US Department of State Daily Briefing #129: Wednesday, 9/16/92

Boucher Source: State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher Description: Washington, DC Date: Sep, 16 19929/16/92 Category: Briefings Region: Subsaharan Africa, E/C Europe, Caribbean, Southeast Asia, East Asia Country: Yugoslavia (former), Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia-Montenegro, Macedonia, Somalia, Vietnam, Israel, Cuba, China, Japan Subject: Regional/Civil Unrest, Military Affairs, Development/Relief Aid, United Nations, Trade/Economics, POW/MIA Issues, History, Arms Control, Mideast Peace Process, CSCE, Security Assistance and Sales 12:24 P.M. (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to do a couple of things off the top, if I could. First, to talk to you about some documents that we're releasing, as I think Defense and maybe others have released documents on POW/MIAs to the Senate Select Committee. And, second, I'll go through some Yugoslavia updates and then some Somalia updates, and then take your questions on other things.

[Department Released Documents on POWs/MIAs to Senate Select Committee]

I wanted to do this first one with a stack of documents four feet high, but I couldn't do that for you today because my staff can't operate a forklift and get them in here, but you will see the documents a little later. Right after the briefing, they'll be available for you to look at, and I'll go through that in a minute. The Department of State is releasing a large body of materials concerning U.S. efforts to account for Vietnam-era prisoners of war and missing in action between 1973-1992. These documents are being released based on a request from the Senate Select Committee and on the instructions of the President. These papers were presented to the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs yesterday evening. The Department is seeking to be as supportive as possible of the Committee's efforts to investigate fully the history of U.S. Government POW/MIA activities, and we share their desire to provide the American people with answers to the many questions that have been raised about this issue. The documents consist of over 3,800 telegrams numbering over 10,000 pages. They were retrieved from the files of the Department of State in response to the July 1, 1992 request of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs and pursuant to Executive Order 12812. This Executive Order sets forth the President's instructions to the Executive Branch to declassify documents requested by the Senate Select Committee with a very few exceptions. Only national security information and information the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or impair the deliberative processes of the Executive Branch is not being released. The full text of all the documents is available to the Senate Select Committee. These documents reflect the extraordinary scope and degree of diplomatic negotiations and actions exerted by the United States for two decades between 1973-1992 in Southeast Asia and throughout the world to determine the fate of U.S. POWs and MIAs. Now, procedurally, the full set of documents released is very large. It's four linear feet from file drawers. Because of the massive reproduction involved, we have at this point just a single copy and may get a second of the full set to be available after the briefing today. We thought we would put the documents in the Correspondent's Room over across the hall for you all to peruse. We'll put a sign-up sheet near the documents for those who would like to have a copy of their own. Please note that if you sign up, we would expect you to cart away the full set and there may be some substantial reproduction charges involved for those who sign up, and I don't have an estimate of how much that will come to now. Q They're not available through (inaudible) -- MR. BOUCHER: No. Q You don't have a scanning machine? MR. BOUCHER: No. Q Could you put them on disks? MR. BOUCHER: We don't have the typists, Sid. If you want to put them on disks, I bet you could sell them to your colleagues. Q (Inaudible) MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure what the quality of the documents is. In any case, these are old documents. They date from two decades. They're not available on electronic media to you now. Q Richard, have you read them? MR. BOUCHER: No. I have not read them. Q Could you read them all for sound bite purposes? MR. BOUCHER: I'm going to ask my staff to go through and highlight them for me. When they finish, I'll get back to you wherever you may be at that time. So that's the deal on these things. You start going through them; we'll try to have the sets for those who sign up available tomorrow. It's a lot of material. I'm sure some people will want to go through them. I've tried to describe it as best I can. I'm told it covers all aspects of our policy on the issue of POWs and MIAs. It records actions that we took, or actions that we took in concert with other concerned agencies to pursue the fullest possible accounting for our missing Americans. Q Richard, just a technical point on something you mentioned earlier. You said that the Committee had been given the full text of all of the documents -- MR. BOUCHER: That's right. Q -- regardless of national security, privacy, or embarrassment to the Administration, grounds which you mentioned -- MR. BOUCHER: "Embarrassment to the Administration" is not the grounds -- Q You called it "deliberation," I think; due deliberation -- MR. BOUCHER: Impair the deliberative process. Q Right. I've forgotten. I'm sorry. MR. BOUCHER: But I'm told there are only five or so documents out of all these 3,800 cables that aren't released. Q What's the distinction -- I know this may seem a silly question to ask, but you've raised the numbers: 3,800 telegrams, constituting 10,000 pages. Is 10,000 pages the total, or are there -- MR. BOUCHER: Over 10,000 pages. Some of the telegrams are more than one page. There are other documents that we're looking at. These documents today are predominantly cables. We're reviewing files that are covering the negotiations of the 1973 Paris Peace Accords and other files that are drawn from the records of Department officials who worked on this issue. So we're still going through those. We'll continue our intensive review of other types of documents relevant to POW and MIA affairs and anticipate that a significant number of such documents will also be released upon completion of that review and processing. I think that work is -- the next round is scheduled to try to finish by the end of October. Q I was just about to ask you whether you thought they might be completed by the time of the U.S. election, but you just answered that question. MR. BOUCHER: We're working hard on it. Q It's interesting timing. MR. BOUCHER:

Yugoslavia: The humanitarian airlift

, as you know, is suspended. There were 14 flights yesterday to Split to provide supplies that can be forwarded to Sarajevo by land convoy. They plan a 40 metric ton convoy to Capljina, 85 metric tons to Sarajevo and 96 metric tons to Vitez today. A 40 metric ton convoy to Posusje is planned for tomorrow. On the International Committee of the Red Cross: They met earlier this week in Zagreb to plan for the evacuation of detainees from Bosnia-Hercegovina. The air evacuation from Banja Luka to London of 68 sick and injured detainees was completed yesterday. The Red Cross will now concentrate on phase two of the evacuation, and that is the transfer of 1,600 prisoners from the Trnopolje Detention Center to a transit camp in Croatia. The Red Cross hopes to begin that evacuation this week. The transit camp is located near Zagreb. It's a military barracks capable of housing 5,000 people. It's under the control of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. This will be a temporary center pending the ability of these people to return to their homes. In Prague this morning, there was a three-day session of the Committee of Senior Officials of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe which started meeting this morning in Prague. The three days didn't all occur this morning. At this point, we don't have a readout of the morning session. But among the agenda issues are the report on the humanitarian mission to the detention camps; reports on the long duration mission to Kosovo, Sandjak, Vojvodina, and then the deployment of monitors along the borders of Bosnia-Hercegovina and observer missions bordering on Serbia -- two nations bordering on Serbia and Montenegro. Ambassador Kenneth Blackwell, who accompanied Sir John Thomson on the mission of the -- the humanitarian mission to the detention camps will present the mission's report to the Committee of Senior Officials. We expect the report to be released imminently, and we will make copies available to you as soon as we get it. Ambassador Robert Frowick, who will lead the mission to Macedonia and who has already made an initial visit, and the Norwegian Ambassador Tore Bogh, who will lead the mission to Kosovo, Vojvodina and Sandjak and who, too, has already made his initial visits, will discuss their visits to those areas at the Prague meeting. At that time, after the briefing of the other members and participants, we expect that the final mandates for the two continuous missions will be approved. The other thing they're doing at the Prague meeting is the U.S. and the European Community will put forth a comprehensive sanctions monitoring plan for Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania. The plan anticipates having teams on the ground as early as September 21. Again, once that is adopted by the CSCE, we'll be able to provide you with more details about how that will work. And then, finally, I'd note that the U.S. and the United Kingdom are going to send a fact-finding team to assess sanctions compliance in Macedonia on September 29. The team will be headed by a foreign service officer. This is in response to a willingness on the part of the Government of Macedonia, like others in the region, to cooperate with the tightening of sanctions enforcement and procedures. Q Is the U.S. still interested in a "no-fly" zone over Bosnia? And how are those talks going? MR. BOUCHER: We're still interested. I described yesterday the fact that we were discussing both internally within the U.S. Government and with allies the question of how to secure the implementation of the ban on flights that the parties agreed to in London. Those discussions continue. I think Defense Secretary Cheney has noted that the subject will probably come up during his discussions in London and Paris later this week. So that's about all I have for you in the way of an update. Q Do you have any words there in support of the proposal for expelling Serbia and Montenegro from the U.N.? MR. BOUCHER: Not mere words but sincere conviction, George. We're currently consulting with others in the Security Council on various formulas that we might use to achieve our objective of denying Belgrade's claim to be the continuation of the former Yugoslavia in the U.N. In the face of the claims by Serbia and Montenegro to be the continuation of the former Yugoslavia, a Security Council resolution followed by action in the General Assembly would be required to accomplish this. Q Are the Russians going to derail that objective? MR. BOUCHER: You'd have to talk to the Russians. Q Well, you know what they said: That they think there should be a place for the new Yugoslavia. MR. BOUCHER: I don't know what they have said publicly, Barry -- Q Well, the Foreign Ministry spokesman -- MR. BOUCHER: -- but you'd have to ask the Russians for what they say about it. Q I want to see how this falls on -- they've been cooperating with you on almost every issue since the Soviet Union dissolved. But the Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman said yesterday that there should be a place for a new Yugoslavia in the United Nations, and they didn't think Serbia should be denied a seat. They're pretty heavy hitters at the U.N. Is this a problem for the United States? MR. BOUCHER: Barry, again, you have to ask Russia what the Russian views are. We're consulting with other members up at the United Nations. I've stated very clearly our objective is to deny Belgrade's claim, and you'll just have to see how it turns out. Q Who are you consulting with -- you said "other members?" Are you consulting with all of the members of the U.N. Security Council, for example? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure if there's anything that's been floated to all the members yet. I'm sure we're talking to many of them. Q Does the U.S. think that this decision -- a vote in the Security Council and the U.N. General Assembly action -- ought to be taken before the General Assembly convenes this fall for this session? MR. BOUCHER: The General Assembly convened yesterday for this session this fall. I guess that point is moot right now, but we have always urged that this course of action be taken, and it's something that I think we would like to see accomplished as soon as possible. Q Should it be taken at this session of the U.N. General Assembly? MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to put any particular time line on it. I think the session goes on for a long, long time. Q Richard, is this an effort to deny Serbia-Montenegro the seat or to deny Milosevic and his administration a seat? MR. BOUCHER: I don't quite know what you're asking, Sid. Milosevic is head of the Serbian Government. There is also what they call the FRY, the Federated Republic of Yugoslavia -- the Prime Minister is Panic; the President is Cosic -- which we don't recognize as the successor state. It is that state, that organization, which claims to be the successor, and we think the U.N. Security Council should deny that claim along with the General Assembly. Q Is it something that can be reversed if events there turn in a direction that we -- MR. BOUCHER: Our position is that -- let me read this to you carefully -- we do not consider Serbia-Montenegro to be the continuation or the sole successor to the former Yugoslavia. We firmly believe that Serbia and Montenegro should be required to apply for membership in the United Nations and should meet the criteria for admission before being admitted. Q The sole successor. That allows for multiple successors in the U.S. view. Could Serbia and Montenegro be among the successors in the United Nations? Should there be several seats, for example? MR. BOUCHER: Well, several of the other former republics of Yugoslavia have already been admitted with U.S. support to the United Nations. Q Could Serbia and Montenegro be among them? MR. BOUCHER: That path is available to others who apply for membership and who qualify. The point that we're making here is that they don't automatically assume the seat, but rather like the other republics they have to qualify and gain membership on the same criteria as other countries do. Q So you're not trying to deny them membership. You're just trying to deny them sole membership; is that correct? MR. BOUCHER: We're trying to deny the claim that they're the continuation of Yugoslavia. Q The answer to whether you're trying to deny them membership, I suppose, could be extracted from you if I asked if the U.S. Government thinks they qualify for membership? Do they meet the U.N. standards? Is that the U.S.'s judgment? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if we've taken a position on that at this point. Q If they don't -- if you have no position on it, then I don't understand how they don't qualify to be the successor. If you don't find their record such that they shouldn't be sitting in the United Nations -- MR. BOUCHER: Barry, at this point it's not a question of whether they should be sitting in the United Nations or not. The question is whether they should be sitting in the seat that was formerly occupied by the whole of Yugoslavia when Yugoslavia was whole. At this point the effort is to deny them the claim, which has certain international ramifications, that they are the successor to the former country of Yugoslavia. When they apply, if they do apply, after this action is taken -- when they apply, if they do apply, it's at that point whether we would decide whether they qualify for membership under the criteria of membership for the United Nations. Q I don't know if this has come up, but while we're talking about qualifying for membership and such, does the U.S. have a position whether Israel should have an equal chance with other countries to have a place on the Security Council on the rotating basis that exists for ten countries? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. Q You don't know of Israel -- MR. BOUCHER: I don't know what our position is on that. I've never heard it come up before. Q Could I ask you if you could work -- if someone could work up the position, because apparently Israel never gets to sit on the Security Council -- MR. BOUCHER: I'll check and see if we've taken a position. Q Brethren in the region don't consider them proper. Q Coming back to the former Yugoslavia seat again for a second. I'm afraid I'm still confused about what the U.S. position is on who should, if anyone, should occupy -- should the seat that was formerly Yugoslavia's be empty at this point? I mean, you're saying it's not a question of who's sitting there, but it seems as though you're saying they can be there, but they can't be -- claim to be the only part of Yugoslavia that is at the U.N. I'm not trying to get you here-- MR. BOUCHER: Our position is, Ralph, that if they want to be there, they're going to have to get in there the same as any other country in the world -- Q So you're saying they cannot remain there. MR. BOUCHER: They can't just stay there, sit in that seat and consider themselves and have others consider them to be the continuation state. They have to reapply -- or they have to apply, since they're not members now, we don't consider them members now. Q As a practical matter, aren't they sitting in the seat? MR. BOUCHER: Until the Security Council or General Assembly act, I guess they are. Q And also as a practical matter, would the Acting U.S. Secretary of State have a meeting with a representative of Serbia and Montenegro at the United Nations session when he goes up there? Is there any plan for such a meeting? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know at this point. I think we'll do the U.N. schedule a little later. Q Well, it's not a scheduling question; it's a -- MR. BOUCHER: Well, it's a question of whether we have a meeting on with them or not, and we've met with officials from Serbia-Montenegro and the so-called "federated republic" before when it's been in our interest to do so, and we felt that to do so would advance the cause of peace. Q Would the -- does the U.S. feel -- MR. BOUCHER: Whether we're having future meetings, I don't know. Q Has there been a request for a meeting? MR. BOUCHER: Again, I haven't checked on those kinds of things yet.

[Update on Somalia]

Q Could we move on to another area? Somalia. Do you have anything on the Marines? MR. BOUCHER: I was going to do an update on Somalia, if I could. Yesterday we had seven military -- U.S. military relief flights, two destinations, 71 metric tons of humanitarian aid, four flights to Belet Weyne, three flights to Baidoa. Today we expect four flights to Baidoa, carrying 52 metric tons, two flights to Belet Weyne, carrying 19 metric tons, and one flight into Wajir, Kenya with 13 metric tons. And now, Howard, you had a question. Q O.K. Do you have anything on the Marine group which has been sent to the waters off Somalia? MR. BOUCHER: I think I'll leave it to the Pentagon to talk about this in detail, but I can give you the basic outline of what's going on as I understand it from them. There's a U.S. Naval Amphibious Ready Group that is being sent into international waters off Somalia in support of the deployment of a 500-man Pakistani guard force -- guard force for food security in Mogadishu. The group -- the U.S. group is composed of four ships, I guess, that will provide seaborne command and control and communications for the U.S. military airlift carrying the Pakistani troops to Mogadishu. In the event of an emergency, the group is also available for search and rescue operation. The Marines that are on board make up a normal part of an amphibious ready group. We continue to support the deployment of U.N. security guards in Somalia. There is an advanced party now of 63 Pakistani security guards, together with some of their equipment, that were airlifted into Somalia on the 14th and 15th of September. The remainder of the 500 troops in the Pakistani contingent should arrive before the end of the month. The mission of these U.N. guards is extremely limited. It's limited to protecting food and its delivery. They're deployed only after thorough consultations with Somali leaders to ensure that there is cooperation in relief distribution. The U.S. is not going to intervene in support of any faction in Somalia, nor do we intend to become Somalia's policemen. Our role continues to be to support the U.N.'s efforts to promote dialogue and reconciliation. Q Couple of things: One, you say their task is to support the deployment of the Pakistani troops. Are they supposed to support them after they're deployed as well? MR. BOUCHER: You can ask -- that's a how long will they be there question, and I don't know if the Pentagon wants to answer that or not, but these ships -- this group is providing seaborne command and control and communications for the military airlift. Q That's the only -- when you say "support," that's exactly what you mean is command and control and search and rescue? MR. BOUCHER: That's exactly what I mean. Q In your last answer, the text of which I don't have in front of me, I thought you indicated that there was some aspect of that role that takes place on the ground and not on the ships. Maybe I'm wrong about that. MR. BOUCHER: There is -- I don't think I said it in my last answer, but there is a group of -- Q The answer that began, "The mission is limited" -- MR. BOUCHER: -- something like five air traffic control types that go on the ground at the airport. The rest of it's done from offshore. Q Different area: Do you have anything on -- let me backtrack -- it was announced by Cuba this morning that the ex-Soviet troops which had been in Cuba for the last -- I don't remember -- since 1963 -- have started to withdraw and go back to Russia now. Do you have any confirmation of that? Do you have any comment on it? MR. BOUCHER: I don't. I hadn't seen that report. When the announcement was made some time ago that this would happen, I think we welcomed it. But I hadn't seen that report, so I don't have any confirmation of it.

[Middle East Peace Process: China Not to Participate]

Q Do you have any response to the announcement made by the Chinese Foreign Minister in Jerusalem that China would boycott the Perm Five arms control talks? MR. BOUCHER: Pretty much what we've said before. The Chinese Government has previously indicated it would find it difficult to attend the five-power Middle East arms control talks if the U.S. proceeded with the sale of F-16 fighter aircraft to Taiwan. Chinese Foreign Minister Qian, as you point out, is quoted in wires today as saying that that is indeed the Chinese intention. We find this regrettable. We reject China's linkage of the F-16 sale and the arms control process. We encourage China to reconsider its position and to remain engaged in the talks in keeping with their responsibilities China has as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. Q Can you elaborate a little bit why it's illogical for them to link the sale of 72 jet fighter planes to Saudi Arabia to efforts to reduce armaments in the Middle East? Where are they off base? MR. BOUCHER: I would say basically, Barry, that our arms sales, as you know, are conducted upon -- on the basis of stringent and careful review, careful legal requirements. They are reviewed so that they do not upset the balance in the region, so that they do not constitute any sorts of provocation, and they are fully in accord with the guidelines that were worked out, indeed, by this group -- by this group of five powers on conventional arms sales. We think that effort is worth pursuing. Certainly, they are in no way equivalent to the kinds of destabilizing sales of weapons of mass destruction and components for them that this group is designed in great part to prevent. Q Have the Chinese notified the United States in any other way what they intend to do? For instance, have they said anything about their own arms sales or plans for the area? MR. BOUCHER: Again, I would leave it to the Chinese to express what their intentions are in areas like that. Q Well, I mean, you have a very active -- MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything particular to cite for you at this point, no. Q Well, the Administration's been very active in trying to deter the Chinese from selling all sorts of dangerous weapons to Syria and other folks, and I wondered if they have told you in any way that you could tell us that they don't feel the restraints they used to feel? MR. BOUCHER: I haven't heard or seen the Chinese say anything like that. Q Richard, how is this going to affect the Perm Five talks? Have you -- have there been any discussions about whether you'll actually go forward? Are you going to set a date for talks in Moscow this fall? MR. BOUCHER: We'll have to see. There was -- there has not been a date set for the next round of these Perm Five talks. They were generally expected to be held in Moscow this fall. Frankly, even before the President's announcement on the F-16 sale, the Chinese were expressing an interest in seeing that put off from the fall to next spring. So I guess the people involved will have to decide what to do next. I don't have any firm course for you. Q Well, if the Chinese have pulled themselves out of it in fact, shouldn't this revive the determination of the other four to set a meeting and move forward and show that the process hasn't been ground to a halt? MR. BOUCHER: Carol, we would like China to reconsider its position. We will press China to remain engaged in the talks. We think it's appropriate, given their status as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, and I'm sure we'll want to the other governments involved in this process to see what we do next. I can't tell you today. Q Well, Richard, I mean, China's -- the fact that China's now pulled out could be an excuse for the others, some of whom are reluctant to really move forward in any demonstrable way, to just postpone indefinitely. MR. BOUCHER: Carol, we'll have to see how things turn out, and, if you want to ask the others what they intend to do, you can ask them. For our part, we think this is an important process. We think it's a process that should continue, and we think it's a process that should continue with Chinese participation, and we'll be working on all those goals. Q When does the U.S. think -- how quickly and on what basis does the U.S. think it should continue -- whenever China's ready to come back or -- MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, at this point we'll have to talk to the other governments involved and decide what we do in terms of scheduling meetings and continuing the process. Q What evidence would you cite to anyone who might look at this process and conclude that it had stopped as a result of China's decision? What evidence would you suggest that the process actually had not been stopped? MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, you can conclude what you want. The evidence, I would say, is that the United States is standing up here and saying that we think it's an important process that should continue, and it should continue with China's participation. And you can go and poll the other members, the people who are involved in the process, and see if they express similar sentiments. Q Can it continue without China's participation? MR. BOUCHER: Again, Barry, we'll have to talk to the others and see what we do next. Q Ralph's point is well taken. If you can't -- if the State -- if the U.S. Government can't -- MR. BOUCHER: Ralph's point is well taken, but it's also hypothetical. Q I don't know about that. MR. BOUCHER: I mean, at this point we're going to have to talk to the others, and we'll go. Q The talks are hypothetical, Richard. Where are the talks? MR. BOUCHER: I didn't say there were talks. I said, in fact, there hadn't been any scheduled date for the next round of talks in Moscow. That's something we'll have to talk to the others about, and we will. Q No, I don't think you have to produce a date to demonstrate that you intend to go ahead, but I wonder why you can't affirm that -- MR. BOUCHER: Let me see if I can go back to the experts and see if we've at least decided enough that I can tell you that we have an intention to schedule a new meeting and go ahead. Q Richard, can I just follow up one: I mean, the point is that if this -- if there was an urgency to this and this was part of the President's initiative -- Middle East initiative after the Gulf War, then I would assume that the United States was eager to have a date set during this period and not let it linger until the next year. And also, I mean, China has been -- ever since the Taiwan sale was announced, China's been, you know, making it clear that they might do this. So it's not as if this issue just came up today. It seems to me there's been time for the other -- for the Perm Five to talk among themselves as to what you do if China did, in fact, pull out. MR. BOUCHER: Carol, those are all fair assumptions to make, only I'm not here to make assumptions. I'm here to tell you what we intend to do and what our plans are. If I can get anything more for you on what we intend to do and what our plans are, I'll be glad to share it with you later. Q Richard, Sig Rogich is said to be leaving as Iceland Ambassador to go back and work for the Bush Campaign. Has he submitted any resignation or notified the Department at all of his plans? MR. BOUCHER: I have no idea, but Ambassadorial questions really should go to the White House, I think. Q Richard, the multilateral talks in Moscow on arms, those are going forward today and tomorrow. Is there any impact of the China thing on those talks? MR. BOUCHER: No. The Chinese are in Moscow. They spoke yesterday. They're participating in this. Q So they're going ahead with everything on that. MR. BOUCHER: Apparently so.

[Japan: Toshiba Sale of Missile Technology to China]

Q Do you have any comment on a report that the Japanese Toshiba Machine Company sold a machine that may be helping China build a missile -- building a better missile? MR. BOUCHER: We have a little information. This was a report carried in a Japanese magazine recently, relating to the illegal export of an electron beam mask generator by the Toshiba Machinery Company to the Chinese. The Japanese Government has informed us of the case. We understand that there was no U.S. technology involved. We're investigating whether we have any information or evidence with regard to the case, and of course we'll share any findings with the Japanese authorities. The electron beam mask generator was subject to COCOM -- Coordinating Committee on Multilateral Export Controls -- restrictions at the time of shipment, but it's no longer on the control list as of 1991. Q It's a question of enforcement really than anything else -- whether it's worth enforcing something that's become moot. MR. BOUCHER: Well, it's a question of whether in this case Japanese law was violated with regard to an export. Q Richard, what was the occasion of the Vietnamese Ambassador's meeting with Assistant Secretary Clark? MR. BOUCHER: It was a courtesy call, I think. Q Courtesy call? MR. BOUCHER: Introductory call. He's paying an introductory call today on Assistant Secretary Clark. Q Did they talk about any substance or just to say "hi?" MR. BOUCHER: I don't know at this point. I'll try to get you a readout later in the day. Q Are you going to give them the 10,000 pages of documents? (Laughter) Q Only if they promise to read them. Q Can I just go back to Yugoslavia for a second, on the topic of airlifting detainees or moving detainees? We got an answer to a question back yesterday that indicated that some of these detainees were in -- are in the United States and had received a one-year waiver on immigration. It's a little unclear to me how these people came to the United States, how they got this one-year waiver, and what it all means. Can you clear that up at all? MR. BOUCHER: I don't have the answer with me. I'm not sure we used the word "detainees." Frequently in situations where people have left the country, whether they're here for business tours and visiting relatives, studying or whatever, and the situation becomes such in that other country that they can't really be expected to go back right now, they're granted by the Immigration Service the ability to remain in the United States, basically to overstay their visa, until the conditions change so that they can go back. I think that's what we're talking about. Q But would it be possible to get a figure -- a number of how many fit into that category? MR. BOUCHER: You'd have to check with the Immigration Service on that. Q Thank you. (The briefing concluded at 12:56 p.m.)