930107 Daily Press Briefing  Return to: Index of 1993 Daily Briefings || Electronic Research Collections Index || ERC Homepage

Note: This Electronic Research Collection is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the US State Department Homepage.
US DEPARTMENT OF STATE 
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING #4: 
Source: State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher 



                         DEPARTMENT OF STATE
                         DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

                                DPC #4

                THURSDAY, JANUARY 7, 1993, 12:05 P.M.
                (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)


         MR. BOUCHER:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  If I can,
I'd like to tell you a few things off the top.  First of all, about
the trip; second of all, about POW and MIA documents; and third of
all, about some revisions to Missile Technology Control Regime
guidelines.  All exciting subjects, and then we can go on to your
questions.

         On travel:  Secretary of State Eagleburger will travel to Paris
on Tuesday -- next Tuesday -- January 12, to attend the signing of
the Chemical Weapons Convention.  Representatives from more than 
130 countries are expected to be present to sign the Convention.

         Current plans will call for departure on Tuesday morning, with 
a return from Paris either Wednesday night or Thursday.  Journalists
wishing to sign up for the trip should do so by noon tomorrow.

         Q   Will this be his last trip?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Who knows, Barry.  We'll see.  I think every trip
he's taken has been his last trip.

         Second, on POW/MIA documents:  We're releasing today more
materials concerning U.S. efforts to account for Vietnam-era
Prisoners of War and Missing in Action.  This is in addition to the
documents previously released on September 15, October 16, October
28, and December 1 of last year.

         As in the previous instances, these documents are being 
released based on a request from the Senate Select Committee on 
POW/MIA Affairs and on the instruction of the President.

         The release consists of over 6,000 pages of documents related 
to the Paris peace talks.

         I'm supposed to tell you as well that because of the massive
reproduction involved, we'll have just a single copy of the full set
of documents available after the briefing today.
Those will be put in the correspondents room for people to
peruse.  We'll put up a sign-up sheet near the documents for
those who would like to have their very own copy.  The sheet
will come down at 5:00 p.m. this evening.  And, if you sign up,
you have to cart them away.

         Individual sets will be made available as soon as they
can be reproduced.

         Q    I think you ought to give priority to the
reporters that don't come to the Daily Briefing.

         MR. BOUCHER:  I give priority to anybody who wants them
because they'll be over there and you can assign priorities
yourselves.

         Q    We'll pick them up.

         MR. BOUCHER:  On the revision of Missile Technology
Control Regime guidelines:  The Government of the United States,
together with its partners in the Missile Technology Control
Regime, has strengthened its efforts to combat the proliferation
of ballistic missiles.

         The United States and all the partners in the Missile
Technology Control Regime have adopted revised guidelines to
extend the scope of the regime to missiles capable of delivering
biological and chemical weapons as well as nuclear weapons.

         The adoption of these guidelines and their
implementation confirms and tightens existing policy.  These
measures will further strengthen the MTCR and will be important
factors in countering the proliferation of missile systems.

         The Government of the United States and its MTCR
partners welcome the growing number of countries which have
publicly committed themselves to respect the MTCR guidelines,
and we call on all states to show a similar spirit of
responsibility in the interest of international peace and
security.

         A similar statement is being made simultaneously in the
capitals of the 22 partners of the MTCR, and I know you all know
them by heart, but let me tell you who they are anyway.  They
are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland,
France, Greece, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, The
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the United States.

         We have a text of the revised guidelines available for
you in the Press Office, if you want that.

         Q    Of the list of -- that list of countries -- is
that also --

         MR. BOUCHER:  Excuse me?

         Q    Is that list of countries also on a piece of
paper?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Yes, there's a copy of that full
statement available.  Howard.

         Q    Basically, what's involved in the expanded
coverage here?  What does it take to be able to launch germs?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Well, it doesn't take much.  Virtually,
any rocket is capable of delivering biological or chemical
weapons.  These new guidelines are done because of a need to
control missiles that are intended to carry all types, any type,
of weapons of mass destruction -- chemical and biological.

         The nuclear weapons were the original focus of the
MTCR.  The need to expand the guidelines, we think, was made
clear by the Gulf war.  Partners began working on it at the MTCR
plenary meeting that was in Washington in November 1991.

         The changes that -- there's already a strong
presumption of denial for the transfer of missiles capable of
carrying 500 kilograms payload to a range of 300 kilometers.
What this now does is it subjects a strong presumption of denial
on transfers of any missiles regardless of their payload or
range which are judged to be intended to carry any weapon of
mass destruction, not just nuclear weapons.  So that it deals
with intentions; with even shorter range or lower payload
missiles.

         If there's information that would be shared among the
partners that would indicate that that missile might be intended
to be used for chemical or biological, or any weapon of mass
destruction, then there would be a very strong presumption of
denial.

         Q    But there's no defined payload or range?

         MR. BOUCHER:  No.  Because what they tell me is
virtually every rocket or UAV, which turns out to be an Unmanned
Air Vehicle, is capable of carrying some type of weapon of mass
destruction, and there are many countries who produce and export
those kinds of missiles.

         Q    So the bottom line is that all missiles now fall
into the MTCR?

         MR. BOUCHER:  All missiles specifically with a 500
kilogram, 300 range and any other missiles that might be
intended, yes.  Any missiles between zero and 500 kilograms
payload that might -- if they were intended for use in other
weapons of mass destruction -- they would be covered.

         Q    Can you say --

         MR. BOUCHER:  A strong presumption --

         Q    Can you say that any missile could potentially
carry chemical and biological --

         MR. BOUCHER:  That's right.

         Q    So, the bottom line is that all missiles are now
controlled under the MTCR?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Yes, with a strong presumption of denial
for those that have the 500 kilo to 300 kilometer payload range,
which was the existing standard.  Plus, now, a strong
presumption of denial for any in which there might be any
information that indicates that it was intended for use in
chemical and biological.

         Q    Can you translate what "strong presumption of
denial" means?

         MR. BOUCHER:  It means that the countries involved plan
on denying those exports.

         Q    Does that mean that all missiles, whether
offensive or defensive in their nature, which are capable of
carrying mass destruction weaponry would not be transferred?
And, does that put any limits on, just to pick an example -- but
there are many -- on U.S. transfers of missiles like
ship-to-ship missiles, submarine missiles, air-to-ground,
ground-to-air missiles, and that sort of thing?

         MR. BOUCHER:  It doesn't.  I can't quite go that far,
Ralph.  It's not capable.  It's intended for use in weapons of
mass destruction.  Certainly, any missile itself -- any missile
-- is capable of carrying chemical or biological weapons.

         The presumption, the tightening, is over missiles where
there might be some intention to use them in that way.

         Q    Intention to use them -- intention to use them for
mass destruction purposes; right?

         MR. BOUCHER:  That's right.

         Q    Has there already been a definition -- I guess I
don't know the MTCR well enough to know whether there's a
definition already of what "mass destruction" is.  Would a
Sidewinder, for example, capable of killing large numbers of
people aboard a ship that it hits in the middle of the sea --

         MR. BOUCHER:  No, no, this is a --

         Q    -- be considered a mass destruction weapon?

         MR. BOUCHER:  It's a general, applicable definition.
I'm not sure if the revised -- if the new guidelines -- define
it any further but chemical and biological weapons, or the
expansion.

         Q    Are efforts being made to expand the membership?
It seems like 22 countries is not very many.

         MR. BOUCHER:  Well, there are other countries in the
world, as I think I mentioned in the statement, that have said
that they will adhere and abide by the guidelines.  And,
certainly, we are encouraging all countries, all potential
producers, to adhere or abide by the guidelines.

         Q    Can you tell us which countries those are?

         MR. BOUCHER:  I don't have a full list with me,
actually, of the other countries that might have made such
statements.

         Q    Among the countries that are more likely to do
such an uncivilized thing as The Netherlands is, for instance?
You don't worry about The Netherlands and about Australia in
this area.  You worry about other countries -- from Iraq.

         MR. BOUCHER:  Let me say we worry about two things,
Barry, and we've had this conversation in another context.  You
worry about companies and you worry about countries.

         There may be producers in the United States and The
Netherlands and anywhere else who are capable of producing these
missiles, or are capable of producing major components for them,
who might be interested in making a few bucks and don't really
care about chemical and biological weapons.

         By having these guidelines, by implementing them
through national legislation, the countries -- the governments
of the countries -- where these kind of products and
capabilities are generally produced, give themselves the means
to control that through their national legislation and their law
enforcement authority.  And, we do, indeed, arrest people for
legally trying to export things to places where it shouldn't go.

         And then, in addition to that, you have countries that
have not adhered, who we've encouraged to adhere and to
implement those kind of guidelines and restrictions.

         Saul.

         Q    Just for my information -- maybe you can tell me
-- is a TOW missile a missile capable of carrying weapons of
mass destruction?

         MR. BOUCHER:  I don't know that much about individual
missiles and rockets and how far a TOW can fly and these sorts
of things.  But, it gets back to Ralph's question.  Basically,
any missile is capable of carrying chemical or biological
weapons because those things are small and light -- unlike
nuclear weapons for which this was originally designed.

         So, what this has done is to say that any exports of
missiles which we know, or have some reason to believe, are
intended for that kind of use will presumably be denied by the
countries from which they're being exported who adhere to this
regime.

         Q    Is China one of the countries which has said it
will adhere to the guidelines?

         MR. BOUCHER:  China has said that it would abide by the
guidelines -- or adhere to the guidelines -- I forget the exact
wording of it -- but follow along the same standards.  We have
discussed these new things with China as well, and we are
encouraging other countries -- every other country-- to adhere
to the guidelines and to this revision.

         Q    Just to be clear, you're not saying that China has
told the U.S. it would adhere to the new, revised guidelines?
Or are you saying that?

         MR. BOUCHER:  That would be something China would have
to say.  I can't say that, no.

         Q    Does this effectively mean -- does this revision
effectively mean -- that the efforts to get others to adhere in
the past -- and some have and some haven't -- will essentially
have to be repeated; that you're going to start a new round of
negotiation with various countries because commitments they've
made in the past to the old MTCR guidelines do not apply -- that
those commitments do not apply -- to the revised guidelines?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Well, I mean certainly we're publicly --
and our partners are publicly -- calling on all countries to
adhere to or abide by the guidelines.  And, certainly that is
something that we will be discussing with individual
governments.

         Q    Without asking for a laundry list of who abides
and who doesn't, if I could just ask two countries:  Syria and
North Korea?

         MR. BOUCHER:  I just don't know, Sid.

         Q    Can I ask you about the Secretary's speech
tonight?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Sure.

         Q    Are we going to be able to get the speech before
he goes over there?  There's no room in that room except for
members.

         MR. BOUCHER:  Except for a pool.

         Q    Well, yeah.  But what would a pool's
responsibility be -- to read the speech over the telephone to
someone who isn't there?  I'm not sure I understand.

         MR. BOUCHER:  Well, you'll have to set the
responsibilities --

         Q    We don't want any pull.  We just want a --

         MR. BOUCHER:  But there is Q and A.  Barry, I don't
know if I'm going to be able to get you a copy.  We will try to
get you an advanced copy under embargo, but I can't promise it.

         Q    You realize some news organizations with more
prestigious personnel than others have members who are members
-- they sort of wear double -- two hats.  They're members of the
Council and they also write about foreign affairs.  It's a trick
that I can't quite fathom.

         But, in any event, some of us, most of us, aren't in
that unique situation.

         MR. BOUCHER:  Me, too.

         Q    Yeah.  But some of us have to file what the
Secretary has to say and can't wait for the speech to come up
about next Tuesday.

         MR. BOUCHER:  Barry, I know how much you would all like
to have the speech text in advance.  We will try to get you the
speech text in advance if we can.  I can't make any promises
now.

         The arrangements for coverage were set by the people
who are hosting the event.

         Q    They also set the arrangements for the release of
the text?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Excuse me?

         Q    Did the hosts of the speech also dictate the
arrangements for the release of the text?

         MR. BOUCHER:  No.  We'll release the text when we can
release the text.

         Q    So you advise hanging around here this evening?

         MR. BOUCHER:  No, I don't have any advice.  I wouldn't
what to be responsible.

         Q    There is a fair perception in Pakistan -- my name
is Masood Haider.  I represent the Daily (Inaudible) from
Pakistan -- that by January 15, there would be -- the State
Department would put them on the list of terrorist states.  Is
that possibility, or is it being considered, or are briefings
being prepared to that effect, to be sent to the Congress?

         MR. BOUCHER:  We haven't said anything publicly about
the terrorism list yet.  Let me check and see if there's
anything I can say for you at this point.

         Q    Richard, do you have any information on Iraq
moving the missiles away from the "no-fly" zone?

         MR. BOUCHER:  No, I wouldn't have that kind of
information here.  Carol.

         Q    Could you tell us about the meeting between Wisner
and Tarasyuk, the Ukrainian?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Sure.

         Q    Has the United States told the Ukrainians that
they're not going to do anything more to try to win Ukrainian
support for the treaty?

         MR. BOUCHER:  No.

         Q    "No," to the question?

         MR. BOUCHER:  "No" to the question and --

         Q    Or "no," you're not going to tell us anything
about the meeting?

         MR. BOUCHER:  -- "no" to the second question, and
"yes," I'll tell you plenty about the meeting.

         We've had a very useful series of talks with the
delegation from Ukraine, led by Deputy Foreign Minister
Tarasyuk, and including Defense Minister Bizhan and Security
Advisor Malko.  They met twice with Under Secretary Wisner and
with other senior officials of the State Department and with
other agencies.  The meetings are continuing today and will
continue tomorrow.

         Talks have covered a broad range of issues of mutual
interest.  There was a useful review of the status of START and
the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which are now before the Ukrainian
Parliament for approval, including assistance and assurances the
United States is prepared to provide the Ukraine once these
agreements are approved.

         The United States recognizes the interests of Ukraine
as a non-nuclear state in security assurances.

         We have worked with other NPT depository states to
develop such assurances.  The United States, furthermore, is
cooperating with Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan to
ensure the rapid dismantlement of nuclear weapons and the fair
sharing of proceeds of sales of fissile materials.

         Finally, in this regard, the United States is prepared
to meet the Ukrainian President's request for assistance and has
informed Ukraine that we are prepared to provide assistance
worth at least $175 million from Nunn-Lugar funds.

         The United States welcomes the commitment of the
Government of Ukraine to seek prompt approval of both treaties
and hopes that the Parliament will act with dispatch.  Contrary
to some press accounts, the Government of Ukraine has not made
new demands on the United States, and the United States has not
rejected Ukrainian demands.

         Q    Richard --

         MR. BOUCHER:  Hang on.  In addition, at the meetings we
have discussed a number of bilateral issues which reflect the
positive and strengthening relationship between the United
States and Ukraine.

         The United States welcomes the strong statement of
President Kravchuk in support of the recently concluded START II
Treaty which serves the interests of all nations, including the
United States and Ukraine.

         Q    Richard, I'd like to follow up, please.  It seems
to me that you've made sort of an interesting statement there.
You said something about assurances once these agreements are
approved.

         Has the United States told Ukraine that its concerns
about security and its demands for security guarantees will be
answered in some sort of a written form only after START is
approved?

         MR. BOUCHER:  First of all, what I said is, including
assistance and assurances, the United States is prepared to
provide Ukraine, once these agreements -- the NPT and the START
-- are approved.

         On the subject of security assurances, we have talked
frequently with the Ukrainian leaders about security issues,
including the matter of security assurances.  These present
discussions stem from discussions of a similar nature that we
had back in April to discuss Ukrainian security, among other
issues.

         President Kravchuk visited in May, and there was a lot
of discussion at that time.  We recognize that Ukraine has
important security concerns as a new country, as a new state.
They've been among -- security concerns has been among the
subjects that we've discussed with them at high levels over the
past months.  I'm sure we will address it again in the future.

         We have clearly stated the importance with which the
United States views the security of Ukraine as a major, new
non-nuclear state integrated within European security
structures.  As we've said publicly, and to Ukraine, we view
Kiev's commitments to non-nuclear status as serious and its
integration within the European security structures to be among
the strongest assurances of Ukrainian security.

         Q    Has this particular official asked the United
States, during this visit, for a new written security guarantee?

         MR. BOUCHER:  As I just said, nothing was asked,
nothing was rejected.

         Q    You said nothing new was asked.  You didn't say
nothing was asked?

         MR. BOUCHER:  I just said --

         Q    I hear you.

         MR. BOUCHER:  -- we've been discussing issues such as
security assurances all along.

         Q    No.  I understand.  You're original statement said
no new --

         MR. BOUCHER:  And we've made statements before on that
and we'll probably make statement again.  I said that there were
assistance and assurances that could be provided once those
treaties are ratified.

         Q    If we approach their request in terms of an
on-going discussion -- not a new request -- but revisiting a
long discussed subject, did the UkraInians ask for something more
affirmative, like in writing, from the U.S. and, indeed, were
they turned down?

         MR. BOUCHER:  The answer, Barry, is no.

         Q    Okay.

         MR. BOUCHER:  We have discussed security assurances
with them.  We have not rejected that.  In fact, I've discussed
security assurances both in the context of our past discussions
and our past statements as well as our possible future
assurances once the NPT and START are ratified.

         Q    What you've told them is that if they want the
assurances, they'll have to pass the -- or approve the --
treaties?  That's what you said earlier.

         MR. BOUCHER:  But, that's --

         Q    So, if they ask for assurances before passing the
treaties, then --

         MR. BOUCHER:  Ralph, they haven't made any new
requests.  They haven't asked for that and we haven't rejected
it.  We've been discussing security assurances.  We've made
statements about their security before.  We've talked to them
about security, and we'll talk about it further, especially once
these things are passed because passage of that, integration of
Ukraine into Europe as a non-nuclear state, which would be in
part based on passage of the NPT and START, that, to us, offers
the best assurance of Ukraine's security.

         Q    Did you just now say that Ukraine has not asked
for assurances prior to its passage of these treaties?

         MR. BOUCHER:  The issue of security assurances has been
discussed before its passage of the treaties.  It's been
discussed now, and it will be dealt with again once these things
are passed.

         Q    You're not saying whether they've asked for them
before or after?

         MR. BOUCHER:  I've said that they've made no new
demands, that they haven't asked for anything particular right
now, and that we haven't rejected it.

         Q    And, can you tell us whether the assurances that
you're discussing with them now are the same as the assurances
which former Secretary of State Baker discussed publicly in
carefully worded statements about Ukraine security assurances, I
think at about the time of the May summit meeting here.

         MR. BOUCHER:  I don't know if they will be the same or
not.

         Q    Richard, is there anything you can tell us about
the diplomatic status of the Iraqi situation, what happened
yesterday --

         Q    Can we stay on this subject?

         Q    Well, afterwards could we please get back to Iraq?

         MR. BOUCHER:  O.K.  I'm sure we will.

         Q    All right.  Now, you said -- I couldn't find it in
my notes -- but you said something about their commitment.  Did
they reiterate their commitment or you're referring to their
long-standing commitment to START and NPT?  Did they come in and
say again what you wanted to hear them say?

         MR. BOUCHER:  I don't have a specific -- well, maybe I
do.

         I don't have a specific readout of how those
commitments were discussed in this particular round of talks.
But, the most recent statement of their commitment, I think, was
in President Kravchuk's statement welcoming the START II Treaty.
 And, obviously, we take the commitments that they have made
over a period of time to become a non-nuclear state, to ratify
START and the NPT, very seriously.  These are important
commitments and we've expressed our view on the need for
passage.

         Q    Richard, I'm just a little unclear on one thing.
The $175 million in Nunn-Lugar funds, we have not previously
offered that to them?

         Q    (Multiple comments)

         Q    O.K.  But you're saying now that they're not going
to get it until they sign START and the NPT?  Is that --

         MR. BOUCHER:  The assistance is to assist them with the
dismantlement of nuclear weapons.  We've discussed with them the
various things that we can do in that area to help them.

         Q    But, they're not going to get it.  It's not a
blank check.  Once you sign the documents, then you'll get the
money.  So, we've sort of taken -- attached a rider -- to that
now?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Well, I mean, clearly the dismantlement
of nuclear weapons is based on their commitment to become -- to
adhere to START -- and to become a non-nuclear state.  So, in
carrying out those commitments after passage, that's when the
money would be used, because that's when the weapons are
dismantled.

         Q    You just said that you're not sure or you don't
know if the assurances that are being discussed are the same
ones that were articulated by Baker.  Is that because you don't
know or because there's a possibility that they will be
renegotiated or added to?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Carol, it's because I don't know.

         Q    Well, would you take the question, please, of
whether the assurance that have been discussed in this round of
negotiations with the Ukrainians are the same assurances the
U.S. has discussed with them in the past and has publicly
committed the U.S. to give in the past.  Or, is the U.S.
discussing with Ukraine some different -- I hesitate to use
the word "new," because you've already said nothing new was
asked -- so, some different commitments, some different
assurances that would kick in after the treaties are approved?

         MR. BOUCHER:  I'll see if we're in a position to get to
that level of detail at this point.

         Q    Sorry for a diversion, but there has been a
massacre in Indian-occupied Kashmir reported by the U.S. press
today.  Do you have anything to say about that.  Forty people
killed and --

         MR. BOUCHER:  Yes, I've seen the reports.  I don't have
anything on it now.  I'll have to try to get something later.

         Can we go to Connie now?

         Q    Yes.  To Iraq, please.  What can you tell us at
least about the diplomatic situation, and is there anything at
all that you know about the missiles, because the latest reports
were that they are moving them out.

         MR. BOUCHER:  The unnamed officials or sources
somewhere in this town or across the river or somewhere like
that -- yes --

         Q    On the record.

         MR. BOUCHER:  I don't think so, John.

         Q    Do they (inaudible) --

         MR. BOUCHER:  But, anyway, we'll all find out what Bob
Hall said at his briefing today.  But, since those are the kinds
of questions I like to leave to the Pentagon, I will leave them
to the Pentagon, and we can all find out exactly what they have
said.

         On the diplomatic side, the Perm Four -- that is,
France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States --
delivered the warning yesterday afternoon to Nizar Hamdoon, the
Iraqi Permanent Representative to the United Nations. After
that, the message was also given to the head of the Iraqi
Interests Section here in Washington.

         That's pretty much where we stand on the diplomatic
side.

         Q    Did they say anything -- did you get a -- I mean,
if --

         MR. BOUCHER:  There was no immediate response.  I think
Hamdoon had some comments on television after he came out of the
meeting.

         Q    Better watch again.

         MR. BOUCHER:  Well --

         Q    Did they say something like, "We'll get the
missiles out"?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Barry, you can ask them what they have to
say on this.

         Q    No, no, did they say to the U.S.  I don't care
what they said to --

         MR. BOUCHER:  There was no substantive response.

         Q    Oh, O.K.

         Q    Well, when did the clock start ticking then, from
what hour?  Is it a 48-hour warning?

         MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not going to get into too many
details or specifics of what we said.  It was a clear warning
that told them to cease their threats to our pilots and our air
activity, that told them to stop violating the "no-fly" zone.
It asked them for specific actions, and it asked them to comply
right away.

         Q    What actions did it ask them for?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Marlin went through that yesterday:
"Remove the missiles beyond the 32nd Parallel."

         Q    And is it removing all the missiles or just
starting to dismantle them?

         MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not going to get into too much detail
on the exact nature of what we said.

         Q    Richard, on a slightly different topic, did Cyrus
Vance telephone the Secretary yesterday and ask him not to meet
with Alija Izetbegovic today?

         MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not going to get into the Secretary's
telephone calls, but he's going to be meeting with President
Izetbegovic tomorrow.

         Q    He's going to meet with him tomorrow?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Yes.

         Q    (Inaudible) -- a report by AP, he's rejected this
--

         MR. BOUCHER:  Yes.  We saw those reports.  I would say
that we would judge Iraqi policy by its actions, not by the
various and often contradictory statements that they make.

         Q    Richard, while we're talking about reports,
there's a report out of Paris -- this is really getting off the
wall now -- and if you don't have anything on it, you can drop
it.  It's -- frankly, I've been asked by a Middle East
correspondent who couldn't get his car started today to pursue
it.  An alleged interview that Mr. Djerejian --

         MR. BOUCHER:  With Ed Djerejian?

         Q    Yes.

         MR. BOUCHER:  This is something in the Middle East
Mirror that quotes some other newspaper out of Europe -- I think
it is Arabic language -- that --

         Q    It's very strangled, but you're not in favor of a
union between Lebanon and Syria.

         MR. BOUCHER:  -- is supposedly about Lebanon and Syria.
 Well, I can tell you first of all that Mr. Djerejian didn't
give such an interview.  He didn't make such statements.  We
apparently have a copy, and it's been manufactured out of a few
quotes from his briefing that he did all publicly with you at
the end of the last round to where you know he made no such
statements, and some other things that appeared to be made up.

         Q    Richard, on Yugoslavia, yesterday in a press
conference on the Hill, Doctors without Borders issued a report
to the Helsinki Commission -- to the U.S. Helsinki Commission on
ethnic cleansing, and in presenting the report they said that
there were 100 camps or sites at which prisoners -- Bosnian
prisoners are being held in Bosnia -- presumably in Bosnia,
perhaps in Serbia as well -- 100 camps to which the ICRC has not
been given access.

         Are these the camps or the camp locations or the number
of camps that the State Department of the United States turned
over to the ICRC?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Saul, I don't have any figures for you on
the number of camps that are possible locations -- possible
places of detention, since they can range all the way from camps
to small places.

         Q    Is it that you can't release them or you don't
know?  They say they've got --

         MR. BOUCHER:  We have indeed provided all such
information that we've had on the possible places of detention.
We've provided that to the ICRC and we discussed this yesterday,
but I don't have a number for you.

         Q    And you won't be able to give one or --

         MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not optimistic.  I'll check and see.

         Q    Could you check to see whether the number -- why
the number -- we've got up to -- maybe as many as 70,000
prisoners, and --

         MR. BOUCHER:  I'll check and see.

         Q    -- why not release the number of camps?

         MR. BOUCHER:  I'll check and see if that's information
we can release.

         Q    One other thing:  the resolution -- the United
Nations Security Council resolution -- on humanitarian aid also
suggested -- also provided for -- all possible means necessary
to free prisoners from the camps, as I recall.  And, we had
started to pursue that possibility when we were discussing the
possibility of using air cover on humanitarian -- is there
anything new on what we, the United States, might favor to get
these prisoners out of these camps now, the ones that apparently
the U.S., the ICRC, has not had access to before these folks
freeze to death?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Saul, we'd both have to go back and check
the text of the resolution.  I don't know it that well.  I don't
remember it that precisely.  Indeed, the Red Cross, where it's
had access, where it's been able to visit, has been able to
bring in supplies for people in the camps, or it has had access
to the prisoners that it's registered.

         The information that we provide to the ICRC, of course,
is most useful, we hope, to them in gaining the kind of access
that they need to take care of people and to register them and
to seek their release.  I mean, the fact is that we have made
very clear that these people shouldn't be held in camps, they
shouldn't be detained, and they should be released.

         The parties have on several occasions, indeed, agreed,
either with each other or directly with the ICRC, to release all
the prisoners unconditionally, but, obviously, that hasn't
happened, even for all the people that have been registered by
the ICRC.

         They have agreed on several occasions to declare all
the locations and to -- but we don't think that's happened
either, since we have information that indicates there may be
many other people being held.

         Q    Aside from giving them the -- aside from turning
over to the ICRC the possible location of these sites, is the
United States doing anything else --

         MR. BOUCHER:  Yes.  We're continuing --

         Q    -- to actually try to get them access to these
camps?

         MR. BOUCHER:  We're continuing in various ways and in
our diplomatic efforts to try to support their efforts to get
into all the places.

         Q    Are you having success so far?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Well, I mean, it's really a question of
the ICRC and how much have they had access to.  And, the answer
is, obviously they haven't had access to as much as they should.

         Q    Could I follow up on Saul's question.  On December
18, the Security Council voted a Resolution 798 which called for
military escort observers or international organizations to get
access to those camps.  Is there anything done in that respect
to provide military escorts to these international
organizations?

         MR. BOUCHER:  That's something you'd have to check with
the U.N. on.

         Q    Richard, a question or two still on Iraq.  Have
there been any further contacts with the Government of Iraq
beyond the two that you mentioned a few moments ago, since then
-- either by the U.S. or by the other coalition partners or by
the United Nations?

         MR. BOUCHER:  I don't know for the other coalition
partners or the United Nations, whether they've had any further
contacts.  For the U.S., you'd have to check with the Pentagon
and see if they had any contact in the military channels.

         Q    And also, can you tell us whether the
circumstances that prompted the ultimatum yesterday afternoon in
the first place, namely, the threat the U.S. perceives in the
missiles, does that threat persist at this time?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Well, that's another way of asking me,
can I say anything about the movement of missiles.

         Q    No, I'm not asking that question.  I'm asking
whether there's still a threat to U.S. enforcement and allied
enforcement of the "no-fly" zone.

         MR. BOUCHER:  There's a threat to U.S. forces and to
allied forces as long as Iraq maintains its aggressive posture
down there.  I mean, they have repeatedly violated the "no-fly"
zone.  They've augmented their surface-to-air assets, their
missiles, in the "no-fly" zone.  Those actions or violations are
covered with -- coupled with -- other actions that suggest an
aggressive intent.

         That circumstance has made it necessary for the
coalition to take measures to ensure the safety of its aircrews,
and to discourage further Iraqi attempts to evade the "no-fly"
regime in both the north and the south.  Until Iraq changes its
attitude basically, that sort of aggressive posture and intent
will not have dissipated.

         Q    Does that expand the nature of the warning that
was given -- or that we thought, anyway -- was given to the
Iraqis yesterday?  That is, that the warning is related to a
broader array of actions the Iraqis must take to avoid U.S. or
allied military enforcement?

         MR. BOUCHER:  No, no.

         Q    No.  It doesn't expand.

         MR. BOUCHER:  You're trying to get me to go around in
circles, and I'm not going to do it.

         Q    Right.

         MR. BOUCHER:  You asked in a question about threat.

         Q    Right.

         MR. BOUCHER:  O.K.  Threat is a very general
proposition, which means there's somebody trying to get you.
And the answer is, yes, the Iraqis have been trying to get us.
In terms of the warning that was issued about strict adherence
to the terms of the "no-fly" zone and not threatening U.S.
pilots, it's the way that we've described it.

         Q    O.K.  So you're saying it's not just -- they don't
just -- the warning given to them yesterday says, "Move the
missiles and stop violating the 'no-fly' zone within 48 hours,
or we will take -- we may take military --

         MR. BOUCHER:  Sid, I'm not going to read to you the
warning that we gave them.  We've described it.  Marlin
described it, I think, in the most detail yesterday, and that's
as far as I'm going to go.

         Q    But now you're talking about they have to change
their attitude.

         MR. BOUCHER:  No.  But, Ralph, you were asking a
separate question.  You didn't ask me what was in the thing last
night.

         Q    Right.

         MR. BOUCHER:  O.K.

         Q    I wasn't asking -- I asked you about the
circumstances that --

         MR. BOUCHER:  You asked me, "How long is there going to
be a threat from Iraq?"  And the answer is --

         Q    No, that wasn't what I asked.

         MR. BOUCHER:  Well, O.K.

         Q    I asked whether the circumstances that prompted
the warning last night still exist.  And, you gave the answer
about --

         MR. BOUCHER:  And, either that's a question, "Are the
missiles still there?" in which case you can go ask the
Pentagon, or that's a question of, "Is Iraq still, you know,
aggressive towards us?" and the answer is they haven't
demonstrated otherwise.

         Q    But, you can't tell us whether the warning applies
only to the missiles, or --

         MR. BOUCHER:  Sid, I'm not going to sit here and read
the warning.  Marlin discussed it yesterday.  I've discussed it
again today, and that's as far as I'm going to go.  I'm sorry.

         Q    Yes, but if somehow we're being misled --

         MR. BOUCHER:  You're not being misled.

         Q    -- intentionally or unintentionally --

         MR. BOUCHER:  You're not being misled intentionally or
otherwise.  We've described it to you, and we've described it
accurately.  We have not left anything out, and that's as much
as we're going to say.

         Q    Richard --

         Q    Well, finish him first.  Are you still on this
topic?

         Q    I'd like to ask this for the record.  On occasion
from this podium when the United States wishes to make a point,
it uses strong language.  So, for example, we have heard
expressions of outrage about Saddam Husayn's treatment of Kurds
and the citizens of Iraq.  We have even heard, some months ago,
outrage at the appalling conditions of the people of Sarajevo
and the effects of ethnic cleansing.

         But, lately in spite of continued deaths, continued
ethnic -- reports of ethnic cleansing months after the fact --
the official statements from this podium, to which you read and
which are prepared for you, have been rather restrained, and
they have not, there has been an absence of any alarm, outrage
or expressions of anger from the United States.

         MR. BOUCHER:  Saul --

         Q    And, I wonder if this doesn't send a message to
those people who watch these briefings, who see the language
used here, because the language, as you know, is very important
from this podium.  I wonder if you could explain this rather
lack of any anger for what continually happens in the former
Yugoslavia.

         MR. BOUCHER:  Saul, I'm not sure if I should express my
outrage at you for not paying attention, or if I should express
it once again about the circumstances that people have
to face in Bosnia.  I think there's certainly no lack of
outrage.  There's no lack of discussion of the horrible
conditions that exist for people.

         We have tried to concentrate here in many cases on the
practical steps that we're trying to take to resolve this
situation, our support for the efforts that are underway, our
very practical steps of getting people heating and winter stuff
and food and all those sorts of supplies.

         We have expressed our outrage repeatedly.  I'd remind
you of the Secretary's statements in Geneva of only a few weeks
ago and his statements at NATO.  I think there's no lack of
concern, compassion and outrage on the part of the United States
at the situation that many, many people face in Bosnia.

         Q    Another question on the Middle East.  There are
reports that Israel has agreed to allow Red Cross personnel to
get through Israeli-controlled territory to the area where the
Palestinians are camped out.  Does the U.S. have anything to say
about that, or does it know about whether that's going to happen
or not?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Yes.  What we understand from the Israeli
Government is that in response to a request from the
International Committee of the Red Cross and from Secretary
Eagleburger, Israel will allow two representatives of the
International Committee of the Red Cross to travel via its
territory to visit the deportees and assess the situation.

         We welcome this move, and we also support the ongoing
efforts of the United Nations to find a solution.  The United
Nations Special Envoy, Chinmaya Gharekhan, will travel to the
region, we understand, to discuss the situation.

         Q    Do you have anything today on the general
situation in southern Africa?  Either I'll take South Africa,
Angola or Kenya.

         MR. BOUCHER:  Is there something specific you're
interested in?

         Q    First of all, do you have anything on general
violence on the situation in South Africa?

         MR. BOUCHER:  No, nothing.

         Q    On Kenya, has the U.S. accepted -- I know he's
been sworn into office -- has the U.S. accepted the results of
the election?

         MR. BOUCHER:  We were looking to the International
Republican Institute for their -- to see their final report.
Joe (Snyder) described our basic reaction the other day, about a
week ago.  I'll check and see if we have that -- if we've seen
their final report and see what their conclusions were.

         Q    You put out that statement of aid to Kenya, but
does that aid continue?  I wasn't clear from that statement.

         MR. BOUCHER:  I think the statement made it clear, and
I don't remember exactly how it said it, so I'll leave you with
the statement.

         Q    And Angola: the violence, the slaughters,
massacres, so forth, in Angola?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Yes.  There's been a considerable amount
of fighting going on.  The fighting has intensified over the
past few days.  On January 4, UNITA forces retook the city of
Uige, taking a number of government officials hostage.

         Government forces then attacked UNITA targets in the
cities of Benguela and Namibe.  There were reports yesterday of
heavy fighting around the Port of Lobito and an increase in
military activity around the provincial capitals of Luena and
Ndalatando.

         The government and UNITA have embarked on a course of
violence which threatens to polarize the country and cause a
cycle of retaliation and counterattack.  Despite the persistent
efforts by the United Nations, by the United States and by
others, to bring to a halt the military activity and to
facilitate face-to-face talks, the parties have renewed their
fighting.

         Both the government and UNITA are responsible for
deciding whether to seek a peaceful solution or to condemn the
Angolan people to another cycle of war, deprivation and
destruction.  The government and UNITA, in our view, are
pursuing a war which neither can win.

         Q    Is there any hope at all for those run-off
elections, or has the U.S. written that off totally?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Well, we'd certainly like to get back to
the process of peaceful resolution of the conflict.  We've been
in touch with others.  We've been in touch with the United
Nations about how best we can help get the parties to do that.

         Q    Any contact with Savimbi or the government?

         MR. BOUCHER:  I'll have to check on that and see.

         Q    There's a report on a phone call from Savimbi to
the State Department.

         MR. BOUCHER:  I'll have to check on that.

         Q    Richard, this question that I had asked earlier,
you said that you will make a comment a little later.  You have
to find out.  Where can I -- when can I find out?

         MR. BOUCHER:  I'll see if we have anything, and then
we'll give it to -- the Press Office down here will have it or
the Duty Officer would have it later this evening.

         Q    Thank you.

         (The briefing concluded at 12:52 p.m.)

To the top of this page