US Department of State Daily Briefing #35:
Monday, 3/9/92
Boucher
Source: State Department Deputy Spokesman Richard
Boucher
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Mar, 9 19923/9/92
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia, East Asia, South Asia
Country: Iraq, Israel, USSR (former), North Korea, Lebanon,
Pakistan, Georgia, Syria
Subject: Military Affairs, Mideast Peace Process, NATO,
United Nations, Democratization,
Security Assistance and Sales, Regional/Civil Unrest,
State Department
12:36 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
[Announcement: Secretary to Hold Press Conference at NATO]
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
I'd like to start out with a housekeeping announcement:
Secretary Baker will be giving a press conference at
NATO tomorrow. As is usual when the Secretary gives press
conferences, we won't be doing a briefing from here. Go out and
have a nice lunch.
That's my only announcement or statement today. I'd be
glad to take your questions. George?
[North Korea: Ship Bound for Syria/Iran with Possible Missile Cargo/
US Concerns]
Q Do you have anything to say about the North Korean
vessel or vessels heading for the Middle East, supposedly with
lots of lethal weapons?
MR. BOUCHER: The answer, George, is no, I don't. The
President addressed it this morning and said that he wasn't
going to have any comment publicly, and I don't either.
Q Let me approach it from a different way, if I may,
Richard. Iran says that any move to inspect this vessel would
be contrary to international law.
I realize you don't want to speculate, but can you tell
me if the government believes that inspecting a vessel that is
believed to be carrying missiles would or would not be contrary
to international law?
MR. BOUCHER: Frank, I'm afraid I don't want to
speculate, and I don't want to lead you into any speculation on
things --
Q But I'm asking it theoretically --
MR. BOUCHER: Marlin, I think, made that clear as well
this morning. I don't want to try to address theoretical
possibilities or speculate on what the possible courses of
action might be.
Q A follow up on the same thing, Richard. In a
statement attributed to a Pentagon official, or a U.S. Navy
official, it is said that there is no pretext for the United
States -- or legal pretext for the United States -- to intervene
with the ships of North Korea.
Why are you more tight-lipped than the military?
MR. BOUCHER: We have not been in the practice of
commenting on unnamed officials, be they in the Pentagon, the
Navy, or elsewhere.
The President said he would have nothing to say
publicly on that, and I'm not going to get into it either.
Q Richard, could we try it just as a statement of
fact, then? How far outward does the quarantine zone exist --
the quarantine against Iraq? And would it include vessels
attempting to enter the Persian Gulf, for example, with
deliveries to any area such as Iran?
MR. BOUCHER: John, that gets me back to sort of the
same sort of question.
Q But that's a question of fact. It's not a
question --
MR. BOUCHER: It's not a question I'm in a position to
deal with. I'm sorry.
Q Can you take the question?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think it's a question I'm in a
position to deal with. It's something that would lead us to
speculating on possible courses of action, and I'm not in a
position to do that.
Q Is there a kind of NC/ND policy regarding the
North Korean ship?
MR. BOUCHER: No, there's not. We have expressed
ourselves before on our concern about the transfer of missiles
to the Middle East. We've expressed our concerns about the --
well, the great concern that we would have on the transfer of
missiles by North Korea in this case. We've said that very
clearly from here, and we said it again in an answer that we put
up last Friday.
But as far as the specifics of a particular vessel and
the specifics of courses of action that we might take and what
the possibilities are, that's just not something I can get into.
Q Is the U.S. Government --
MR. BOUCHER: Let's go over here.
Q Does the United States have any intention of
seeking U.N. authorization -- not necessarily for this specific
situation? But in the past, you sought and got U.N.
authorization for boarding and inspecting ships. Do you have
any intention of doing that again?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, Chris, I'm not going to speculate
on possible courses of action.
Q Did the U.S. Government try in any way to convince
the North Koreans to join the arms suppliers in their agreement
not to send missiles or arms to the area?
MR. BOUCHER: You mean the Missile Technology Control
Regime or the arms control initiative to the Middle East?
Q Yes. That's exactly right.
MR. BOUCHER: I guess I would just say, in general,
that we have stated both publicly and privately our concerns
about missile transfers to this region; our concerns about
possible North Korean missile transfers.
We have encouraged all countries to act prudently and
to abide by international understandings on this subject. We
have said that we would view with great concern any transfer of
this type.
We've also said that we're particularly opposed to the
proliferation of surface-to-surface missiles to the Middle East.
So those views are well known to the North Korean Government,
I'm sure.
[DoD: Reported Working Document on New World Order]
Q Could I change the subject for a second? The
story, which was front page in yesterday's New York Times, about
the one superpower world, was there any input from the State
Department into the document by the Pentagon? If not, would you
care to comment at all on this document and in which way, for
example, this document corresponds to the idea of the new world
order?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know anything about this
document, frankly. It's, I think, described in the article as
some sort of internal Defense Department document. I'm not
aware that we've had any role in it.
As far as the view of the new world order and the U.S.
role in the world, I think I'd refer you to the Secretary's six
testimonies now over the past several weeks about the U.S. role
and our goals in the world.
Q So this article -- or, rather, this document
didn't break any new ground, as far as your conception of the
new world order is concerned?
MR. BOUCHER: I have no idea what's in this document.
I haven't seen it, and I'm not aware that we had any role in it.
Q Are you familiar with the story from the Times
yesterday?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm familiar with the story, yes.
Q Well, are you saying that this document was a
Pentagon document in which the State Department had no role, no
input?
MR. BOUCHER: It's described as a Pentagon document --
some sort of internal document in the Pentagon -- in the story.
That's what I know about it. I'm not aware that we've had any
role in the drafting of it.
Q Is such a document, or a similar document,
circulating in this building?
MR. BOUCHER: Such a document or a similar document?
That's a pretty broad range there, John. Again, I'm not aware
that we've had any role in the preparation of what is described
in the story as an internal Pentagon document.
Q Well, does that mean that you reject it?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't really have anything to say
on it because I haven't seen it.
Q Accept?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't have anything to say on it
because I haven't seen it.
[Lebanon: Ambassador.Djerejian's Meeting
With Ambassador.Shammas]
Q Do you have anything to say about Secretary
Baker's meeting with Ambassador Shammas, the head of the
Lebanese delegation, today? Is it the second time that he's
meeting with him in about four or five days? And, if so, why?
MR. BOUCHER: Secretary Baker is on an airplane headed
to Brussels. I think that meeting was with Ed Djerejian. He
has kept in touch with various parties.
Q Oh. Is there a reason for that?
MR. BOUCHER: It's not something I checked on. I don't
know anything really about that specific meeting. Ed Djerejian
has kept in close touch with the various parties to the peace
talks; and of course we have frequent discussions with the
Lebanese Government about other issues as well.
[Iraq: Security Council Meeting with Aziz Delegation]
Q Maybe we'll have better luck with this one. Iraq:
Anything new to report about Iraq's acceptance or rejection of
efforts to dismantle weapons of mass destruction?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, certainly not on the issue of
acceptance. We expect that there will be a formal session at
the United Nations with the Iraqi delegation, that that would
take place on Wednesday.
Our goal remains full Iraqi compliance with all of its
mandatory obligations under the relevant U.N. Security Council
Resolutions.
We expect the Council to focus on all aspects of Iraqi
non-compliance since April of last year, including most notably
Iraq's failure to declare the full extent of its nuclear and
weapons of mass destruction programs, its refusal to begin
destruction of missile equipment and facilities identified by
the U.N. Special Commission, its repression of the Iraqi
population, its blocking of humanitarian aid, and its refusal to
return all detainees to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
[United Nations: Request for Information on
US Treatment of Lyndon LaRouche]
Q Richard, with regard to the U.N., on February 26 I
asked you a question about the Special Rapporteur of the Human
Rights Commission who inquired a response from the U.S.
Government on the case of Lyndon LaRouche, and whether or not it
violated the Declaration of Discrimination on the basis of
religion or beliefs.
I got a response on that the same day, which I think
was during the time of Richard Schifter's period at the Human
Rights Office here, which did not refer to the report of the
Special Rapporteur at all but refers to another procedure called
the 1503 procedure which has nothing to do with the function of
a special rapporteur making a request to a specific country.
Now, I wonder if this is kind of an artful dodge on the
question that I raised, whether it is continued stonewalling, or
whether it was a result of Mr. Schifter's time at the Human
Rights division; and whether I can get a response on the request
of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. d'Almeida Ribeiro. I can give
you the -- you know, the paperwork on this thing if this will
clarify this in any way, but this was an entirely different
issue. This is something much more significant.
MR. BOUCHER: O.K. Let me stop you there. That was a
forthright and a complete response, of course, as all our
responses are. My understanding is that the procedure that we
described is the procedure under which these questions have been
raised and the procedure under which we have responded to these
questions. If you think that there is some other procedure
that's been used, we'll be glad to look into it.
Q 1503 is specific. There was a 1503 made by the
wife of Mr. LaRouche already when he was incarcerated, but since
then this is something different. On February 7 was the result
of the work of a special rapporteur who himself is making the
request. It's not a person appealing to the U.N. It is a
member of the U.N. making a request to the United States
Government, on which the U.S. Government has not up until now
responded.
MR. BOUCHER: Once again, my understanding is that
these questions have always been raised in the past under that
procedure that we described. If there's some other procedure
you believe has been used, I will be glad to look into it.
Q Do you have any response to press reports that
Israeli leaders are looking to withdraw the request for the $10
billion in loan guarantees?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't. The issue of loan
guarantees was discussed last week by the Secretary and by
Margaret [Tutwiler]. I don't have anything new to add to that.
[Pakistan: US Licensing of Commercial Military Exports]
Q Richard, on another subject: On Wednesday we
talked about the U.S. policy of selling commercial spare parts
-- or spare parts on a commercial basis to Pakistan.
There seems to be a continuing difference between the
State Department's interpretation of what is permissible under
Pressler and what the Senate believes.
You or Margaret seemed to say that it would apply only
to government-to-government transfers. However, as I read it,
the Pressler Amendment doesn't make any such distinction.
Q Jim, the understanding that I have from our
lawyers is that they have looked carefully into this. Margaret,
I think, gave some of this explanation on Friday. I'm not sure
how much of this she explained then, but let me explain to you
the understanding that we have of the Amendment.
First of all, Secretary Baker has noted that the policy
does not contravene either the letter or the spirit of the
Pressler Amendment which we are implementing fully. The
Pressler Amendment does not contain the language commonly used
by Congress when it intends to enact a total embargo and to
prohibit the sale and export of all defense articles and
services. The Pressler Amendment prohibits only the sale and
delivery of military equipment and technology by the U.S.
Government.
I would note, for example, that the provisions of law
relating to countries such as Iraq and violators of human rights
make clear that both government-to-government sales and
commercial/military exports of all defense articles and services
are to be terminated. And I'd remind you of what Margaret said
on Friday: We're dealing here with the licensing of commercial
sales of spare parts and maintenance items to Pakistan, not the
sale of new military equipment, new technology or upgrades.
Q And from your language, I gather that it is a
State Department position that not only was it in keeping with
Pressler in the past, but that you intend to continue that
policy since it doesn't violate the spirit?
MR. BOUCHER: That would be my expectation, yes, Jim.
I can't predict any specific licenses or deliveries. Those are
done on a case-by-case basis. But this question of law has been
looked into carefully, and we're on solid ground.
Q Well, according to your interpretation now, or the
language that you read, it wouldn't then prohibit commercial
sales of a full airplane, for example.
MR. BOUCHER: I guess that would depend in some ways on
how sales of full airplanes are handled. I think those are
usually done on a government-to-government basis. But, in any
case, in addition to the question of law -- and we feel we are
following both the spirit and the letter of the law -- you have
our statement of what we've done in terms of policy, in terms of
the case-by-case review, and the fact that we've licensed spare
parts and maintenance items, not new technologies or new
military equipment.
[Israel: US Offers Condolences on Death of Menachem Begin]
Q Do you have any reaction -- does the State
Department have any reaction to the death of Prime Minister
Begin -- former Prime Minister Begin of Israel?
MR. BOUCHER: The President spoke to that this morning.
As you know, he has offered his condolences to the people of
Israel and to the family of former Prime Minister Menachem
Begin. He praised former Prime Minister Begin for his historic
role in the peace process and his very courageous and
far-sighted role at Camp David. Obviously the President has
expressed our government's reaction.
The Secretary this morning, when we reached the party
on the airplane, said he was saddened to hear of the passing of
former Prime Minister Begin. The Secretary believes that former
Prime Minister Begin will always be remembered as a man of
conviction and as the Israeli leader who took an historic and
courageous step for peace.
Q Do you have anything on a request from the
Lebanese Government for a kind of emergency economic assistance
to Lebanon from the United States?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware of that. It's something
I'd have to look into.
[Georgia: US View of Civil Unrest]
Q Eduard Shevardnadze, the former Foreign Minister
of the Soviet Union and a great friend of Secretary Baker, is
back in Georgia and is getting himself very much involved in the
local politics. Would this fact in any way change the current
perception by the State Department of the political situation in
Georgia and facilitate the full diplomatic relationship between
the United States and Georgia?
MR. BOUCHER: I think that would be speculative at this
point. The Secretary has laid out for us the U.S. view of
what is going on in Georgia and our desire to see the questions
there resolved. I'd just have to stick to that as the policy.
Q Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 12:52 p.m.)