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.)