms and
conditions as Madrid, and this is one change that was brought up
in the Secretary's discussions apparently with the U.N.
Secretary General. And so the question is, are you changing it
or not?
MR. BOUCHER: O.K. It's something I would have to
check on. I'm not sure it's a question we're prepared to answer
at this point.
Q Would you check on a response to that?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll see if we can get you one.
Q Richard, the Palestinians form a joint delegation
with the Jordanians. Have you a response from the Jordanians?
Could they conceivably attend without the Palestinians?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not prepared at this point to give
you a tick list of all the responses we've got, and I think I'll
leave it to the other parties to speak for themselves, as much
as I can.
Q And, finally, can you tell me what the prospects
are if the Government of Israel should fall? Does a caretaker
government represent Israel at the conference?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, I think that's a question you'll
have to ask the Government of Israel. It's not something I'm
prepared to address at this point.
Q Richard, would you address the loan guarantees,
since you're on the Middle East?
MR. BOUCHER: No.
Q No. O.K. So later on will you get to this,
please?
Q Some of the Asian republics want to improve
relations with the Muslim Arab countries and are pressuring the
Russian Government to do the same. How does this affect the
effectiveness of Russia as a co-sponsor of the conference and of
helping the U.S. carry out its policy in the Middle East?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not quite sure what you're asking,
Sonia. I don't think it's something I'm prepared to answer at
this point.
Q I'm asking you how the United States views the
Russian role in the Middle East in the light of various changes
that are occurring in the former Soviet Union, especially in the
Asian republics and their relations with the Arab countries.
MR. BOUCHER: They are -- the Russian Republic -- the
Russian Federation, I guess they are, is the co-sponsor for the
peace process. They've been involved in these meetings.
They've been involved at the bilateral meetings that we've had
here in Washington. They've been involved particularly in
hosting the multilateral meetings, and we're worked closely with
them on the preparations for this.
So as host to this conference and through their
involvement in the overall process, they're still the co-sponsor
of the process; and we continue to work with them closely in
that regard.
Q Any comment on --
Q A related question: Is Yerevan still in the
Secretary's itinerary?
MR. BOUCHER: Whoever said it was?
Q Is it? Is it included on the trip?
MR. BOUCHER: In this trip?
Q Yes.
MR. BOUCHER: Not that I'm aware of.
Q So it's only Moscow, Prague and Washington?
MR. BOUCHER: That's all I'm aware of.
Q Point four?
[Former Soviet Union: Coordinating Conference]
MR. BOUCHER: Point four: The Coordinating Conference,
just to give you an idea and to remind you of a few of the
circumstances that we'll all be dealing with as we go forward
here.
The formal sessions of the conference start tomorrow at
9:00 a.m. As you know, we've been working with other countries
to organize this conference, to organize the discussion in
various areas. We had a meeting with experts from these
different countries about two weeks ago. Various countries have
in turn been consulting with the others who are going to attend
the conference to prepare for the meetings that we're going to
have tomorrow and the next day. Some of them are even holding
meetings of experts today in advance of tomorrow's formal
opening.
Tomorrow these experts will meet in working groups
concurrently with the sessions that will be held by the
Ministers. After the opening remarks for the Ministers by the
President and then the Secretary, the Ministers will address in
turn each of the major areas: food, medicine, shelter, energy
and technical assistance, as well as the logistical aspects that
they'll be discussing. Experts from the working groups will
join them for these discussions, and then go back and continue
their own work.
On Thursday there will be additional sessions of the
working groups, as well as an additional session of the
Ministerial.
Q When does Thursday start?
MR. BOUCHER: I forgot to get the time. [TO STAFF] Do
you know? 9:00 o'clock, too? Yes. 9:00 o'clock as well.
The conference will conclude about mid-day with the
press conference tentatively scheduled for 12:45 on Thursday.
Obviously these times are subject to change.
Q By Baker?
MR. BOUCHER: By the Ministers involved in the
conference, yes. The heads of delegations for the conference.
Q The banks? Can you fit them into the -- do they
take part in the -- are they expert types, or are they off to
the side, or are they minister types?
MR. BOUCHER: Let me leave, if I can, the actual list
of attendees and their delegations for the materials that we'll
make available to you, I think, later today. We expect to have
two things for you today: The first, shortly after this
briefing, a schedule with some more details on the press
arrangements. That should be available shortly after this
briefing. And probably this evening, about 7:00 or 8:00 p.m.,
we should have a more detailed press kit that would have the
list of delegations from the various parties that are coming and
a few other pieces of information.
Q And is it not possible to make available to us
this afternoon in some timely fashion a list of the attendees?
Is this a mystery conference? Why is there all this mystery
surrounding who is actually going to show up at this thing
tomorrow?
MR. BOUCHER: John, it's not a mystery conference.
It's a conference with hundreds of people attending as
delegates, with hundreds and hundreds of press in attendance,
who are all going to be wanting these materials. It's a major
effort on our part to gather the information and get it together
for you --
Q Don't you --
MR. BOUCHER: -- trying to tell you in advance as best
we can when we think we'll have it available to you.
Q Do you know who is going to attend the conference
-- which countries, which groups? Do you know that right now?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes.
Q Why can't you make that available?
MR. BOUCHER: We're trying to make that available to
you in an organized fashion with a list of attendees and the
heads of delegation and all that information together, and
that's what we're making available to you.
Q How about just a list?
Q How about just a list of the countries?
Q How about the number of countries?
Q Forty-seven is our count.
MR. BOUCHER: There are 47 countries --
Q Hey!
MR. BOUCHER: -- and seven international organizations.
I don't have --
Q Seven?
MR. BOUCHER: Seven international organizations.
Q Is NATO one of them?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, Barry, I don't have the full list
with me.
Q Well, bankers are facilities too.
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to go down -- try to go
down off my head.
Q Richard, on the attendance, can you tell us
whether the representatives from the republics are attending as
full-fledged delegates, or are they observers, or what is their
status?
MR. BOUCHER: I think we made clear -- the Secretary
may have said quite some time ago -- that it was not envisaged
that the republics and the new independent states would actually
be present here.
Q I understand some of them are sending people,
though, so how will they -- will they be closed out or what?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware that they were sending
people. We've obviously been in touch with them, as have many
other countries. We talked to them in the past few weeks about
their needs. We in fact got some information from them about
what they see as their needs which we shared with other
conference participants late last week.
Q So you don't expect any republic representatives
to attend the conference?
MR. BOUCHER: That was never expected. No.
Q Was the State Department shutting them out?
MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't say it's shutting them out.
I'd say the conference was planned as a coordinating conference
of the countries who are active or plan to be active in helping
out in this process. We think it's an important process. The
Secretary talked about it just upstairs, I think, a little bit
with some of you, and that that was the way the conference was
planned from the start.
Q For purposes of a base line, what numbers are you
using as aid figures concerning how much the United States has
committed so far, how much the Europeans, how much the Japanese,
etc.?
MR. BOUCHER: I think, Carol, we'll leave it for each
of the parties to discuss what they're doing already, as we
will. As the Secretary has said --
Q The Americans --
MR. BOUCHER: What has the United States done? We've
done what we've told you we've done before. I don't have a list
with me today. I'll see if we can get something more for you
about that. You know about $4 billion or $4.5 billion total --
Q (Inaudible) -- United States. I mean, this
conference --
MR. BOUCHER: We have grain credits. We have grain
that's already done. We've had technical assistance teams out
there in a variety of areas. We've had the work we've done with
the private sector on medicines and various medical shipments.
We've had several Defense Department flights of food to Moscow,
St. Petersburg and Yerevan. I think we have a credible record
of assistance, and I'm sure we'll continue that.
Q Richard, no one is debating you on that issue
right now, but the numbers and the extent of the effort is
somewhat controversial in this context. And as this conference
goes forward, for those of us who have to cover this, it would
be nice to know what figures the conference is using as official
base lines for what the effort is for the United States and for
the other parties.
MR. BOUCHER: Carol, I guess I have problems with the
official base lines idea. What we're trying to do is we're
trying to coordinate assistance. We're not here to come and
take score or find out who's ahead in the sixth inning. We're
here to coordinate our assistance and try to make it more
effective.
Q But, Richard, when ballpark figures like $4.2
billion are used, they encompass so many different things and
are subject to so many different kinds of interpretation, that
it becomes somewhat meaningless unless we can get a breakout of
what you're talking about when you go to the table.
MR. BOUCHER: I mean, not to demean the idea, Bill, but
the point is there are a lot of people doing a lot of different
things. I suppose you could count them and add the numbers in
different ways, depending on how you want it. That is not our
purpose in holding this conference. It's not trying to reduce
everybody's aid to a single parameter that we can thereby keep
score.
The point is for countries to help talk about what
they're doing. We certainly appreciate and acknowledge the
efforts of other countries. We think that many of us have done
very credible jobs of assisting so far. We expect to continue
our efforts, and we expect to have a conference that will help
us all make it more effective.
Q Richard, there are reports that despite the best
of intentions -- $4 billion pledged by the United States so far
in various forms -- that there are some enormous technical
problems, logistical problems.
For example, there is plenty of surplus butter to be
sent to the former Soviet Union, yet problems -- refrigerated
cargoes and all that, concern about hijacking. Is this
conference going to deal with those specific issues, and do you
envision that you'll be able to resolve some of these issues so
a massive aid program could get underway?
MR. BOUCHER: Frank, the Secretary was asked a similar
question just upstairs. We have never -- or I should say we've
always acknowledged that there are serious distribution
difficulties there, and the Secretary said that would certainly
be an issue he'd want to address during the course of the
conference.
Q (Inaudible) -- remarks --
MR. BOUCHER: I'm sure they're being typed right now
for you, Connie.
Q So they'll be ready after this. Thank you.
Q On that issue, when it was originally described to
us, the conference had six committees or sub-groups, and the
sixth was logistics. Can you tell me why that was dropped?
MR. BOUCHER: I think I mentioned again today that
logistical aspects would certainly be a source of discussion.
Logistics is an area that permeates all the other areas, so I
think you'll see, as we put out more information on how the
working groups are structured, that there's a focus on five
areas of assistance, and logistical aspects are certainly key to
-- as important areas for all of that.
Q While you've made it very clear this is not
intended to be a pledging session, as you head into this week,
is the U.S. view that enough money has been promised, committed,
pledged, to deal with the immediate humanitarian and other needs
of the former Soviet Union for the rest of the winter and the
spring period, or that in fact the international effort so far
seems to fall short of the magnitude of need in those countries?
MR. BOUCHER: I think that's a question that's better
asked after the conference rather than before.
Q No. I'm asking what the U.S. view is going into
this conference.
MR. BOUCHER: Again, I think it's important that we get
together, we coordinate the aid, we'll talk to the other
countries involved. We'll see what ideas and what work the
Ministers and the experts come up with in the next two days, and
then it's appropriate time, after we've compared notes on
everything, to ask whether it's enough or not.
Q Does the U.S. have a view now?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have one to express at this
point, no.
Q Richard, with a situation as volatile as it is and
as changing as it is, I don't -- I still don't understand why
none of the recipients who know best what the problems are there
-- what the coordination should be like -- why they wouldn't be
here.
MR. BOUCHER: Again, Saul, I'd just have to tell you
that from the start it was never envisaged that way. We have
certainly been in close touch with the various recipients, the
newly independent states. We have been -- we have talked to
them about their needs. They have given us -- various ones
among them have given us information that we have then shared
with other participants in the conference.
Many of the countries coming have also had extensive
contacts in various areas with the newly independent states out
there, so I think we have a pretty good idea of what their
expressions of need are. This is a better chance for the people
who are working on this problem to coordinate their efforts.
Q Can you say whether any of the representatives of
the republics asked to be here or did not?
MR. BOUCHER: I really don't know, frankly. It's
something I'd have to check on. I think somebody was saying
maybe some of them are coming to town. I had not heard about
that.
Q Are the East European countries attending at the
Foreign Minister level?
MR. BOUCHER: As far as attendance, I want to leave it
where the Secretary left it in his Princeton speech, and we will
clarify that in further details when we give you the list later.
Q (Inaudible) -- invited to the conference. Can you
confirm that?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, once we've put out the list of who
is coming, then we offer to explain why various parties may or
may not have been invited. We'll do that later.
Q Does the State Department have any reaction to
Prime Minister Shamir's latest speech, pledging settlement drive
continuing unabated?
MR. BOUCHER: I would just say, Alan, that we've seen
the remarks. I haven't, myself, read a full transcript, but our
basic position, our view of settlements, has not changed.
Q Follow-up on a similar topic: Any view on the
Palestinian statements that if the loan guarantees go through,
they won't attend; that the peace talks are essentially dead?
MR. BOUCHER: I saw some wire service reporting on that
this morning. It strikes me as that was similar to what various
Palestinian representatives said a week or so ago, and I think
we just made clear that we expected -- we would hope that
everybody would attend. We kept encouraging parties to do that.
Q Is Secretary Baker meeting with the Israeli
Ambassador, and do you have anything new you can tell us about
the loan guarantees?
MR. BOUCHER: No. I don't have anything new to tell
you on the loan guarantees. I'd have to check on whether he's
meeting with the Ambassador.
Q I think the Jewish group -- a group of Jewish
leaders were told about two weeks ago that terms and conditions
would be ready in about two weeks. That's the basic word from
the State Department.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if that's what they were
told.
Q And I don't want to say they were told by Baker --
I don't remember -- but they were told on high authority when I
made a visit here that in about two weeks you'd have terms and
conditions for those loan guarantees. Can you get a target date
for that or relative target date for that?
MR. BOUCHER: Barry, I think when we have something new
to say on the subject, we'll say it.
Q Well, I can count to 120 days, and I think I've
overcounted already.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we've ever set a specific
deadline for ourselves.
Q Yes, I know. But, I mean, if you're bugging out
for some reason -- I don't mean you. If the State Department
has decided to defer --
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not leaving til you let me, Barry.
Q No, no. What I'm saying is --
MR. BOUCHER: If the State Department has decided to
defer, certainly we have never set ourselves a particular
deadline to take up this issue from here. We've said that we
would take up with the issue, and, when we have something more
to say, we'll say it.
Q Would the current governmental crisis have any
bearing at all on the timing or decision on the loan guarantees?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, Saul, it's not something I can
speculate on. I don't really know.
Q Are you expecting --
Q Richard, you just said that the State Department
has never set itselves a particular deadline to take up the
issue. Are you raising the possibility that the issue of the
loan guarantees might drag over into, say, March?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not trying to raise any particular
possibility, John. I'd just point out that we've never set a
specific date as being the deadline to take it up.
Q No. But you have talked about either January or
February.
MR. BOUCHER: In general terms, we've talked about when
we would expect to take it up. Yes.
Q One question: How do you relate or compare the
tomorrow meeting of Kanter and Kim Young Sun of North Korea in
dealing with the North Korean nuclear matters with the
North-South Korean dialogue, through which South Korean
Government is growing near to succeed in signing the mutual
inspection -- I mean --
MR. BOUCHER: You mean how do those two things fit?
Q Yes.
MR. BOUCHER: The answer is I think what we said on
Friday is that in our discussions with the North Korean
representatives we would expect to take up a number of concerns.
Our most immediate concerns relate to the nuclear issue and to
progress in the North-South dialogue which remains the primary
vehicle for achieving a reduction of tensions on the peninsula.
So, we certainly have expressed our wholehearted
support for the efforts of the South Koreans and the results
that they've achieved from their dialogue. We've also
emphasized how important it is to us that the North sign and
implement its IAEA safeguards agreement, and that they carry out
the commitments that they've made to South Korea as a result of
the dialogue. So, that remains our position, and that's part of
the context for what we would expect to be discussing with the
North Koreans.
Q However, North Korea, as you know, has
consistently demanded to hold the Korean matters, including
nuclear, directly with the United States. So, if they demand
that holding nuclear matter should be dealt with United States
directly with them, are you going to sacrifice the South-North
Korean dialogue too?
MR. BOUCHER: I think your question has a big "if" in
it. We'll see what happens at the meeting. I'd just stress one
more time that we view the North-South dialogue as the primary
vehicle for achieving a reduction of tensions on the peninsula,
and we wholeheartedly support what they've been able to achieve
in that dialogue.
Q One more: Could you tell me about the conference
-- the meeting between (inaudible) of South Korea and Mr.
Kanter? What kind of discussions might be proceeding in their
meeting today?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything at this point on
that.
Q Can you just fill us in possibly on what's going
on at the Security Council vis-a-vis Libya?
MR. BOUCHER: When I last checked, they were still
starting, I guess, the debate. Libya was speaking and had been
for some time. The discussion concerns the resolution regarding
Pan Am 103. It was a resolution that we, the United Kingdom and
France felt it was important that the Security
Council pass. We've been working with a variety of other
nations in order to prepare for this discussion, and we look
forward, hopefully, to a vote today.
Q Do you expect a resolution would finally clear the
way for sanctions?
MR. BOUCHER: This particular resolution calls upon
Libya to comply fully and immediately with the requests that
have been made of Libya by our three countries. As far as what
might happen if Libya fails to comply, I don't want to speculate
at this point. We would expect that further appropriate
measures would be taken.
[Cuba: US Condemns Execution of Human Rights Activitist]
Q Richard, do you have any comment on the execution
of the Cuban?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes. We condemn the Cuban Government's
execution of Eduardo Diaz Betancourt without a full and fair
trial. We note that two other Cuban exiles similarly accused
had their sentence reduced. However, in none of the three cases
was there serious due process.
We deplore as well the arrest of some sixty Cuban human
rights activists over the last few months. Many have been the
targets of government-sponsored mob violence. For example, just
last Thursday the home of prominent activist Elizardo and
Gerardo Sanchez was attacked by a mob. The countries of the
hemisphere and of the world share our concern.
With these actions, the Cuban regime shows its true
face. This pattern of brutality betrays the Cuban Government's
own fear of dissent. It is meant as a message to Cuban citizens
that any criticism of the regime will be dealt with harshly.
We would repeat our support for peaceful, democratic
change in Cuba, and we will continue to support those who work
towards that end.
Q Is retaliation planned on this part?
MR. BOUCHER: At this point, I really don't have
anything further than that to say. We would -- as you know, our
relationship with Cuba is fairly constrained. I'm not sure what
grounds there might be for that, and we have expressed these
views, and I expect we will continue to express our views about
human rights conditions in Cuba as frequently as we can.
Q When is the Human Rights Report due out?
MR. BOUCHER: It's due out at the end of the month.
Q Do you have any idea when we're likely to see it?
MR. BOUCHER: Precise timing, no, but we're working on
it.
Q Richard, the Secretary has meetings with a
number of Foreign Ministers today. Do you plan any kind of
readouts on that?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't. I think he has photo
opportunities with just about all of them, and we'll be seeing
you and your colleagues up there. So, you might ask him if he
has anything further to say on some of these subjects.
Q If I could follow up on that? Is the Secretary
expected to meet with the -- have bilateral sessions with the
Foreign Ministers of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and would
it be possible to include a schedule of his bilaterals in the
press packet?
MR. BOUCHER: Let me say I don't know on both counts
and look into them.
Q Richard, do you have anything to say about the
aspersions cast on the literacy of U.S. workers and their
general productivity from various Japanese personalities?
MR. BOUCHER: Nothing in particular to say, Alan, other
than to note that we certainly don't agree with remarks like
that, and I would note that various other members of the
Japanese Government have expressed the fact that their
government doesn't agree with them either.
Q Well, I see you smiling, but isn't it somewhat
serious that this kind of talk should be coming out of Japan
just a short time after the President held a successful visit
there and did so much for bilateral relations between the two
countries?
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, I'm not going to try to draw any
broader implications from something that someone has apparently
said and which I see many other responsible people in Japan
distancing themselves from. As for if there are any parallels
or implications for the President's visit and the success that
he achieved in a whole number of areas, that's a question you
can ask the White House.
Q Richard, go back to the multilaterals for a
minute, please: Are you taking any ideas or projects to the
multilaterals in Moscow, how to encourage the Arabs and the
Israelis to cooperate on specific projects? I mean, water,
pollution, and so on. And will there be a pledging session in
the conference to help float these projects?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we've ever described the
Moscow multilateral sessions as a pledging session. I don't
want to do that here. As for preparations, we're involved in
discussions with a variety of parties, encouraging people who
attend and talking about what we might do there. I'm not at a
point yet where I can start talking about that.
Q Could you take a question regarding the second
American to be murdered on the West Bank in fairly similar
circumstances in the last two and a half years -- a professor at
Bir Zeit University was murdered -- and what the Department of
State inquiry on the murder two years ago and on this one? Is
there a connection between the two?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't really know. As far as the more
recent murder, let me tell you what we do know. We understand
that Albert Ernst Gluck who is the head of the Archaeology
Center at Bir Zeit University was shot on Sunday, January 19,
about 12 miles outside of Jerusalem.
Local authorities are investigating the murder, but
I've been asked out of consideration for the family not to
provide any further detail at this point. We don't have any
information on motive or who the perpetrators are.
Investigations are ongoing. I think we'd have to wait for the
results of those investigations before I try to draw parallels
to things that happened two years ago.
Q Richard, on these odious comparisons that you
don't do, I note that you "condemn" the execution in Cuba. You
"strongly condemned" the plans by the Israeli Government to
deport 12 Palestinians, and that was also the language at the
U.N. Security Council.
Now, though you don't do comparisons, it is generally
accepted that there is a kind of graduation of language that you
could use in various cases from "regret" to "deplore" to
"condemn" to "strongly condemn."
Are you aware of the fact that though you don't do
comparisons, others might, and that the conclusion might be that
you're more upset about the deportation of 12 Palestinians than
you are about the execution of the Cuban?
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, I didn't have that in mind this
morning when I did the statement on the Cubans. I think our
feelings and views about Cuba are well known. They've been very
consistent. I would just invite you, if you do want to do
comparisons, not necessarily to throw different kinds of
situations together and expect that we view them all the same
and have the same graduated language for each.
Q Richard, one more: On Haiti, yesterday President
Aristide made a point of referring to the 10,000 people that
have left the island as political refugees. Has he communicated
that opinion, his opinion, to the State Department?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't now if he has, frankly. As you
know, we have a careful screening process that we go through
with people, and we continue to do that. But, no, I don't know
if he's communicated that. I would just say that in each of
these cases we decided on an individual basis, based on the
interviews, whether there's any plausible claim to asylum.
Q Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:13 p.m.)