US Department of State Daily Briefing #59:
Monday, 4/2O/92
Boucher
Source: State Department Deputy Spokesman Richard
Boucher
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Apr, 20 19924/20/92
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia, Europe, E/C Europe,
South Asia, South America
Country: Israel, USSR (former), Uzbekistan, Russia, Armenia,
Lithuania, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Bangladesh, Iraq, Iran,
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Subject: Mideast Peace Process, Development/Relief Aid,
Resource Management, Media/Telecommunications,
Arms Control, Security Assistance and Sales,
Regional/Civil Unrest, State Department, OAS,
Trade/Economics
12:37 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: I'd like to start out, if I can, with
three little -- well, two little and one larger thing at the
beginning.
[Department: Filing Embargo Procedures for Journalists
Attending the Daily Press Briefing]
The first is that it has been brought to our attention
by some members of the press corps that material from the State
Department briefing has been published prematurely at times. So
to remind -- not so much you in the room, but many of the people
who may be listening elsewhere -- that correspondents in the
room and the those monitoring audio and video feeds of the
briefing are reminded that there is to be no filing on this
material until the conclusion of the briefing or until a filing
break has been called. I understand that's been the practice
among you journalists for many years, and I'd just like to
remind people of that.
[Department: Secretary to Speak on the Former Soviet Union]
The second is, we put up a notice on Friday about
Secretary Baker's speech tomorrow. He'll be speaking at the
Chicago Council on Foreign Relations at the Fairmont Hotel in
Chicago, Illinois. The speech will begin at 12:00 noon, Chicago
time. The subject of the speech will be "Russia and the Other
New States of the Former Soviet Union," and try to put U.S.
efforts in a broader, historical foreign policy context. The
press contact out there is Sara Connor, (312) 726-3860. Because
of the speech, we won't be having a briefing here tomorrow.
Q Are you going to have a text here or a pipe-in
here, or anything like that?
MR. BOUCHER: We're looking into piping in. We expect
to have the text. I can't promise you a specific time, but we
know you all like it as much in advance as possible. So we'll
be working on those two things during the course of the
afternoon and have more details by tomorrow morning.
Q Will he be doing Q ∧ A there as well after the
speech?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think there is Q ∧ A there.
Q Is that noon Chicago time?
[Former Soviet Union: US Aid Update]
MR. BOUCHER: That's noon Chicago time. And, finally,
I'd like to go through our regularly Monday update of assistance
and exchanges that we've had with the New Independent States.
I'll hit the highlights and give you the longer piece of paper
for you to read after the briefing.
Last Friday, we completed an airlift involving seven
C-141 aircraft. They carried over 300,000 pounds of
well-capping equipment for the oil well blowout in Uzbekistan
that we've talked about before. Work continues on capping the
well.
There was a technical team by the Environmental
Protection Agency that went along with them to Uzbekistan, and
EPA will issue a statement today on further details of what that
team will be doing to assist them with any possible
environmental problems.
There was a U.S. Air Force C-141 that left McGuire Air
Force Base over the weekend on a Project Hope flight. This
flight carried about 45,000 pounds of high value medicines and
supplies. The destinations are the Byelarus capital of Minsk,
and a city called Gomel. It's another city in Byelarus. It's
near Chernobyl. We'll have a more detailed statement on that
for you as we have on the other Project Hope flights that have
gone before.
There were three C-5 planeloads of emergency medicines
and food that were sent last week to Ankara. The Turks will
then deliver this stuff to the Azerbaijani capital of Baku for
distribution to victims of the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict.
And a C-141 flew into Kaliningrad, Russia, last week
with pharmaceuticals and medical supplies.
We've also been shipping many, with U.S. Government
transportation, various private voluntary donations from cities
and states around the country. I have a little more information
in the written statement on that.
We've sent a team led by former Agriculture Secretary
Richard Lyng. That team is travelling today to Moscow,
Novosibirsk, Alma-Ata and Minsk. They will select agricultural
industries where U.S. executives will be offered to the people
in those industries as problem-solving consultants for periods
of three to twelve months. That's something new that's
starting.
And, finally, let me mentioned that USIA has concluded
an agreement in Yerevan to simulcast VOA's daily one-hour
Armenian program on medium wave. These stations in Armenia
will join those in Russia and Estonia in simulcasting VOA
programs over medium wave. As you all know, that let's people
listen to it easier at home and in their cars.
Those are the highlights that I would hit at the
beginning on that. And, as I said, we'll have a written
statement that offers you some more detail on those and other
things.
Q Richard, a question about the oil well-capping
equipment that was sent to Uzbekistan. Not knowing anything
about the subject, seven C-141s seems to be a lot of equipment.
Is there anything unusual about this well? Or is it the same
sort of thing that the U.S. assisted in in Kuwait?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not an expert in well-capping either.
I don't know. This is, I think, approximately what we said was
planned when we announced it. So I don't know if this is
standard for an oil well blowout or not. I'll see if we have
any details on the size of the blowout and see if it's
particularly large or anything like that. There is significant,
I think, environmental concern, as well as concerns about human
health. We want to get the job done quickly.
Q Just anything you could give us more on where it's
located and what the environmental concerns are would be
helpful.
MR. BOUCHER: Okay.
Q And how it was caused?
MR. BOUCHER: If we can get that, we will. You may
find some of the environmental information more in the EPA
statement. We'll try to get you a copy of that as soon as we
have it.
[Saudi Arabia: Reported Unlicensed Transfers of US Arms to
Iraq/Bangladesh/Syria]
Q Richard, do you have anything on the reports of
the unauthorized arms transfers from Saudi Arabia to countries
like Iraq and Syria and Bangladesh?
MR. BOUCHER: Let me explain to you as much as I can.
I don't like to start off apologizing, but those of you who have
dealt with this kind of subject before know that there's always
a limit to the amount that we can go into on the reports.
However, I can tell you about U.S. Government policies and U.S.
Government actions that are being questioned.
First of all, reports that the U.S. Government secretly
approved the transfer of military equipment from Saudi Arabia to
Iraq in 1986 are completely false.
The U.S. did receive reports that Saudi Arabia may have
transferred to Iraq some U.S.-origin equipment along with large
quantities of non-U.S. origin equipment in 1986.
After Desert Storm, there were allegations of transfers
to Syria and Bangladesh. We had reports that small amounts of
non-lethal, U.S.-origin equipment being used by these two
coalition partners during the war remained with them after the
war. In each of these cases, the United States immediately
brought these reports to the attention of the Saudis, and we
reminded them of their obligations under the Arms Export Control
Act and bilateral agreements concluded under the Arms Export
Control Act. They told us that these transfers were
inadvertent.
In accordance with statutory requirements of the Arms
Export Control Act, the Department of State provided prompt
notification of these unauthorized transfers to the Congress.
So, therefore, reports that we failed to notify the Congress are
also false.
That's basically what I have to say.
Q Can you tell us what these non-lethal items were?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm afraid I can't, Bill. That gets into
the specifics of the allegations. The details have been
reported to the Congress, but they've been reported in
classified form.
Q They've also been reported in public. Can you
confirm that they included trucks and other --
MR. BOUCHER: I'm afraid I can't.
Q Can you check out the validity of the report, in
1986, that Saudi Arabia may have transferred items? Can you say
anything about whether or not that report was valid?
MR. BOUCHER: I think what I would say is that the
Saudis acknowledged the situation by telling us that the
transfers did, in fact, occur but were inadvertent.
Q That was the last one after Desert Storm, or is
that the earlier one?
MR. BOUCHER: That was in each of these cases.
Q In each case.
MR. BOUCHER: And in each of these cases, we
immediately brought the reports to the attention of the Saudis
and reminded them of their obligations, and they told us that
transfers were inadvertent. That applies to both.
Q Did you also notify Congress of the earlier one as
well promptly?
MR. BOUCHER: And in accordance with our requirements
in each of these cases, we notified the Congress promptly.
Q Richard, to quote Oscar Wilde, one set of
inadvertent transfers might look accidental, but two or three
looks a little bit suspicious. Could you address that point?
MR. BOUCHER: I can't really, Alan. I think that's a
point that the Saudis may wish to address. I would just say
that we went to them with these. We carried out our
responsibilities. We notified the Congress. They did take
place, spaced some five years apart and under different
circumstances. But beyond that, in explaining how they might
have happened, I think that's for the Saudis.
Q Richard, are most of the Desert Storm ones only
non-lethal equipment?
MR. BOUCHER: That's right.
Q Did the post-Desert Storm transfers include
transfers to Iraq, Syria and Bangladesh?
MR. BOUCHER: Post-Desert Storm, the alleged transfers
were to Syria and Bangladesh; not Iraq.
Q On those transfers, Richard, President Assad has
apparently gone to Saudi Arabia. Did he bring any of this
equipment back with him? Or is there any other indication that
it's on its way to be returned?
MR. BOUCHER: I have not seen any indication that
President Assad or anyone has brought the equipment back.
Q On the '86 incident, once the Saudis informed the
U.S. of this inadvertent transfer, was any effort made to either
recover the materials? Was there any sort of remedial action
taken to avoid something like that happening again? Or do you
simply say "Thank you" and go on with business as usual?
MR. BOUCHER: Terry, I would say that as part of the
discussions with the Saudis, we went over the obligations that
they had. I would say that they understood those obligations by
saying that this had happened inadvertently and the
understanding was that they would try to ensure that it did not
happen again.
Q Richard, does the notification of Congress close
the matter as far as the United States is concerned? Or are
there ongoing efforts to get this equipment back?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't really know, Mark. That's
something I'll try to check on for you, if I can.
Q The United States has systems in place to prevent
this sort of thing. I believe they're called "blue lantern" or
"green lantern." Why did that fail in this case? Was it the
same type of problems we saw in the audit from a few weeks back?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure if Blue Lantern was used in
these cases. I think Blue Lantern was originated in 1989, or
so, as a result of the view here in the Politico-Military
Bureau, that we needed a system to check up. As you remember
from the audit, it did have some immediate and useful results.
I don't know if the later transfers were subject to any
Blue Lantern procedures. I kind of doubt it since this was
something being done during the Desert Storm period.
Q Richard, there's another report -- this one in the
New York Times this morning -- that the U.S. Government, as a
whole -- including the State Department -- turned a blind eye to
the transfer of some sophisticated nuclear technology to Iraq as
late as 1989. Are you looking into that?
MR. BOUCHER: That has to do with an Energy Department
report, I think. I understand there was an internal Energy
Department document. I would just say that we had long been
concerned about Iraq's nuclear program. Exports of
nuclear-related dual-use items, since 1978, have been the
subject of review for proliferation purposes, as to all
countries where there was a proliferation concern. That was a
review conducted under State Department chairmanship in an
interagency group. The policy was to deny two Iraq items that
contribute to Iraq's nuclear program.
We've also long been working with other countries to
stem Iraq's clandestine efforts to obtain nuclear-related
equipment, and we've made this an issue in our discussions and
relationship with Iraq over the course of years. So the fact
that there was concern in the U.S. Government about Iraq's
nuclear programs going back a long time, I don't think is
anything new.
Whether we were successful in keeping Iraq from
developing its nuclear program or whether we were able to have
any effect on that is a judgment we'll have to make now.
Q Richard, is there a standing governmental
machinery in place to prevent this sort of transfer,
particularly to renegade nations such as Iraq?
MR. BOUCHER: There is, indeed, standing government
machinery and interagency committee that's, in fact, chaired by
the State Department where they review dual-use exports that
might cause concern on nuclear grounds for certain destinations
where we have proliferation concerns.
Q Going back to the original question, is the State
Department or any other agency looking into how this leakage
then occurred?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not exactly sure what leakage you're
talking about, Jim. If you're asking, are we looking into how
Iraq acquired so much nuclear-related material and was able to
put together such a nuclear program, certainly. And it's not
only us, it's other people in the government; it's people in the
IAEA and elsewhere. I think you're aware, Jim, of various steps
that we've taken with other governments to improve those
procedures. So that's something that we're certainly aware of.
And I'm sure the people that do this on a day-to-day basis are
taking into account any lessons we might have learned from what
Iraq was able to do.
Q What happens to the specific investigations into
transfers of such items as the nuclear triggers, which was a
major story in either '89 or '90? Each time there was a
reported transfer, there was supposedly a group, an interagency
group -- whether chaired by the State Department or not, I don't
recall -- looking into it. Do you have the accumulative reports
of these investigations?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't, Bill. I think some of those
investigations were criminal ones. I assume those things have
proceeded forward in the courts of law and the various countries
where people were arrested, there is quite a bit of information
at this point about what Iraq was able to do. That information
is being used by the people with responsibility in these areas
to improve what they're doing. That applies both to the United
States and elsewhere.
Q I guess the thrust of my question is, what of the
accumulative results of those investigations? Could they not
amount to a critical mass before the beginning of the Gulf War?
MR. BOUCHER: There were steps that were taken before
the beginning of the Gulf War to tighten up. You will remember
the furnaces question, and the new controls that were applied on
proliferation controls.
But, again, there's a lot to be learned from how far
Iraq got, despite our control systems; and there's a lot to be
improved, I'm sure, in our system of controls.
Q Richard, is there concern that this warning,
though, from an Energy Department official did not reach the
Secretary of State?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't really know exactly what happened
to this document, Pat. I don't think that particular document
is the issue, because we have along been concerned about Iraq's
nuclear objectives and nuclear capabilities, and
that was a matter of ongoing concern going quite a bit back. So
the issue really is how can we improve our control systems to
make sure that someone like Iraq isn't successful again.
Q Are you saying there was no news? That you
already were aware of the information he was trying to imply?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware of this specific report. I
don't know if it contributed new information to it. But I think
the important point is that there was long-standing concern
about what Iraq was up to in the nuclear area.
Q But the cause of concern here is a matter -- a man
whose responsibility is to check on this proliferation matter,
trying to get a warning up the line to the Secretary of State
and it never got there. Is there concern about that?
MR. BOUCHER: I just don't know what happened to this
piece of paper. Sorry.
Q Richard, in going back to the three cases of Saudi
arms transfers, you said we heard reports about them. Was it
Saudi Arabia that reported them to you, or somebody else?
MR. BOUCHER: John, I'm afraid that's, in particular,
one of the areas that I'm not prepared to go into. I'm just not
able to clarify where the reports may have come from.
Q Let me follow on that. I don't know if you can or
not. When you did go to the Saudis and they acknowledged that
it had been done inadvertently, did they also acknowledge -- did
they tell you that they knew about it before you went to them?
Did they have prior knowledge that these transfers --
MR. BOUCHER: Did they know that we knew before we told
them that we knew? I don't know.
Q Were they aware that material had been
inadvertently transferred before they were asked about it? Was
that included in the acknowledgment?
MR. BOUCHER: You mean, was their response immediate?
You mean -- all I know about that is this is the answer and if
it wasn't, I'll look into it.
Q No --
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I think we'd probably
decline to get into that level of detail of the discussions we
may have had with the Saudis at that point.
Q On the same subject: Could you comment on the
allegation in the story that the transfer of the weapons to
Iraq was part of a covert policy by the Reagan and Bush
Administrations to arm Iraq by sending U.S. arms? Is that what
you say is completely false?
MR. BOUCHER: What I said at the beginning of this:
Reports that the United States Government secretly approved the
transfer of military equipment from Saudi Arabia to Iraq in 1986
are completely false.
Q There was no such policy?
MR. BOUCHER: There was no such policy.
Q Richard, on the same subject: One of the reports
said that the inadvertent or other form of delivery included
some 2,000-pound bombs to Iraq, which would sound pretty lethal
to me. Have you looked into that specific charge?
MR. BOUCHER: Jim, I just told you about two instances.
First, that we've received reports that Saudi Arabia may have
transferred to Iraq some U.S.-origin equipment along with large
quantities of non-U.S. origin equipment in 1986. And, second of
all, regarding the post-Desert Storm alleged transfers to Syria
and Bangladesh -- that was after Desert Storm -- so in 1991, we
have received reports that small amounts of non-lethal,
U.S.-origin equipment being used by these two coalition partners
during the war remained with them after the war. So I was
addressing two different instances -- one in 1986 and one in
1991.
Q So, in other words --
MR. BOUCHER: I'll describe them the way I described
them. I can't go into any further detail about the equipment.
Q What you're saying is that the 1986 leakage could,
indeed, have included lethal equipment to Iraq?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm saying exactly what I said.
Q Richard, could you say whether any of those three
transfers was caught in the Inspector General's report that was
recently released?
MR. BOUCHER: In the Inspector General's report, I
believe that other than the countries that the Inspector General
visited, the countries are not identified for the purposes of
that report in the unclassified version. So, I'm not in a
position to identify any countries that may or may not have been
caught.
Q I'm trying to find out whether it's something that
the Inspector General missed?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know.
Q You specifically deny that there was any covert
arms transfer approved by the U.S. in 1986. So I feel compelled
to ask, was anything in existence in '85 or '84, or prior to
that? That date -- are you specifically limiting it to that
date when you're saying that?
MR. BOUCHER: Terry, I didn't ask everybody on every
date of every year that's transpired since God knows when.
Q No. But if there had been a policy, it plays
prior to allegations that might have led the Saudis --
MR. BOUCHER: The allegation is that we somehow
approved in 1986 some transfers of U.S. military equipment to
Iraq. That allegation is false. I did not sweep the cupboards
to ask everybody about every other allegation --
Q But, again, if there was a policy that there was a
policy --
MR. BOUCHER: I am not aware of any policy during that
time period, during that general time frame or after that
involved the permission for anyone to retransfer U.S. military
equipment to Iraq.
Q Just for the record, I assume that this will not
affect proposed arms sales or arms transfers or stationing of
arms to or in Saudi Arabia?
MR. BOUCHER: Those things are considered on the basis
of a whole number of factors, and I'm sure they'll continue to
be considered on the basis of the relevant factors.
Q Well, is this a relevant factor?
MR. BOUCHER: The question of retransfer is always a
relevant factor. It's a factor that, as you know, I think, from
our previous discussions of this issue in instances where we
sell military equipment, we always get retransfer assurances.
And I expect that would be done in any future cases as well.
Q We were officially neutral in the Iran-Iraq war,
so why wouldn't it be possible that, yes, we would not have
officially approved arms transfer to Iraq, but that there may
have been a nod and a wink sort of thing. Would you deny that?
MR. BOUCHER: Pat, I wasn't around at the time, and I'm
afraid I can't regurgitate to you what our official policy was.
And why wouldn't it be possible? I don't know. You could
probably raise all sorts of theoretical possibilities. I'm
telling you what happened and what didn't happen, and we didn't
provide any secret approval for a retransfer of military
equipment to Iraq in 1986.
Q When did the Administration notify Congress about
the 1986 transfers, and when did they notify Congress about the
1991 transfers?
MR. BOUCHER: The notifications were in August of 1986
and in March of 1992.
Q Through the Foreign Affairs and Relations
Committees or what?
MR. BOUCHER: It's to the appropriate people on the
Congress. I'm afraid I don't have a full list for you, John.
I'm sorry.
Q Just one more on this: Did the United States ever
go directly to Iraq or Syria or Bangladesh over these concerns?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know, Mike. I'm sorry.
Q Can you bring us up to date on the mission of
Assistant Secretary Johnson to former Yugoslavia?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes. Deputy Assistant Secretary Johnson
is continuing his mission of consultations towards establishing
full diplomatic relations with Bosnia-Hercegovina, Croatia and
Slovenia. He will also underscore in Belgrade our grave
concerns over Serbian actions to senior Serbian officials.
On Saturday, he met with the President of
Bosnia-Hercegovina, Alija Izetbegovic. While in Sarajevo he
also met with JNA, Yugoslav National Army, leaders. He was in
Ljubljana, Slovenia, and in Zagreb, Croatia, this morning, where
he met with the Slovenian President and the Croatian President.
Later today he's scheduled to meet with Serbian leaders in
Belgrade. We expect him to return to Washington later this week
and for him to give a full report to the Secretary.
Q Can you see any changes in the situation in
Bosnia?
MR. BOUCHER: The fighting continues. In some places
it's quite intense. I can give you the rundown. Militant
Bosnian Serbs continue to maintain roadblocks around Sarajevo.
Shooting continues in the city today, and Serbian forces are
also continuing their sporadic shelling of the city.
In Mostar, the JNA threatened and then attacked a
number of civilian targets. We understand this attack killed at
least two civilians and wounded at least ten. It caused
extensive damage to apartment houses and private homes.
Fighting continues in much of Bosnia-Hercegovina.
Serbian forces are launching particularly heavy attacks in north
central Bosnia and are consolidating their control of several
towns in southeastern Bosnia, seized in the fighting over the
past few weeks.
All indications are that Serbian forces and the Serbian
Government are attempting to increase their control over
extensive parts of Bosnia-Hercegovina.
Q Can the possible nomination of Ambassador
Zimmerman to another post be linked to the Yugoslav situation or
how he handled his job in Belgrade?
MR. BOUCHER: We don't do announcements of
Ambassadorial nominations. I haven't checked on Ambassador
Zimmerman's status, but any changes in that status would be for
the White House to announce.
Q When did you say Ralph Johnson was coming back?
MR. BOUCHER: Later this week.
Q He accelerated his schedule. I think we were told
last week that he was not due in Belgrade until Tuesday or
Wednesday, and now you have him meeting with the --
MR. BOUCHER: I think that's right. He'll be in
Belgrade today.
Q Was there a schedule change there?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know exactly why, but, yes, it
appears he's moving faster than we thought.
Q Richard, how many aid flights went in and are
their plans for any more?
MR. BOUCHER: There were five flights over the weekend
-- let me get the rundown -- five C-141s that flew into
Sarajevo. They carried 10,000 blankets, food and medical
supplies. We're considering giving further aid. We're awaiting
recommendations from Ralph Johnson and from Ambassador
Zimmerman.
Q And just to follow up on that: Do you have an
estimate on the number of people who are homeless in
Bosnia-Hercegovina?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have a new one. I think last
week we said that there were as many as 160,000.
Q Richard, on another subject, have you had a recent
update on what's going on in Afghanistan?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes. As we've said before, the situation
keeps changing, so this is information we had as of earlier this
morning.
According to the limited information available to us,
Kabul remained calm throughout the weekend. Several different
groups of resistance forces have remained outside the city.
Fighting is at a minimum.
The current Ruling Council in the city has maintained
order and is negotiating with resistance leaders. The U.N.
Secretary General's Special Envoy, Benon Sevan, is still in
Kabul. He's in contact with the Council and with resistance
representatives. We understand that Najib remains in Kabul.
Resistance leaders from all factions have been
discussing the formation of an Islamic Council to take power in
Kabul. Ahmed Shah Masood, who commands the largest force
outside of Kabul, is in contact with other leaders and has
called for a peaceful turnover of power.
The U.S. Ambassador in Pakistan and other U.S.
officials are in regular contact with the resistance leaders in
Islamabad and Peshawar and are urging restraint.
We're encouraged by the willingness of resistance and
regime leaders to avoid further bloodshed and by the apparent
progress towards a peaceful resolution of the current crisis.
We hope that this will set the stage for Afghan determination
and for a return of the refugees. These are goals which the
United States has consistently supported. In our view, all
sides should work closely with the U.N. Secretary General's
special representative who is in a unique position to assist in
resolving the conflict.
We condemn inflammatory statements and calls for
military action. Such actions increase the danger of a resumed
conflict, which is against the interests of all Afghans.
Q And has the United States in the course of
watching this had any contact, direct or indirect, with the
Iranian authorities?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know, Jim.
Q Could you check?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll see if we can. We're usually
reluctant to discuss what might be discussed through the channel
of communication that we have for them.
Q Richard, a lot of the resistance forces would not
have had weaponry at all if it hadn't been for the assistance of
the United States. Does Washington have any continuing
obligations to -- or abilities for that matter -- to affect the
outcome of this fight for the -- for Afghanistan?
MR. BOUCHER: The first thing I think I'd remind you of
is that effective January 1 of this year, the United States and
the Soviet Union -- and in that position, Russia -- agreed to
terminate any supplies of lethal equipment to the parties in
Afghanistan, and we have urged other countries to do the same.
Q But there was plenty there already.
MR. BOUCHER: We have continued our contacts. As I
mentioned today, we've had close contacts with the various
resistance factions and various resistance leaders. We've
consistently supported the United Nations process and the
process of the U.N. Secretary General. So I would hope that our
influence is felt. We have strongly urged the parties to
resolve these issues peacefully.
We have a certain amount of humanitarian assistance
that's been ongoing to Afghanistan, and we would expect to
continue that and to be part of the reconstruction effort. So I
think we do have some influence. Ultimately, it's for the
parties themselves to work out these arrangements, and we've
supported the efforts of the U.N. Secretary General's Envoy to
do that.
Q Richard, back on Yugoslavia for a second: Does
the United States consider the actions by the Serbians to be
aggression against a sovereign state?
MR. BOUCHER: Mark, I've described the situation to
you. I think I'll stick with those words for the moment. I
think I made very clear today that in our belief, all
indications are that Serbian forces and their Serbian Government
are attempting to increase their control over extensive parts of
Bosnia-Hercegovina. I think that's a pretty clear statement of
what we think is going on.
Q Back on Afghanistan for a second --
Q Does it qualify as aggression?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to characterize things with
buzz words, Howard. I described the situation for you.
Q Could we go back to Afghanistan for a second? You
suggested that there were some people there who were making
inflammatory statements. Could you say which side has been
doing that?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I want to at this point,
George.
Q But if one of the sides is --
MR. BOUCHER: If anybody wants to make inflammatory
statements or call upon people to urge further military action,
we would counsel them against that, and that's what I've just
done.
Q I believe you just said that Najibullah was still
in Kabul. Do you think that very shortly -- today, tomorrow --
he will leave there peacefully through New Delhi perhaps?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know, Lee. We'll have to see.
Q Back in the Middle East, Prime Minister Shamir
said on Friday in an interview that he was certain that the
United States had made a deal with Arab nations before the
negotiations began on loan guarantees that the United States
would not grant loan guarantees to Israel unless there was a
full settlement freeze. Is there a reaction to his assertion?
MR. BOUCHER: That is not the situation. I think we
said repeatedly that there was no promise or commitments or
understandings made in advance on this issue. We discussed loan
guarantees in good faith with Ambassador Shoval and with people
on the Hill. In fact, we offered up a proposal in the form of a
draft bill which would have provided Israel up to
$10 billion in loan guarantees over six years, including the
right to complete construction of units underway on January 1,
1992.
I think we've talked extensively about what was in
that. Under our proposal, the President would have had
discretion to decide on an annual disbursal, and there could
have been a suspension if there was additional settlement
construction. But, unfortunately, the compromise was not
acceptable to the sponsors of the legislation.
Q Richard, it appears as of today we're going to
have two governments in Peru. Which one are we going to
recognize?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, we continue to deal with the
government of Fujimori because that's the current government.
With regard to the situation there, I'd note that the OAS
Secretary General and the Uruguayan Foreign Minister arrive in
Lima today. They'll begin consultations tomorrow, on Tuesday,
with a broad range of Peruvians.
The Vice President, San Roman, has a role to play in
these consultations, and we understand that he may meet with the
OAS delegation. We've urged all Peruvian leaders to work for a
solution which returns the country as quickly as possible to
constitutional rule and which involves all those political
forces that accept democratic practice.
Q Has the Administration spoken directly to
President Fujimori? Has there been a dialogue?
MR. BOUCHER: I would have to check on that. I know
we've had meetings with the Foreign Minister down there. I
don't know if anybody's met with Fujimori recently. I'll check
on that.
Q Richard, could you assess the sanctions or
sanction-busting situation as far as Libya and perhaps Syria are
concerned?
MR. BOUCHER: I addressed the question here of
international flights. I know there were some reports over the
weekend, so that was the aspect of the sanctions that I checked
on.
The U.N., of course, has a Sanctions Committee to deal
with questions of possible violations. But as far as we know,
no international flights have landed in or originated in Libya
since the sanctions went into effect. That includes Syrian
Airlines flights.
We are in touch with the Syrian Government on the
issue, and they know our views. As we've stated to you before,
we expect that all nations should abide by the sanctions.
Q One more on the Middle East: Have you noted the
developments in the Gulf island of Abu Musa? It's an island
shared by Iran and the Emirate, and the Iranians have apparently
ordered out some residents there? Do you know anything about
that?
MR. BOUCHER: I have noted it, and I know nothing about
it. Would you like me to find out something about it for you,
Alan? I'll see if I can.
Q One last question: On COCOM -- is the United
States, in conjunction with the other members of that group,
pushing for dissolution of it?
MR. BOUCHER: I haven't checked on the status of COCOM
recently. That's something I'd have to check on. I think they
have some meetings coming up, but I'm not exactly sure what
they're going to do.
Q Richard, can I take you back --
MR. BOUCHER: We had Connie over there, and then we'll
come over here. O.K.
Q I just had a quick -- do you have any update
beyond last week on the southern African drought situation --
U.S. aid on southern African drought -- or could you look into
it, please?
MR. BOUCHER: No. I don't have any update. I think
AID is doing regular updates down there. I'm not sure if they
have something for you or not.
Q Can I take you back to Yugoslavia for a second.
The Serbian Government strongly protested your policy as
partisan, I think, and many other words. Do you have a response
to that?
MR. BOUCHER: We responded on the spot, and basically
we rejected their characterization of U.S. statements and U.S.
policy. I'll give you some more detail on that.
On Saturday, the Serbian Foreign Minister called in the
Charge of our Embassy to protest what he called "biased"
statements by the U.S. Government. In addition, the Serbian
Government has launched a propaganda campaign in its officially
controlled media, attacking the United States, the European
Community and the CSCE community.
We believe that the views that we have expressed
reflect accurately on the situation in Bosnia-Hercegovina and
the involvement of the [Serbian] side there. We reject the
characterization of our views as biased, and our Charge made
these points in Belgrade on Saturday.
The Serbian leadership appears to want the world and
the Serbian public to believe that it is the victim and not the
aggressor. It's abundantly clear, however, to the international
community, and we hope to the Serbian people as well, that the
Serbian civilian and military leaders bear the overwhelming
burden of responsibility for the violence in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
And let me go back to Mark's question and say that,
yes, I would characterize the Serbians as the aggressors.
Q Richard, when did you start talking about the
Serbian Government, the Serbian people, the Serbian leadership,
and does that mean that you no longer recognize the existence --
not the existence -- but their claim to be the successor to
Yugoslavia?
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, as Margaret, I think, told you last
week, that Yugoslavia, as we knew it, really no longer exists.
I checked on this point this morning. It was in fact the
Foreign Minister of the Serbian Republic who spoke to us and not
the Foreign Minister of Yugoslavia as that government was
formally constituted. So this is the correct appellation for
the Serbian Foreign Minister.
Q Well, does the United States recognize Serbia,
because, I mean, for new states to gain recognition, they have
to abide by certain CSCE principles. Does the United States
recognize Serbia?
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, the statements on recognition and
diplomatic relations was made about a week or two ago, and that
remains U.S. policy.
Q So U.S. policy is to recognize Bosnia-Hercegovina,
Slovenia and Croatia, of the six republics of former Yugoslavia?
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, I would stick with the statement
that we made last week that carefully identifies the areas that
we recognize as the areas with which we want to establish
diplomatic relations.
Q Well, did I misspeak just now?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't now. We'll both look back at the
text and find out.
Q That text, when it addresses the Envoy's visit to
Belgrade, speaks about -- does not make clear whether we do have
relations or not. It suggests that --
MR. BOUCHER: I'm talking about the text that was -- I
guess the White House text where they announced the situation
with regard to independence -- recognized the independence of
various republics, and the republics with which we were seeking
to establish diplomatic relations.
Q So the most recent text which I've seen -- which
is I think on Friday --just finesses the whole issue. It says,
"We recognize three." Serbia, it says, we're not pleased with,
and "we will discuss the course of future relations." It does
not --
MR. BOUCHER: Well, Chris, I'll get you a copy of the
text from Tuesday or Wednesday where we announced all this.
Q Well, this is obviously a fluid situation. Why
don't we just find out what the case is right now rather than
something two weeks ago?
MR. BOUCHER: Chris, the case right now is the same as
the case from two weeks ago when we announced the recognition of
the United States of the independence of various republics. We
said what we're going to do about the situation with regard to
diplomatic relations. We've told you that this specific trip by
Ralph Johnson is to explore the establishment of full diplomatic
relations with Bosnia-Hercegovina, Slovenia and Croatia. That
is consistent with the announcement we made two weeks ago, and
U.S. policy remains what it was in that announcement.
Q What about the other three?
Q We do have diplomatic relations with someone, and
we have an Embassy in Belgrade. With whom does that Embassy
conduct diplomatic relations?
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, our Embassy conducts meetings, has
business, raises points, makes points with whoever they feel is
appropriate.
Q O.K. So they conduct diplomacy, but they don't
have diplomatic relations.
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, we're not wrapped around the axle
on this issue of definitions of diplomatic relations or
recognition. We do our job. We try to keep people from being
killed. We try to help people who are in need, and that's what
our Embassies do.
Q Who's the Charge that's in there -- in Belgrade?
MR. BOUCHER: In Belgrade?
Q Yes.
MR. BOUCHER: Ambassador Zimmerman has been there. I
mean, he's in charge there. I'm not sure exactly where he is
right now.
Q Who's the Foreign Minister you said he met with?
MR. BOUCHER: He met with the Serbian Foreign Minister.
I'm not sure -- well, our Charge met with the Serbian Foreign
Minister. I'm not exactly sure who was the Charge, and I don't
have the name of the Serbian Foreign Minister. I'll try to get
that for you.
Howard.
Q Do we intend to keep our diplomatic presence in
Belgrade, or is there anything to sever, since we don't use the
word "diplomatic relations."
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything new on that.
Q I'm just curious. You rejected their charge that
we are biased, but we called them the aggressors in this matter.
I don't understand that --
MR. BOUCHER: We think the facts bear that out.
Q Why don't we simply say, "Yes, we're biased,
because they're the aggressor." [Laughter]
MR. BOUCHER: Saul, I guess it's a question of your
interpretation of the word "bias." We call them the way we see
them is what we think.
Q Does the Administration -- on a different subject
-- does the Administration at this point have any timetable for
the ratification of START, or is that hung up? They've given no
idea of when it's going to move
ah
ead?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything specific for you at
this point. No.
Q Are you clear where Ukraine stands at this point
with regard to whether it will sign directly on to START or will
sign up indirectly?
MR. BOUCHER: Terry, I'm sorry, I just don't have
anything new for you since that discussion last week. I think
Margaret made clear that both in the discussions that our team
had -- the Presidential mission had in Ukraine and in the
discussions that the Secretary had with Kozyrev, the issue of
START was discussed. The Secretary was working the issue then,
and that remains the case now.
Q So do you have any response to the repudiation of
arms control agreements by -- I guess it was the Russian
Parliament about Friday or so?
MR. BOUCHER: I forgot to look into that this morning.
That was something that on Friday, based on the press reports
that we'd seen, was somewhat unclear as to exactly what the vote
entailed. I'll see if we have any more information at this
point on it.
Q Richard, on the same subject, has the State
Department or the Administration notified that Congress that the
successors to the Soviet Union are in violation of the 1972 ABM
Treaty?
MR. BOUCHER: I have no idea, Jim. I don't know.
Q Well, according to Paul Nitze there was a
notification to that effect on April 9.
MR. BOUCHER: Isn't there a regular arms control
compliance report that deals with that?
Q Yes.
MR. BOUCHER: I forget if we send that up or ACDA does,
but that's, I guess, what we would have sent. I'll check on it.
Q Richard, I don't know if you mentioned it -- it
might have gone by me today -- but Croatian activity in Bosnia.
Any update on that?
MR. BOUCHER: No. I didn't have anything new on that.
[Lithuania: Senator Kerry Injured in Auto Accident]
Q Richard, Senator Kerry of Nebraska was injured in
a car accident in -- I believe in one of the Baltic states. Do
you have anything on that?
MR. BOUCHER: That was in Vilnius yesterday. [TO
STAFF] Do you remember Cynthia?
MS. WHITTLESEY: Saturday.
MR. BOUCHER: Saturday. There was a Congressional
delegation, including Senator Kerry of Nebraska. He was in a
van along with some of our people. There was an accident that
occurred with a taxicab, apparently, that was trying to pass
somebody. He was injured, and they went back to the airport and
flew him out to Frankfurt where he remains under medical
treatment along with some of the other people.
Q How seriously was he injured?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know the exactly medical
characterization, but apparently he's doing O.K.
Q Back to Libya: Apparently over the weekend, a
British lawyer for the two Libyan suspects indicated that he
wouldn't have a problem with them being tried in the U.S. or
Britain.
Do you see that as a hopeful sign that this
confrontation might --
MR. BOUCHER: We wouldn't have a problem with them
being tried in the U.S. or Britain either.
Q Well, I know, but, I mean --
MR. BOUCHER: I think we've made that clear.
Q Is any progress being made --
MR. BOUCHER: And I think we've made very clear that we
want to see it happen. So far we've seen various ideas floated,
most of which have not turned into serious courses of action,
and I guess we'll just have to wait and see if they actually
show up for trial.
Q The fifth round of the Middle East peace talks are
due to begin in a week on April 27, and you've announced
previously that the location of the sixth round would be
announced before the fifth round begins.
So do you have the location, and, if you don't have the
location, do you know when it will be announced?
MR. BOUCHER: Some time before the fifth round begins,
which is still a week away. Nothing for you today.
Q Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:22 p.m.)