US Department of State Daily Briefing #123: Tuesday, 9/8/92

Boucher Source: State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher Description: Washington, DC Date: Sep, 8 19929/8/92 Category: Briefings Region: Subsaharan Africa, E/C Europe, MidEast/North Africa, East Asia, Central America Country: Yugoslavia (former), Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia-Montenegro, Somalia, USSR (former), Macedonia, Romania, China, Lebanon, South Africa, Nicaragua, Iraq Subject: Regional/Civil Unrest, Military Affairs, Development/Relief Aid, United Nations, EC, CSCE, Security Assistance and Sales 12:40 P. M. (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to start off I think with a few updates. First of all, a housekeeping matter. (A senior State Department official) will be able to do a briefing ON BACKGROUND. It will be tomorrow at 3:30 in this room, and we'll have him here for you. As per the usual, the name is not for publication but for your information only. Second of all -- Q Subject? MR. BOUCHER: The subject will be the former Yugoslavia. Sorry, I thought that went without saying. Q I thought he was doing something else. Q I thought he was doing refugees now. MR. BOUCHER: Didn't we put out a statement -- maybe some of you missed it -- but he has been designated our Coordinator for the follow-up to the London Conference. He was in Geneva last week for the meetings there, and he retains his title as Director of the Bureau for Refugees, but his full-time, pretty much, responsibilities will be Yugoslavia for a while, and the Bureau will be run by Priscilla Clapp. So the subject is Yugoslavia, George. I should have said that, too. Second: We have a weekly update on assistance to the New Independent States available in the Press Office after the briefing. And then third, I'd like to do some Yugoslavia updates and then a brief update on Somalia.

[Yugoslavia: Situation Update

The airlift into Sarajevo remains suspended. U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, Mrs. Ogata, is convening a meeting in Geneva today of the countries that have participated in the airlift to discuss issues related to the airlift. We are obviously represented there. Press reports indicate that land convoys have continued on an almost daily basis into Sarajevo, but I don't have any details for you today on specific convoys and tonnage. CSCE missions: The CSCE mission on detention camps headed by Sir John Thomson of the United Kingdom returned to London on September 4. The members of the mission are preparing a report for transmission to the CSCE Chairman-in-Office. Two U.S. representatives participated in the mission: Ambassador Kenneth Blackwell, who led one of the two teams, and Mr. John Zerolis. Although the mission's formal findings are not yet available, Sir John Thomson held a press conference September 3 in Belgrade, and he reported that the majority of the inmates in the camps he had visited appeared to be civilians, and that many were poorly treated and malnourished. Other information on detention camps that we're getting: Congressman Frank Wolf, staff members from his office and officers of our Embassy in Belgrade visited the Batkovic camp on September 1. This is a Serb-run detention facility at Bijelina in northeastern Bosnia. It's operated by the paramilitary forces of the Serbian Democratic Party. There are approximately 1,280 ethnic Muslim men from northeastern Bosnia that are being held at Batkovic. There is gross overcrowding. There are hygienic and medical facilities that are clearly inadequate. The prisoners appeared thin but not emaciated. There were no signs of gross physical abuse of prisoners. Congressman Wolf and his party were not permitted to speak privately to the detainees. So that's information that we're getting independently. As you know, there have been UNHCR missions, ICRC visits, CSCE missions, and as well some of our own information that we're getting about conditions in the detention facilities. On the long-term monitoring mission to Macedonia, Ambassador Robert Frowick has been named by the U.S. to head this monitoring mission. He's consulting with officials in Vienna tomorrow. He'll be putting together a multinational team for the visit, and he plans to proceed to Macedonia on September 11 for his initial visit, and there's a second U.S. representative who is accompanying him. The long-term missions to Kosovo, Vojvodina and Sandjak -- known as the "hot spots," I guess -- the Norwegian Ambassador, Tore Bogh, who heads these missions, consulted with the CSCE Steering Group in Vienna last week, and he's now conducting an initial visit to Belgrade and to these mission areas. The U.S. is providing two representatives for these missions, both FSOs -- Foreign Service Officers with area expertise. On Romania and sanctions monitoring: The United States and other interested states met yesterday in Brussels with the Romanians to discuss an operational plan for the sanctions monitoring mission. There are no final decisions at this stage, but a further meeting is scheduled for later this week. As you may know, we've offered to support the effort through the contribution of personnel and logistical support. We are urging others to do so as well. NATO's work: Last Wednesday, the North Atlantic Council agreed to support the U.N. effort to deliver humanitarian assistance in Bosnia-Hercegovina as well as to support U.N. efforts to monitor heavy weapons. As part of this support, NATO decided to offer its contingency planning for these two tasks to the United Nations. Over the weekend, the relevant plans were transmitted to the U.N. This planning reflects the current state of military thinking and will be further developed in light of the United Nations reactions to that. And in Geneva: The Steering Committee met last Thursday. The working groups that were agreed to in London are now beginning their tasks. The Working Group on Confidence-Building Measures has already held a number of meetings over the weekend. This group does include members -- representatives of the Yugoslav parties. They have discussed the crash of the Italian relief flight and the subject of heavy weapons monitoring. They're continuing their discussions tomorrow. Cyrus Vance and David Owen will be traveling this week, we understand, to Zagreb, Sarajevo and Belgrade, and the other working groups that were established are expected to meet soon. On heavy weapons: As you know, agreement was reached in London that all the parties to the conflict in Bosnia would put their mortars and other heavy weapons under U.N. supervision. The clock is now ticking for compliance with that agreement. Collection of heavy weapons is to be accomplished by next Saturday. The leader of the Bosnian Serbs, Radovan Karadzic, has said publicly that he will beat that deadline, which he is obliged to make under the terms of the London agreements, and we expect him to meet that deadline. Q That clock starts as of today, you say? MR. BOUCHER: The clock in London was sort of two clocks. One was a four-day clock for notification, and then a seven-day clock for actually collecting the weapons at places. These seem to have been merged, and the announcement out of the heads of the U.N. effort was that the weapons should be collected by Saturday. Q Are the Bosnia Serbs the only ones with heavy weapons? MR. BOUCHER: As far as I know, yes. They were the ones that were -- the only ones that are subject to that arrangement. Q Richard, what was the -- I'm sorry, but what was the date for the mission to -- Frowick's visit to Macedonia? MR. BOUCHER: Frowick's visit to Macedonia? September 11, which would be Friday, I guess it is. Yes. That's the initial visit to Macedonia. Q And you mentioned NATO conveying to the U.N. its contingency plans. Contingency plans for what -- for providing assistance or assisting the U.N. aid effort or contingency plans for dealing with the heavy weapons or contingency plans for intervening militarily? MR. BOUCHER: What the North Atlantic Council has agreed to was to support the U.N. effort to deliver humanitarian assistance and to support U.N. efforts to monitor heavy weapons. And those are the two aspects that are covered by the contingency planning. Q The contingency plan -- they've agreed to do it, and what they've conveyed to the U.N. is their thoughts on the mechanics of how to do it? MR. BOUCHER: They've developed "how-to" plans on how we could do these things -- how NATO could support them and how these things could be done. As you know, the U.N. Secretary General is also working on an expanded mandate for the U.N. mission, and that's something that he has to prepare in terms of a detailed plan for the Security Council soon. So this NATO contingency planning is a contribution to give it to the U.N. -- part of the dialogue we're having with the U.N. about how best to accomplish those two goals. Q Does the U.S. role in the North Atlantic Council give it a role in -- I presume the U.S. has a role in helping to determine those contingency plans. Is that correct? MR. BOUCHER: Well, we certainly have a role in all the discussions at NATO, and we certainly have a role in the discussions at the United Nations as well. The Secretary General's expanded mandate it's called, for UNPROFOR is something that he has to work on. But certainly I'm sure he's talking to us as well as many others. Q Do the contingency plans for support of the aid effort include the kind of support such as protection of personnel and equipment that provides the aid? MR. BOUCHER: The goal, Ralph, is to ensure the delivery of humanitarian relief supplies, and so the people that are looking at this are looking at it in all its various aspects -- military and non-military measures -- and primarily in the context or completely in the context of how do you support the United Nations effort; how do you expand the United Nations effort to ensure the delivery of food and supplies, medicines, to people who need them. Q But does it include specifically the question of providing cover -- military assistance -- to protect and defend the suppliers of such assistance? MR. BOUCHER: That gets into details that I don't know, and I don't think I'd be in a position to talk about at this point. We'll have to see what the plan is that the U.N. Secretary General comes up with. Q Do the contingency plans go to the Secretary General or to the Security Council? MR. BOUCHER: A small point that I don't think I know the answer to, but let me see. My guidance just said it's been transmitted to the U.N. I'll have to find out. Q Do you have any response to the Secretary General's willingness -- expressed willingness today to seek air cover for relief missions? MR. BOUCHER: All we have on that at this point are the press reports, the news reports that we've seen of that. As I said before, he's working on detailed plans for expanding the mandate. We look forward to seeing those plans on ensuring the delivery of humanitarian supplies, and we'll provide our input to him in that context. Q Does the U.S. think, as Boutros-Ghali does, that it would require an additional resolution? MR. BOUCHER: In the past, when the mandate of UNPROFOR has been expanded, it has required a U.N. resolution. So I think that's always been assumed. Q So the U.S. agrees it does require an additional resolution? MR. BOUCHER: Yes. I think that's -- yes, we do. Q Why does -- I don't understand the distinction you're making. The last -- when the aid mission was set up and at the CSCE meeting and so on, all of that discussion indicated that the U.S. felt the announcement or the declaration that the use of all necessary means provided for the use of all necessary means to get the aid through. Why would another resolution be necessary to use "necessary means" to get the aid through? MR. BOUCHER: Because you're expanding -- Q Why is it an expansion? MR. BOUCHER: The expansion is in the terms and the size of the U.N. operation to do this, and you're changing and expanding a U.N. operation. I will double-check. Q I mean "all necessary means" means "all necessary means" -- expanded to whatever extent. MR. BOUCHER: Not to put too fine a point on it, Ralph, but if you're changing the nature and the scope and the direction and the substance of a U.N. operation, the U.N. has to authorize its people to do that. That's where it comes from. I'll double-check on the explanation of why a new resolution is necessary. I just know that we always felt that one was. Q I guess it might be worth checking out. MR. BOUCHER: Ultimately in the end I guess it's a question the Secretary General might have to answer. Q Richard, on the plans, either NATO plans or anyone else's plans, is there a verification regime for the turning over of these heavy weapons? MR. BOUCHER: There were agreements to arrangements in London, and those arrangements provided that there should be notification, there should be collection, and there should be U.N. monitoring of them. Q So the U.N. would go out into the field and assure itself that all of the heavy weapons have been turned by the Serbs? MR. BOUCHER: Basically, yes. Q And they're supposed to have all of them turned over by Saturday? Is that correct? MR. BOUCHER: Our understanding is they're supposed to all be collected by Saturday and subject to U.N. monitoring by then. Q I don't recall, did the statement out of the London Conference define "heavy weapons"? And, if not, could you give us a definition? MR. BOUCHER: Mortars and other heavy weapons. I think it's mortars and artillery primarily. Q Grenade launchers -- MR. BOUCHER: I don't have a full list. You might get that from the United Nations. I'm not sure if they have it. Q What will happen to them after they're collected? MR. BOUCHER: They're collecting in specified locations and then putting them under U.N. control. Q And do these contingency plans deal with the possibility that those weapons are not turned over? MR. BOUCHER: The contingency plans deal with how the U.N. and others can support that effort of monitoring heavy weapons. You may remember that some weeks ago this was something that the U.N. Secretary General had asked both -- had asked the CSCE, the WEU and NATO to look at. So NATO has indeed looked at that and has gotten back to them on how that effort can be accomplished, as well as the broader effort of ensuring the humanitarian relief supplies reach the people who need them. Q Well, what happens to the Bosnian Serbs if they don't turn them over? MR. BOUCHER: At this point we expect them to turn them over, Mark. Can I do Somalia, please, and go back to other questions then. On Somalia: There were five flights to Belet Weyne and three flights to Baidoa, Somalia; one flight to Wajir, Kenya, yesterday -- these are all yesterday. These delivered 97 metric tons of relief supplies. Over the past weekend, relief flights delivered supplies to those three areas: Baidoa, Belet Weyne and Wajir, as well as to Garissa, Kenya. To date, we have flown -- the United States has flown 152 relief missions in Somalia and Kenya and delivered a total of approximately 2,090 metric tons of relief supplies. The Defense Department is expecting three flights to Baidoa and six flights to Belet Weyne today with a total of 92 metric tons on board. And now I'd be glad to take any other questions you have. Q Did you get a report from the outcome of Ambassador Clark's visit with the Chinese? Did the Chinese have a more satisfactory response to the United States than the one you talked about last week when they discussed -- or did they -- MR. BOUCHER: I wasn't here. Q I'm sorry. MR. BOUCHER: It was Joe (Snyder). I am going to leave it to the Chinese to explain their position on this. Assistant Secretary Clark met in Beijing on September 7 with Vice Foreign Minister Liu Huaqiu and with the Director of North American Affairs Zhang Yijun. These are his counterparts in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in China. He reviewed bilateral issues. He explained the reasons for the President's decision to sell F-16 aircraft to Taiwan, and now he's on his way to the APEC Conference in Bangkok. He's got an overnight stop in Tokyo. He arrives in Bangkok September 9 for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Ministerial meeting. Q Last week the United States felt free to say that the Chinese had told the U.S. that it essentially was none of the U.S.'s business; it should not interfere with what the Chinese called an "internal matter" in terms of the dissident. Why do you feel that now is not a good time to describe for us what the U.S. representative heard in his meeting in China? MR. BOUCHER: I think that the Chinese can best explain it for themselves. I don't feel any need to do so, I guess is my only answer. Q Is the U.S. content with the Chinese response to the decision on the F-16s? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can describe our feelings at this point. Q Is the U.S. taking any additional steps with China with regard to the -- their treatment of the dissident Shen Tong? MR. BOUCHER: Shen Tong? Q Yes. MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything new for you. It's something that our Embassy was going to pursue. Mr. Clark did discuss the other areas of our bilateral relationship, including human rights, as we always do. So it's something, I'm sure, that we'll continue to follow up on. Q Does the U.S. feel -- as a result of these meetings, does the U.S. feel the Chinese will remain as part of the international arms control regime and discussions, the new set of discussions that have been set up in the last year or so? MR. BOUCHER: It's something I'd have to check on. Q The U.S. decision to sell 150 F-16s to Taiwan hasn't changed Taiwan's mind to purchase the French Mirage. The Taiwan Government said they're planning to sign a contract to buy Mirage 2000 fighters from France worth $2.6 billion. They're still going to continue with that. MR. BOUCHER: I've seen those reports. I think what I'd say is that the President made it clear, when he authorized the sale of F-16 A/B's, that the United States was committed to providing solely defensive aircraft to Taiwan consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act. We believe that defensively configured F-16 A/B combat aircraft will meet Taiwan's defensive needs and, in addition, that they don't pose any threat to the stability of the area. Q Does that mean the United States thinks the provision of additional aircraft by other countries would be in excess of Taiwan's needs? MR. BOUCHER: That means that we think that the provisioning of these defensively configured aircraft does meet their needs. I'll stop at that. Q Well, does it mean -- does that mean that the United States thinks only the provision of U.S.-built weaponry to Taiwan is adequate to defend Taiwan? Other countries don't have a role in that? MR. BOUCHER: We think that the provision that we've made of these aircraft would meet their needs, yes. Q Do you have an objection to the negotiations between Taiwan and France on the Mirage? MR. BOUCHER: On this one, I'm just going to say that we think that the provision of the F-16s meets Taiwan's defensive needs. Q Has the United States told France that? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. Q Would you take that question? MR. BOUCHER: I'll check and see. Q Richard, does the U.S. have a reaction yet to the Lebanese election? MR. BOUCHER: Lebanon has recently conducted three rounds of voting to elect a new Parliament. These were the first parliamentary elections in Lebanon since 1972, and since the tragic civil war which ravaged Lebanon and its people. Over the past weeks, we repeatedly called for free and fair elections in an environment that would be devoid of intimidation and coercion. We've consistently stated that the decision to proceed at this time with elections was that of the Lebanese Government to make. And, similarly, the decision of some Lebanese political figures not to participate was theirs to make. The United States is clearly disappointed that the elections were not prepared and not carried out in a manner to ensure the broadest national consensus. The turnout of eligible voters in some locations was extremely low. There were also widespread reports of irregularities which might have been obviated had there been foreign observers. As a consequence, the results don't reflect the full spectrum of the body politic in Lebanon. We strongly support the unity, sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Lebanon, and the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces from Lebanon. We also support the full implementation of both the letter and the spirit of the Taif Agreement and have made this clear repeatedly to all the concerned parties. This requires coordination now by the Government of Lebanon with the Government of Syria to redeploy Syrian troops to the western entrances to the Bekaa Valley. In our view, that decision should be taken by both governments this month with redeployment occurring shortly thereafter and as soon as possible. It also means the completion of the process of disarming all the militias, particularly Hizballah. We fervently hope that the Lebanese people and their government will renew their commitment to national reconciliation and to the unity and sovereignty of Lebanon. We will continue to support the expansion of the authority of central institutions of the Lebanese Government and the Lebanese armed forces throughout Lebanon. We will continue to work with other countries and international institutions to encourage and support the Lebanese people as they get on with the priority task of reconstruction. Q Are you finished? MR. BOUCHER: Yes, finished. Q Given what you say, would you say that the results of these elections are illegitimate? Does the United States not recognize the officials who were chosen in this process? MR. BOUCHER: I think I would say that we've noted our disappointment with the manner in which the elections were and carried out. Nonetheless, we would continue to work with the Lebanese Government. The focus now should be on reconciliation, on reconstruction and the pursuit of full Lebanese sovereignty through the Taif process. Those obviously are things that we've always supported and have always been willing to work with them on. Q Do the irregularities that you referred to mean that the U.S. doesn't think these elections were free and fair? MR. BOUCHER: I think I expressed our disappointment with the manner in which this was carried out. So I don't think you could say that they were completely free and fair, no. Q Are you ready to deal with the new government (inaudible) of this new Parliament if the Lebanese decide to do so, and to have a new government? MR. BOUCHER: We will deal with the Lebanese Government. It's for them to decide who that government is. I don't think the old government has resigned at this point, but with an election and a new Parliament, there's always the possibility, but we think they have important tasks. These are the same tasks set out by Taif, tasks that we've always been willing to work with them on. And, yes, we will work with the new government if one emerges. Q Don't you find it difficult to reconcile what you said, which is the result does not reflect the political spectrum of Lebanon right now, and a new government which might not reflect either the balance of power and the equilibrium -- political equilibrium in Lebanon? MR. BOUCHER: Jacques, I would find it much more difficult to reconcile the alternative, which is to say that we should somehow abandon the Taif process and the territorial integrity of Lebanon and our willingness to support that and work with people to that end. That, clearly, is not what we're going to do. Q But there are steps we take against -- things we withhold from governments that are elected that we don't consider to be freely and fairly elected. Are we prepared to take those kinds of steps with the Lebanese Government, such as withholding aid, not considering aid requests -- things such as that? MR. BOUCHER: Sid, around the world, the depth of our relationship with any given government depends on a whole host of factors. It depends on the kind of progress towards the important goals that we like to see accomplished throughout the world, whether it's democracy, human rights, non-proliferation, or other things. This is not a different case. Q Has the U.S. conveyed its view on the timetable for decision-making and redeployment to the Syrian Government? And, if so, how recently did it do that? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know how recently. This view is the one that we've been expressing now for some months. I'm sure that has been conveyed to the Syrian Government. I don't know how recently we have. Q For some months the U.S. has been telling Syria that only a decision to redeploy is necessary in September, on the anniversary of the Taif Accord, and that redeployment could occur sometime thereafter; is that correct? MR. BOUCHER: I think if you look back at what we said when the Secretary and others went into Lebanon that you'll see that was the way we expressed it at that point. Anyway, I think what I'm saying today is consistent with what we said for several months. Q Do you have any observations on the situation in South Africa? MR. BOUCHER: Just to note briefly, the situation that we're talking about, the facts that we have are that yesterday, during an ANC-sponsored demonstration against the Ciskei regime, Ciskei security forces opened fire on the demonstrators killing at least 28 people and wounding close to 200. Complete details on the incident at this point are not clear. We deplore the excessive and unjustified use of lethal force against peaceful demonstrators. Further, our long-standing position has been that the South African Government is ultimately responsible for the actions of the homelands in South Africa. But it's also clear that those who prompted the demonstration should carefully reconsider future actions that distract from the primary issue at hand, and that is negotiations and actions that expose innocent supporters to violence. We call on all the parties to avoid further provocative action which put at risk the lives of innocent South Africans. Confrontation and violence will play into the hands of those who do not want a successful negotiation to a democratic, non-racial South Africa. We urge all the parties in South Africa to focus their efforts most urgently to achieve resumption of the negotiations that broke off in June. Only an early and successful negotiation of the basic issues of transition can bring an end to the violence and produce the change that South Africa needs, including the re-incorporation of the so-called independent homelands that are anachronisms of apartheid. The U.S., along with the rest of the international community aside from South Africa, consider these homelands to be integral parts of South Africa and has not extended recognition to any of them. Q May I ask another question about Nicaragua? Do you have any reaction to the Sandinista police changes that were announced by Mrs. Chamorro? MR. BOUCHER: Let me sort of address, in general, the trip that we had down there. I'll get specifically to the new Vice Minister and Police Chief. The team was led by Deputy Assistant Secretary Maisto. They met with a wide range of Nicaraguans, including President Chamorro, members of her Cabinet, the Vice President, the President of the National Assembly, political leaders, business leaders, human rights leaders. They also met with U.S. citizens whose property was confiscated. They raised issues that have long been concerns of the Administration and many in Congress. These include the civilian control of the police, and full respect for human rights by the police and the army. They include the need to resolve cases of property confiscated by the previous government from American citizens and Nicaraguan citizens. It includes the murders of over 100 former members of the Nicaraguan resistance, which must cease and which need to be investigated fully. There was some progress in each of these areas. A new civilian Vice Minister was named to be in charge of the police on a full-time basis. So far, over 70 properties have been returned to American citizens, and the Nicaraguan Government told us it plans to announce new procedures later this week to speed the resolution of the remaining cases. The Nicaraguan Government will also work actively and closely with the OAS mission in Nicaragua to investigate the murders of former resistance members. So, as I said, we've seen some progress in each of these areas. As far as the naming of various officials, the Vice Minister to be in charge of the police on a full-time basis and a new Police Chief, say that our concern is with genuine civilian control of the police and respect for the rights of Nicaraguan citizens. We believe the naming of the new Vice Minister, whose full-time job is to direct the police, is a positive step towards improving police performance. The goal, of course, is to see improved respect for human rights and the rule of law under a new civilian leadership. Q Do these changes have any impact on the aid that is being held up? MR. BOUCHER: At this point, our consultations with the Nicaraguan Government and the Congress will continue, so I don't have anything new for you on that. Q Richard, one last question: Does the Administration have any reason to believe that Bulgaria has violated the arms embargo to Iraq -- the Government of Bulgaria or any of its government-controlled contractors? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know how to deal with that question, Sid. That's too broad a question. There's probably smuggling and attempts and reports of various kinds about all sorts of countries. So if you have something specific you want me to check out, I'd be glad to, but I can't just pick a country and say how bad are they. Q The Government of Bulgaria said this morning that they had found out that one of their defense contractors had sold $12 to $15 million worth of weapons to Iraq in the last six months. Is that something we're aware of? MR. BOUCHER: I'd be glad to find out for you, if we have anything for you on that. Q Richard, can we go back to the detention camps? Was it the first time an American mission visited a detention camp in Yugoslavia? Was it the first -- MR. BOUCHER: It's the first that I'm aware of that's involved a Congressman. We have had people visit some other sites. I think Joe (Snyder) provided some of the information that we've been able to collect last week, and provided you an update with some of the information we collected from various other ways. Q I'm curious. Joe did provide a lot of data about what is now known about the detention camps from all of these various monitoring groups, and then again today you have this new report from the Congressman's group. What is the end of all this information? Is there anything -- you said malnourished and mistreated, but I think you said not emaciated. MR. BOUCHER: Thin but not emaciated, and no evidence of gross human rights abuses. Q Is there any mandate in the Geneva Convention or the London Conference to do something? Or by learning that they're only malnourished but not emaciated, we're out of it? MR. BOUCHER: No. The ends are several. I'd say first and foremost it's to get the kind of international access that can protect these people from abuse and that, hopefully, can get the camps closed and the people released. That's the first and primary end, I think, that we all share. The second end is to develop information on -- that the ICRC can develop to help these people, to track these people, to register these people. And third of all, it's any information of this kind or other that comes out about -- what do they call it? -- grave breaches of Geneva Conventions, I think is the phrase that the U.N. used. It's supposed to be collated and turned over to the Security Council, and that is something that we're in the process of doing with the information that we've been able to collect. Q I haven't heard you -- maybe you have -- call on Serbia to close the camps? MR. BOUCHER: Oh, we've done that repeatedly. We've done that repeatedly. Q Is a war crimes resolution the end result of the U.N. collating this information? Is someone going to be prosecuted? MR. BOUCHER: Well, under the war crimes resolution the information is supposed to be collected and turned over to the United Nations. That's something that we, and we hope others, are in the process of doing. We've been talking to others about doing that. There was a decision in London -- and you'd have to look at the documents to get it exactly, but to look at the possibility of setting up a tribunal. That is something that also has to be worked on with a view to eventually identifying those responsible for abuses and for breaches of the Convention and bringing them to some sort of appropriate justice. Q Richard, with the several weeks of access that the ICRC and other international groups have now had to at least some of the camps, does the U.S. now believe enough information has been collected to draw some general conclusions, such as that there is no indication or evidence of the kinds of torture and killings that were previously reported? Or are there still places that the outside world has not been able to see, that the U.S. feels ought -- that there hasn't been access to? So are those questions still hanging out there, I guess? MR. BOUCHER: Personally, I'd like to leave those questions still hanging at this point for a number of reasons. One, I don't have a prepared answer for you, but more important I think we need to collect the information that we can provide to the United Nations under the various definitions of gross abuses and grave breaches and see what we have there when we do that. But on your other question: "Have we seen access to all the places?" No, we have not seen access to all the places where people are reported to have been detained. The ICRC has been to quite a few. Other groups of one kind or another have gotten in to quite a few. But there are still more places where people are being detained that nobody has really gotten in to look at yet. That remains an urgent priority. Q Thank you. (Press briefing concluded at 1:15 p.m.)