US DEPARTMENT OF STATE 
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING #9: 
Source: State Department Deputy Spokesman Joseph Snyder


                         DEPARTMENT OF STATE
                         DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

                                                      DPC #9

                TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1993, 12:41 P. M.
                (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)



         MR. SNYDER:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  I've got
several announcements, and then I'll be very glad to take whatever
questions you might have.

         First of all, tomorrow is a federal holiday in Washington, and
there will be no briefing.

         Secondly, today at 2:00 p.m., Patricia Diaz Dennis, Assistant
Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, will
hold an ON-THE-RECORD briefing right here in the State Department
Press Briefing Room on the Department's Report to Congress on
Human Rights Practices for 1992.

         Two reference copies of the full report are available for press
review in the Press Office, Room 2109.  In addition, a reading copy
has been placed in the Correspondents Room at the State Department.
The information in these reports is embargoed until the conclusion
of Ms. Dennis' briefing.

         A limited number of full texts of the report are available on a
first-come, first-served basis, on 3-1/2" MS-DOS formatted, ASCII
text format computer diskettes.  A "loaner" diskette set is also
available for copying.

         The Government Printing Office will publish and offer for sale
at its bookstores bound copies of the full report within about two
weeks from the date of release.

         Second announcement:  It's a busy day for printing.  The
Department of State is today releasing the Management Task Force
report "State 2000 -- A New Model for Managing Foreign Affairs."
Copies of the report are available in the Press Office.

         This report is an extensive review of the organization and
management of the Department of State in light of future
responsibilities in a radically different world environment.  It was
prepared by a task force composed of members of the Department of
State, both Civil and Foreign Service.  The report has been in
preparation since January of last year as a result of a directive from
Secretary of State Baker to Under Secretary for Management John
Rogers.

         The report has been circulated in the Department and
provided to the Transition Team.

         And, with that, I'll be happy to take whatever
questions you might have.

         Q    Do you anticipate any changes, personnel or
otherwise, in the Press Office make-up or the Bureau of Public
Affairs composition?

         MR. SNYDER:  I expect there will be some changes.  Not
in the Press Office, but in the Bureau certainly.

         Q    Well, who will brief on Thursday?

         MR. SNYDER:  I expect Richard (Boucher) will brief on
Thursday, but we'll have to look at it to be absolutely sure.

         Q    Has he been asked to remain?

         MR. SNYDER:  He has been asked to remain for some time
-- sort of an indefinite amount of time.

         Q    And he has agreed to do that?

         MR. SNYDER:  And he's agreed to do that.

         Q    What is the current size of the transition unit as
of today?  It was eight the last time you spoke about it, I
think.

         MR. SNYDER:  Considerably larger, but I don't have the
numbers.

         Q    Are any of the prospective Assistant Secretaries
of State and deputies and Under Secretaries presently working in
the building, getting geared up to take over their positions?

         MR. SNYDER:  Has the transition announced the new
personnel?  I don't think they have.  I saw in the press that
they were going to do it today.  I didn't know that they have.

         Q    That wasn't the question.  The question was
whether any of them are here -- working.

         MR. SNYDER:  Well, since they haven't made the
announcements, I'm not really going to talk about who they are.
There are a number of people working here, and traditionally
people in the transition team, some of them, tend to stay
around.  But they haven't made any announcements beyond the top
two positions.

         Q    Joe, is there any disappointment in the State
Department at the lack of support coming from the Arab world to
the incidents in Iraq?

         MR. SNYDER:  Let's be clear.  There's no disagreement
between the United States and our coalition partners, including
the Russians and those in the Arab world, on the fundamental
objective of assuring Iraq's full compliance on all U.N.
Security Council resolutions.

         We share the frustrations expressed from various
quarters over the Iraqi regime's continued belligerence and
aggression.  We would all prefer the Saddam regime comply
voluntarily.  Indeed, we've been striving for months to bring
that about by diplomatic means.

         Our forceful action against the Iraqi military and
weapons of mass destruction targets over the past week followed
weeks of increasingly provocative behavior by the Iraqi regime
and repeated warnings by the Security Council and coalition
members.

         Starting in mid-November, the Iraqis had used terrorist
bombings and bureaucratic interference to sabotage U.N.
humanitarian relief convoys to aid the civilian population of
north Iraq who suffer greatly under an economic boycott imposed
by Baghdad itself.

         With increasing frequency in December, Iraq repeatedly
put at risk coalition aircraft monitoring Iraqi compliance of
U.N. Security Council Resolution 688 and its demand that Baghdad
cease repression of the Iraqi people.

         In January, Baghdad placed unacceptable conditions on
the U.N. Special Commission, UNSCOM, which is charged with
overseeing the destruction of Iraq's ambitious program of
weapons of mass destruction.

         The Iraqis also violated agreements with the U.N.
Iraq-Kuwait Border Commission by failing to abandon police posts
determined to be in Kuwait by the January 15 deadline,
threatening to raze UNIKOM operating facilities and violating
procedures for retrieval of property.

         Baghdad's actions blatantly violate the full range of
U.N. Security Council resolutions passed during and after the
Gulf War to ensure that Iraq would never again be a threat to
its neighbors, to world peace, and to its own people.

         On January 8 and again on January 11, the U.N. Security
Council declared Iraq's interference with the actions of UNSCOM
and UNIKOM to be Òunacceptable and material violationsÓ of Security
Council Resolution 687.  It warned of Òserious consequencesÓ which
would flow from IraqÕs failure to meet its obligations.

         Moreover, Saddam Hussein ignored repeated clear-cut warnings
by the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Russia that
provocative actives would not be tolerated.

         Against this backdrop, the coalition's limited military
actions of the past week were appropriate responses.

         These actions were taken in consultation with other
coalition members in and outside the region, including the
Russians, the Turks and Arab states.

         Our objectives were straightforward:

         First, to demonstrate to the Iraqi regime that it
cannot with impunity place conditions on the workings of U.N.
agencies seeking to carry out the mandates of the Security
Council; and

         Two, to protect coalition aircrews carrying out
operations to monitor implementation of Security Council
Resolution 688.

         Like others, we deeply regret that defiance of the will
of the international community has put Iraq's people in harm's
way.

         Q    Well, Joe, what you just said then makes my
original question more pointed.  In light of all this
consultation and in light of the broad agreement on the
principles and the aim, is there disappointment in the State
Department at the lack of public support coming from the Arab
world and other members of the coalition?

         MR. SNYDER:  I would repeat only that there's no
disagreement on the fundamental objective of assuring Iraq's
full compliance with all U.N. Security Council resolutions.

         Q    Would the United States prefer to see some -- a
greater chorus of public endorsement by the coalition partners,
or is the United States satisfied at the increasing perception,
at least in the public arena, that the actions taken against
Iraq are taken by a very limited coalition rather than the broad
one which was -- which had publicly endorsed the actions two
years ago?

         MR. SNYDER:  I would only say again that the coalition
is in general agreement on the fundamental objective.  That's
what's important.  All of us agree that Iraq should be in full
compliance with the resolutions.

         Q    Joe, do you agree with the Russian contention that
there has to be another meeting and another action by the U.N.
Security Council before further attacks, if necessary, against
Iraq?

         MR. SNYDER:  No, we don't -- and I'm not sure that the
Russians said that this is absolutely true.  According to what I
have, they didn't ask for prior Security Council approval before
further military action.  Let me go into that a little bit.

         On January 8 and 11, as I mentioned, the Security
Council found Iraq in material breach of relevant portions of
Resolution 687, which established the cease-fire and provided
the conditions essential for peace and security in the region.

         This finding in effect authorized the coalition to take
appropriate action, including the use of force in accordance
with Resolution 678 to bring Iraq into compliance with U.N.
demands.

         Firing by Iraqi gunners at coalition aircraft also
threatens coalitions forces monitoring Iraqi compliance with
Security Council Resolution 688, requiring Baghdad to cease
repression of its civilian population.

         Further coalition action will depend on the Iraqi
regime's behavior.  If Baghdad continues to disobey the
requirements of U.N. resolutions, we will act.

         Q    Well, Joe, you didn't -- I know that doesn't deal,
really, in any depth with the Russian argument.  I agree with
you that the wording of the Russian note is a little bit
unclear, but they do say there's a need for consensus.  And
while they don't quarrel with the fundamental aim, they seem to
disagree with the strategy of bombing Iraq -- sometimes twice a
day.  I think a fair reading of their note is that there has to
be some expression of consensus on these tactics.  Does the U.S.
agree with that Russian admonition?

         MR. SNYDER:  Well, we have consulted closely with the
Russians and we will continue to have close consultations with
the Russians and other key allies, including more discussions in
the United Nations, on the problems of Iraqi intransigence and
what actions we can take to ensure compliance.  But I think
we're very clear on a legal basis.  We think that there's
sufficient authority for what we've done and for what we might
have to do in the future without --

         Q    Will there be --

         MR. SNYDER: -- further compliance.

         Q    -- another Council meeting?

         MR. SNYDER:  I understand that there is going to be an
informal session of the Council this afternoon to discuss a
number of issues.  I also understand that UNSCOM Chairman Rolf
Ekeus is scheduled to brief the Council at that time on UNSCOM
activities.

         Q    While you are discussing the legal basis for the
action let me try to split a couple of hairs.  In terms of the
strikes in the "no-fly" zones, are those being taken under the
authority of 687 or 688?  There's a difference in the content of
those two resolutions.

         MR. SNYDER:  They're taken under the authority of 678,
which was the original cease-fire resolution.  The 688 compels
Iraq to cease repression of its civilian population.  That is
the basis for the establishment of the "no-fly" zone.

         But since you put the question exactly that way, and
I'm not a lawyer and we've got a lot of lawyers in the building,
let me see if I can get you a more hair-splitting answer to a
hair-splitting question.

         Q    It's hair-splitting, but as I understand it 688
did not have enforcement provisions enacted by the Council, and
therefore the question is:  On what basis are you able to take
enforcement actions --

         MR. SNYDER:  The bases --

         Q    -- of the "no-fly" zones?

         MR. SNYDER: -- are the Security Council statements of
January 8th and 11th, which found Iraq to be in material breach
of relevant portions of 687.  And this finding, in effect -- 687
-- authorized the coalition to take appropriate action,
including the use of force, in accordance with 678.

         Well, again, let me have the lawyers try to come up
with more exact wording that answers your question.

         Q    Has it not been the U.S. contention --

         Q    Will you post it?

         MR. SNYDER:  We will post it, yes.

         Q    -- just a second -- that 678, which calls for a
cease-fire provided Iraq accepts the terms proposed by the
United Nations in the resolution, is sufficient basis for action
any time that they are not in compliance.  Hasn't that been our
position?

         MR. SNYDER:  That has been our position, and that's in
effect what it is, but let me get something which puts the three
resolutions together in some language that the lawyers have had
a chance to look at.  I don't really want to wing it on a legal
question like that.

         Q    Can you talk a little about -- I know you've
talked in general terms about the transition and how you've
consulted but not asked for the Clinton Administration's vote.
Specifically on this week's strikes in Iraq, can you describe
the consultation?

         MR. SNYDER:  Marlin Fitzwater, over the course of
several meetings with the press, I think has described that.  I
really would rather leave that with the White House.

         Q    I also had another question on transition before
we got into Iraq.

         MR. SNYDER:  Yes.

         Q    How many Schedule C employees at the State
Department are walking out of here at the close of business
tonight -- or, to put it another way, how many are staying?

         MR. SNYDER:  Let me see if I can get that for you.  I
don't have that.

         Q    Can you also tell us what's the procedure for the
swearing-in of the Secretary -- the new Secretary of State?  Who
will be Secretary of State between the time Eagleburger leaves
-- whenever that is -- and the time a new Secretary of State
arrives?

         MR. SNYDER:  Let me find out.  I don't know.

         Q    You don't know the answer to that question?

         MR. SNYDER:  No.

         Q    I mean it's so (inaudible).

         MR. SNYDER:  I don't know exactly --

         Q    You mean the State Department --

         MR. SNYDER:  The Secretary has talked about his
resignation being effective at the end of the day today.  I mean
he's made public statements to that effect.  The transition
doesn't take place until noon tomorrow.

         Q    Right.

         MR. SNYDER:  Let me look into it.  And I also don't
know about the swearing-in of the new Secretary.

         Q    Yes.

         MR. SNYDER:  So let me see if I can get a tick-tock of
exactly --

         Q    How the transition takes place at the State
Department.

         MR. SNYDER:  -- how it's going to work, sort of
mechanically; yes.  O.K.  We'll try to get something up
reasonably early.  It shouldn't be any problem.

         Q    Isn't there some event this afternoon for Mr.
Eagleburger's departure?

         MR. SNYDER:  There is.  There's been a State Department
announcement -- an internal one.  It's been on B-Net and passed
around.  At 5:00 o'clock, there's kind of a farewell.

         Q    Speaking of United Nations things, what is the
status of the U.S. efforts to seek prompt enforcement of the
"no-fly" resolution in Bosnia?

         MR. SNYDER:  This is not going to probably come as a
great surprise to you, but discussions continue in New York on a
resolution text.

         I would add that we don't think that progress on the
resolution is dependent on the Geneva talks or the vote by the
Bosnian Serbs, which is scheduled for today on the Vance-Owen
plan.

         Q    From time to time you've said that on the various
U.N. resolutions that you talk with your friends and allies, you
talk with the Perm-5, the Perm-4, the Perm-3.  With whom are you
engaged in discussions now?  Are you engaged in discussions with
Russia on that subject?  Are you engaged in discussions with
China on that subject?

         MR. SNYDER:  We are engaged in discussions with members
of the Security Council.  I don't know who we're talking to on
what particular days.  Obviously, there's been a lot of
intensive discussion with the British and the French, as
countries with forces on the ground, as we've explained many
times in the past.

         Q    Can you help us gauge how far along the State
Department is toward its announced goal of prompt enforcement,
if we knew that the U.S. had begun discussions outside the
Perm-3 -- and perhaps even outside the Perm-4?  Could you look
into that and see whether --

         MR. SNYDER:  I'll see if there's anything we've got to
say.  You know, we don't often go into the details of the
tactics that we're using and where we are on particular
resolutions.  But I can answer a question that was asked last
week.  I think I can say with some conviction that we will not
have the resolution in this Administration -- if that's of any
help to you.

         Q    I realize that diplomacy lives by imprecise
language; but in the perhaps forlorn hope that we might bring
some precision to the language could you define precisely what
constitutes the coalition?

         MR. SNYDER:  I'm not going to give you a list of the
countries who are involved.  The coalition was a matter of
record during the war.  So, yes, your hope is forlorn; and I'm
not going to give you a list of which countries were involved.

         Q    But are you saying that the coalition that was a
matter of record during the war is the same as the current
coalition?  The coalition is the same as the one that existed,
as a matter of record during the war?

         MR. SNYDER:  I'm not sure whether precisely all of the
countries would be defined as being in the coalition; but
certainly, in general, the same group of countries are involved
in one way or another, supporting what weÕve done.

         Q    Like Syria?

         MR SNYDER:   Again, IÕm not going to get into individual
countries.

         Q    Is three enough for a coalition?  And especially if only 
one
of the three is simply flying cover -- meaning actually two?

         MR. SNYDER:  Other countries have been involved, as
we've said -- actively involved.

         Q    Have you had any discussion, any exchanges with
Iran on the subject of the attacks on Iraq?

         MR. SNYDER:  Not that I'm aware of.  Let me check just
to make sure.

         Q    Is Ambassador Perkins staying on for the time
being in New York?

         MR. SNYDER:  I don't know.  His successor has
been named --

         Q    I know.

         MR. SNYDER: -- but I don't know.  I just don't know the
answer.

         Q    All right.  We're out of here.  Thank you.

         MR. SNYDER:  Thank you.

         (The briefing concluded at 12:59 p.m.)

To the top of this page