US Department of State Daily Briefing #42:
Friday, 3/20/92
Boucher
Source: State Department Deputy Spokesman Richard
Boucher
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Mar, 20 19923/20/92
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia, East Asia,
South America, E/C Europe
Country: Iraq, Israel, USSR (former), Libya, Georgia, Venezuela,
Cambodia, Czechoslovakia (former), Yugoslavia (former)
Subject: Military Affairs, Mideast Peace Process,
Arms Control, CSCE, Regional/Civil Unrest, State Department,
Media/Telecommunications, Democratization
12:37 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
[Arms Control: Open Skies Treaty to Be Signed at CSCE]
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. If
I can, I'd like to start off by telling you something about the
Open Skies Treaty which is due to be initialed in Vienna
tomorrow.
The Open Skies Treaty is going to be initialed March 21
-- that's tomorrow -- by the heads of our negotiating
delegations in Vienna. It's scheduled to be signed on March 24
by heads of delegations of the 24 participating countries during
the opening of the Helsinki follow-up conference of the
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
This Treaty establishes a structure for unarmed
observation flights over all the territories of the signatories
from Vancouver to Vladivostok. President Bush proposed this
initiative in May of 1989 when the world was on the threshold of
revolutionary developments. It was proposed as a
confidence-building measure to consolidate and promote the
trends towards openness that had already begun at that time.
The Open Skies Treaty represents the most wide-ranging
international effort to date to promote openness and
transparency in military forces and activities.
The Treaty establishes an annual number of flights a
participating state may conduct as well as the number it is
willing to receive. For example, the U.S. and Russia each have
a quota of 42. The Treaty sets out the number, the type and the
capabilities of sensors that are to be used.
The accession of new participants, the enhancement of
sensors and the adjustment of overflight quotas are all flexible
elements of the Treaty.
The United States actively participated in the Open
Skies negotiations, and we will continue our contributions to
the successful implementation of the Treaty. While the Treaty
is separate from the CSCE, we believe that Open Skies will
contribute to the openness and confidence-building that are
central to that process.
We welcome the initialing of this significant
achievement that will further contribute to reducing regional
tensions.
Let me provide you with a little more information,
since some of us might not remember the entire history of the
Open Skies negotiations.
The idea -- I think the phrase itself -- was first
proposed by President Eisenhower at the Geneva Conference in
1955. President Bush reformulated the Open Skies idea in his
May 1989 proposal.
Formal negotiations on an Open Skies Treaty began in
Ottawa in February of 1990. They continued in Budapest in April
and May of 1990, but they reached a stalemate.
Following the stalemate at Ottawa and Budapest, the
Open Skies negotiations were essentially on hold for over a
year. As many of you remember from your travels with Secretary
Baker during this period, this was a subject that he addressed
numerous times, I remember, with Foreign Minister Shevardnadze.
We were looking, during that period, to try to get the
negotiations re-opened.
But it was only after the abortive coup in Moscow in
August of 1991 that the Soviet Union changed its position, so
the negotiations recommenced in November 1991 in Vienna, leading
to the initialing of a treaty in Vienna tomorrow.
Q How many countries are going to sign?
MR. BOUCHER: There are 24 countries that are going to
sign. I mentioned the accession of new participants as one of
the flexible elements of the Treaty. It's open to other
countries within the CSCE framework. The countries that are
going to sign the Treaty next week will be all 16 NATO
countries, Byelarus, Bulgaria, the Czechoslovak Republic,
Hungary, Poland, Romania, Russia and Ukraine.
Q Is this the only phase of the Treaty?
Shevardnadze suggested expanding it to open seas and open lands.
Is there any interest in that?
MR. BOUCHER: I believe this is the only phase of this
particular treaty. Open lands is a phrase that's been used, I
think, in a somewhat different context.
Q You said that the -- you described the number of
flights as a quota, I think, a quota of 42 flights for each of
Russia and the U.S. Wasn't one of the problems in the stalemate
period and perhaps even in the negotiations that followed a
reluctance, shall we say, on the part of the United States to
accept an unlimited number of flights? Didn't the U.S. in fact
take a position that said that it wanted to limit the number of
flights?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't remember that, Ralph.
Q Are there any restrictions on where the flights
can go?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have a lot more detail right now.
That's something I'll try to get for you either today, if I
can, or at least by the time the Treaty is signed next week.
It's basically open over all the territory of the signatories
I've said. So whether there are minor, you know, flight safety
or some other kind of restrictions in there, I don't know.
Q And you said that accession by other countries was
possible. Is it only accessible by the CSCE nations, or are
there discussions underway with other nations?
MR. BOUCHER: My understanding is it's open to the
other CSCE countries.
Q Richard, one of the issues was on sensors. If I
remember correctly from Ottawa, the Soviet Union, as was, wanted
all countries to be using the same technology, and the United
States' position was that each country should use its own
technology, the supposition being "ours is better than theirs."
How was this one sorted out?
MR. BOUCHER: That's another one of the details that
I'm sure we'll provide when we can provide more information. As
I understand it, the agreement provides the basic information on
what the types and capabilities of sensors are. I think in fact
in that area there are a few more details that are due to be
worked out even after the signing. But it's basically, I think
-- well, let me not try to hazard a guess.
Q Who's going to sign for the United States?
MR. BOUCHER: The head of our delegation to the
Helsinki follow-up conference.
Q And will that person be -- have the initials
"J.A.B. III"?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any more information on
that, Alan, than what you've been provided previously.
[Libya: Draft UN Resolution on Compliance]
Q Richard, on Libya, what Margaret talked about
yesterday was apparently only a partial description of what the
United States, Britain and France are contemplating with respect
to the embargo. She talked only about an air embargo.
MR. BOUCHER: That's right. She said mandatory
sanctions, including an air embargo.
Q The reports from New York also talk about a
weapons embargo and a reduction of diplomatic staffs, and so
forth, in Tripoli.
MR. BOUCHER: I know those reports are out there,
George. It's not usually our practice to outline the various
elements of U.N. resolutions before we do them. We made an
exception to that yesterday with the air embargo because of the
way it affects U.S. citizens, even those who are in Libya
without valid passports, because when the resolution does pass
we do expect that to be one component of it and then that will
come into effect fairly quickly. And they need to know as far
in advance as we can tell them that that's likely to happen.
But at this point, if I can, I'd like to decline to
specify the other elements. We're still working on a draft
resolution. We're consulting with other U.N. Security Council
members. As we've said before, Libya has not complied, and the
draft resolution calls for the imposition of mandatory sanctions
on Libya until such a time as it complies with the terms of the
resolution. And there's been no date set yet for the vote.
Q Have you any comment on reports that Libya may be
willing to hand over these indicted individuals to the United
Nations?
MR. BOUCHER: The reports that I saw this morning,
Alan, I think refer to that possibility from various sources.
They weren't specific enough, I think, for us to offer a very
detailed comment. We've seen those reports. We'd note that
there have been several diplomatic initiatives that have been
taken in an effort to gain Libyan compliance with the Security
Council Resolutions.
The Security Council members, as you know, are
presently consulting on a draft resolution aimed at gaining such
compliance. We have seen during the course of this process a
number of statements and ideas out of the Libyans which we have
said before seem designed to delay the process and to mask their
failure to comply.
We think the Resolution is very clear on what Libya has
to do -- Resolution 731 -- and I guess our attitude at this
point is "just do it."
Q I've forgotten -- I'm not familiar with the
details -- does the idea of turning them over to the U.N.
Secretary General, as distinct from turning them over to the
U.S., Britain and France, make any difference as far as the U.S.
is concerned?
MR. BOUCHER: The reports that we've seen don't really
indicate what the Secretary General ought to do with them --
Q But my question is, does that matter to the U.S.?
MR. BOUCHER: The demands, requirements, that were put
out by the United States, the U.K. and France, which were
endorsed in Security Council Resolution 731, I think -- I don't
remember the exact language but they refer to turning them over
to appropriate authorities -- in this case, for Lockerbie, the
U.K. or U.S. -- for trial.
Q Would the U.N. Secretary General -- could the U.N.
Secretary General in the U.S. view play a role in that process?
MR. BOUCHER: The U.N. in terms of the Resolution has
played a role; if I remember correctly, Resolution 731 invited
the Secretary General to send an envoy to Libya to gain their
compliance. That envoy was sent. That envoy has returned.
Libya still is not in compliance. So there was a role in
gaining their compliance with the Resolution, but the basic fact
is that Libya is not in compliance. Libya has tried various
ways of delaying this, and we're proceeding with the steps that
we think are necessary to gain full Libyan compliance.
Q And would turning them over to the U.N. Secretary
General be considered compliance by the United States?
MR. BOUCHER: Compliance under the demands, we've said,
is turning them over to judicial authorities for trial,
cooperating fully with the investigations, disclosing everything
it knows about the crime, offering compensation to the victims
of the crime -- you'll remember that 441 innocent men, women and
children were killed in these two bombings -- and, furthermore,
ending all of Libya's support for terrorism.
[Former Soviet Union: US Aid/Operation Provide Hope]
Q Richard, could I ask you about Operation Provide
Hope. Do you have any sort of an update on that, and are
additional flights for Provide Hope being contemplated?
MR. BOUCHER: At the end of Provide Hope -- that one
segment of flights being staged primarily out of Frankfurt; I
guess Frankfurt and Turkey were the places they came from --
they did a rundown. There were in the end, I think, ten more
flights because they found $17 million more of medicines from
Defense Department stocks. So there were 64 flights. I think
it was 23 cities -- something like that.
The effort, as I think Margaret said in her brief
report to you guys on Monday, is going to be looking at sending
other supplies that we have available by sea and rail, I think,
principally. We have had some flights with supplies from
various cities around the United States that have gathered up
relief supplies, and those kinds of flights will continue. So
it will be a variety of means.
Q But there are no more flights on the order of
Provide Hope, as far as you know -- that is, U.S. military
supplies being gathered in Turkey or Frankfurt and flown from
there?
MR. BOUCHER: There may be some. There won't be -- we
don't expect at this stage anything on the scale of Provide Hope
in those two weeks of flights. That was in order to quickly get
a fairly significant quantity of materials to places in all or
virtually all the newly independent states.
Having delivered those supplies and while continuing
some flights, I think the effort now is going to focus on more
inexpensive means of transportation.
Q Richard, is the Bush Administration considering
putting together a package of -- putting aid to the former
Soviet Union into a package that would be presented to Capitol
Hill separately from the foreign aid bill that's currently in
the process on the Hill?
MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, Margaret was asked that question
yesterday in terms of packaging and putting forth what sort of
proposals we might have eventually for the Hill. She said that
that was something that was being discussed internally by the
Secretary with his staff by and large, and that we really didn't
have any proposals to lay out for you. That remains the
situation today.
Q But it is still being discussed internally?
MR. BOUCHER: I think primarily internally, yes.
Q Have there been any discussions with members of
Congress on this subject?
MR. BOUCHER: Throughout the preparation of the
proposals -- as again I think Margaret said to you yesterday --
we've been talking to Congress. We've been talking to them
since the coup about the issue of aid to the Soviet Union. The
Secretary has testified. Margaret said, I believe yesterday,
that we were aware of the possibility that we might have to look
at the vehicles available for this. So that has been discussed,
yes.
Q Richard, does the Administration feel that the
mood is perhaps a little bit more acceptable now in the Congress
and elsewhere in the country for aid to the Soviet Union than it
was in November or January after the speech by Nixon, after
comments by Senators of both parties that this should not be a
partisan issue?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can do comparisons, but I
can sort of overall on this issue characterize our attitude and
to some extent the way we want to work it. The President and
Secretary have consistently stated that the success of democracy
and free markets in Russia and the other Independent States is
vital to the nation's national security.
We fully support efforts by President Yeltsin and the
other democrats, and we have been actively supporting reform in
Russia and the other states of the former Soviet Union. We've
pledged over $5 billion in support of weapons dismantlement,
technical assistance, agricultural credits, and emergency
humanitarian assistance.
We are consulting with the other G-7 countries and with
our other allies on additional steps we can take collectively to
support reform. And, as I mentioned, all along we've been
consulting with members of Congress. We want to continue to
work in a bipartisan spirit to achieve this, because I think we
all agree that it's important, as I said, to our nation's
national security.
Q Both Secretary Baker and actually a number of
other Administration witnesses -- not all of them from the State
Department -- have been confronted on the Hill, in their
testimonies on this subject, with a sentiment among both
Republicans and Democrats that unless the President chooses to
make a pitch for such assistance that members of Congress who
are up for election this year are not interested in going out
there and proposing it themselves and then having the President
or others say "Well, look, you've got trouble at home in the
campaign -- you've got trouble at home -- why are you proposing
0foreign aid?"
In response to that kind of comment from members of the
Hill, does the Administration plan to make a pitch for this
assistance, to take it out of the political arena during this
election year?
MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, I said we intended to keep working
on this, we intended to keep working in the bipartisan spirit
that we think typifies attitudes towards this problem.
As for some specific Presidential pitch, that's a
question I think better asked at the White House than here. I
believe the last major proposals for assistance that were made
were, in fact, made by the President at the Coordinating
Conference here in January.
You are aware, I think, of the things we've done in
terms of humanitarian assistance: Operation Provide Hope, the
various other flights that we've had in there with medical
supplies. You're aware of the grain credits that we sent last
year; technical teams that have already gone in -- plans for
technical assistance. There's a whole number of things that we
are doing, and we will continue to do things. There are other
ideas that are out there that are in play.
The President has addressed the question of the
stabilization fund as being something that we were looking at.
So we'll continue to do things.
Q I was going to ask you about a number of other
ideas that are out there, including the possibility of five,
six, seven billion dollar stabilization fund; the $12 billion
IMF contribution; and the potential for asking for more money
than has been discussed up to date for direct aid to the former
Soviet Union. Would you care to comment on any of those other
ideas?
MR. BOUCHER: The only one that I think I can address
at this point is the IMF replenishment, which the Secretary, in
his testimonies on the Hill, strongly supported. I think you've
seen the reports that he and Secretary Brady sent a letter to
the Hill expressing, again, how important it was for us to have
this IMF increase so that we could be able to undertake these
necessary projects.
[Iraq: Department Support for US Indictments in BNL Case]
Q Richard, can you tell us anything about reports in
the New York Times today that the State Department tried to head
off an investigation of the Bank Lavoro?
MR. BOUCHER: Be glad to. There are just a couple of
things that came up in the article. First of all, the State
Department did not interfere in the Justice Department's
criminal investigation into the activities of BNL.
The issue was treated here as an law enforcement
matter. As a matter of practice, I think you know the Justice
Department routinely informs the State Department of
developments in criminal investigations that may affect U.S.
relations with foreign states. That practice was followed in
this case.
The issue was addressed on legal, not foreign policy
grounds, as the Justice Department officials, I believe, have
said.
We supported the indictment of all of those persons and
entities indicted by the Justice Department. The question arose
of the Central Bank of Iraq. And on that question, together
with the General Counsels from the Federal Reserve, the
Export-Import Bank and the Departments of Treasury and Defense,
the State Department's Legal Adviser opposed the indictment
based on legal principles of foreign sovereign immunity, and the
risks that our own Federal Reserve would become vulnerable to
suits of a similar nature abroad.
This legal judgment has nothing to do with the fact
that the Central Bank in question was Iraqi. The same judgment
would have been made with regard to any foreign central bank
from whatever country.
Q Did the State Department's opposition to those
indictments result in a delay in the indictments?
MR. BOUCHER: As I said, we supported the indictment of
all the persons and entities that were indicted. We made our
views known on the legal question of whether one should indict a
central bank -- in this case, an Iraqi central bank -- and based
on the principles of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, we,
along with General Counsels from other organizations that might
be affected, including the Federal Reserve, opposed that
indictment because we felt that it would set a bad precedent
that would put us at risk from similar suits overseas.
Q Could you address the substance of my question,
which was, did that result in a delay in the indictment?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know what the process or
timetable they had for the indictments was. I guess that's
something you would have to ask at Justice.
[Venezuela: Civil Unrest]
Q There have been new disturbances in Venezuela and
arrests of army officers down there accused of conspiracy. Does
the State Department -- is the U.S. Government concerned about
the stability of the democratic government in Venezuela?
MR. BOUCHER: There were some protests in several areas
of Venezuela yesterday. We understand that the few incidents of
violence were contained by security forces.
In Caracas, there was a group of students who tried to
march on government buildings but they were stopped.
We think that President Perez has announced initiatives
and programs to address the discontent that is troubling
Venezuela, and we support President Perez and his freely-elected
government.
Q The Minister of Defense in Caracas objected to a
statement made by Luigi Einaudi down there that the U.S. and the
other governments of the Western hemisphere would automatically
sever relations with any country when there was a military coup
against a democratic government.
Was that statement issued at the instructions of the
State Department?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware of the Defense Minister's
comments, so I didn't go back and look and see what Luigi
Einaudi said. It sort of rings a bell -- there's something like
that as part of the OAS understandings. I'm sure that since
Luigi Einaudi is our Ambassador to the OAS that whatever he said
on the subject is probably correct. Whether or not he's being
correctly quoted, I don't know.
[Cambodia: Hun Sen's Meeting at the Department]
Q Richard, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen is
coming to the United States next week. Can you tell me who he
will meet with in the Administration?
MR. BOUCHER: He's going to be in the United States
from March 23-28. I understand that most of that -- March 23-27
-- is in Washington. We are welcoming him to the United States
in his capacity as a member of the Supreme National Council of
Cambodia.
With respect to his schedule, we're not handling his
overall schedule. I believe he was invited by the Council of
Foreign Relations. I'm not sure if they're handling the
schedule or not.
But as far as meetings with Department officials, we
expect that he'll be seeing Under Secretary for Political
Affairs Kanter and Assistant Secretary for East Asian Affairs
Solomon.
Q Why isn't he considered important enough to see
somebody like the Secretary since he's not just a member of the
Supreme National Council, as far as I'm aware? He's --
MR. BOUCHER: The head of the Supreme National Council
is Prince Sihanouk. We don't explain, I think, why some people
see us. It's not a question I can really answer for you, Alan.
I think these are the meetings that are deemed appropriate.
Whether he has other meetings or not is not something I can
answer at this point.
Q Richard, coming back for a second to John's
questions, and I'm over my head on the legal thing of the
sovereignty act -- the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes.
Q When did the Administration begin being concerned
about Iraq's sovereignty, and when did it end being concerned
about Iraq's sovereignty? Would it be fair to say that on
January 16, the Administration decided that Iraqi sovereignty
doesn't apply?
MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, those two things have nothing to
do with each other.
Q In what way are they different?
MR. BOUCHER: The question of sovereignty as applied to
a country like Iraq is something that we've spoken of before.
It's a question of sovereignty, territorial integrity, the
policy that we have that says that we don't believe in
dismemberment of Iraq.
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities laws -- or act, I
guess it is -- addresses the status of government entities, as
they pertain to the law.
In this case, you have the question of a central bank,
which is the government's monetary arm, and whether you can
indict -- under the principles of those laws -- whether you can
indict a government entity of that sort. And based on our
interpretation of the principles of foreign sovereign immunity,
we felt that to have the U.S. Government do that to a central
bank would have put our central bank -- the Federal Reserve, and
possibly other similar entities -- at risk of having that
precedent applied to us overseas.
We felt that under our interpretation of the -- under
the principles of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities laws, that
that was not the right thing to do.
Q This has nothing to do with our desire to maintain
good relations with Iraq?
MR. BOUCHER: Our judgments -- the way we addressed the
matter -- was purely from a matter of the legal questions. As I
said, we supported the indictment or the entities and the
individuals who were indicted. We opposed this one question on
the legal basis only.
Q I would like to return to that question of the
OAS. You said Luigi Einaudi is a representative to the OAS, and
they may have a policy of severing relations. But is that U.S.
policy? If there is a military coup in any hemispheric
government, including -- I'm not talking about Haiti; I'm
talking about important countries, too -- would the United
States sever relations? Is that the policy?
MR. BOUCHER: Every country in the hemisphere --
probably around the world -- is important to us. Let me make
that clear.
I don't have a formulation for you like that. I
remember statements similar to that made at the OAS around the
time of the coup in Haiti. I assume that we made them as well.
Anyway, you can check further with the OAS. If it's an OAS
resolution, then I think you'll find us having supported it.
[Israel: Ed Koch Column/Reported Transfer of US Patriot
Technology/Visit of US Expert Team]
Q Richard, just to pick up on something that we
talked about yesterday. Has the Secretary seen or responded in
any way to the article in the New York Times by Leslie Gelb this
morning?
MR. BOUCHER: As yesterday, we don't do columnists.
Q So in the case of Gelb, no comment; in the case of
Safire, no comment; in the case of Koch -- I'm just trying to
figure out where the exceptions are made and where they aren't.
This one is not.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think there is any rule on
exceptions, and there's probably exceptions to the rule on
exceptions, if there is one, Ralph. Margaret explained that
yesterday.
[Georgia: US Recognition and Aid]
Q Richard, a question on the meeting in Helsinki
next week. One of the issues to be raised there is recognition
of Georgia. Germany and France say that Shevardnadze needs all
the help he can get and that he's sufficient evidence for them
that Georgia is going to embark on the road towards democracy.
Secretary Baker, of course, is Shevardnadze's friend
and has many times expressed admiration and respect for his
views. Does the United States share this view that he needs
help and should get it in recognition of the country he now
leads?
MR. BOUCHER: I haven't seen statements like that from
the Europeans. I think the Secretary before has described the
process, the principles that we would proceed with with
relations to Georgia. To the extent that Shevardnadze moves
things in a positive direction, that certainly would be most
welcome, but I don't have anything new on the question of
recognition at this point.
Q On the question of aid, though, to Georgia, is it
still the U.S. point of view that it is not "safe" to deliver
aid to Georgia?
MR. BOUCHER: I'd have to check. I'd have to see if
there's anything going in there now or planned at this point.
[Former Yugoslavia/Czechoslovakia: Status of US Recognition of
Republics]
Q Is the review on recognition of the Yugoslav
republics progressing and about to conclude?
MR. BOUCHER: As the Secretary said at his press
conference in Brussels, it's something that we would focus our
attention on, that we would continue to talk to the European
Community member states and European Commission about.
I think he pointed out that they have a meeting on the
subject planned in early April and that we would keep in touch
until then.
Q Can we get something on the meeting with
Dienstbier this afternoon?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll see if I can get you a readout.
Q Richard, with the Patriot team having gone off and
their mission seeming to be very focused on a physical
inspection of the Patriot batteries as opposed to something more
broad -- now, I guess, we're going to have the IG report in a
week or so; is that right? I'm just wondering, are there any
other follow-ups to the -- or this is not a follow-up to
the IG's report -- are there any other missions in the area of
technology transfer that we can expect dealing with more broad
questions than the Patriot?
MR. BOUCHER: These -- again, doing all this without
reference to specific news reports or implications of what may
be in those reports that are yet to come from the Inspector
General, the issue of technology transfers and our cooperation
with Israel has been something that we've discussed before.
There was a team that was actually out there about a
week or so ago that resulted from a request by the Israelis --
I think it was last fall -- for more information on our laws and
regulations. We had a team of people out there that was talking
to government and industry people. I think it was about a week
ago. I'm sure there are probably other discussions going on as
well.
Q Thank you.
(Press briefing concluded at 1:10 p.m.)