Note: This Electronic Research Collection is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the
U.S DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING #10:
Source: State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #10
THURSDAY, JANUARY 21, 1993, 12:38 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. First, off
the top let me tell you a few things that you may already know, but
I'll run through them.
Secretary Christopher was confirmed yesterday by the Senate.
He was sworn in at Blair House at 5:24 p.m. It was a small, private
swearing-in, in order to have the ship of state in good hands, so
that there was someone in office as soon as possible. They arranged
a small, private swearing-in for him at 5:24 yesterday afternoon,
and he was sworn in.
He began his work this morning. I think some of you have been
up there representing your colleagues to see him in his office.
On appointments of other officials, I think you've probably all
seen the appointments that were made out of the Transition Office
on Tuesday -- the list of people and biographies that was put out
there. But if anybody needs a copy of that, you can get that from our
Press Office. We have copies for you there.
In addition, there are two more names that I can tell you about
today. Dennis Ross has agreed to stay on for a period of six months,
at the request of the Secretary, to advise him on various matters.
And, second Bob Gallucci, the Assistant Secretary for Political
and Military Affairs, has also agreed to stay on and serve the new
Administration in that capacity.
Q For the same period -- six months also?
MR. BOUCHER: No. Gallucci is an indefinite tour -- until end of
tour, until he gets replaced, whatever.
So that's all I have to tell you off the top, and I'd be glad to
take your questions.
Q Richard, there have been some interesting
developments on the Yugoslav situation, such as Serbian
acceptance of a truce. Does the State Department see new hope
for a settlement? What is the appraisal of what's going on?
MR. BOUCHER: The situation, as we understand it, is
that the self-styled Bosnian Serb parliament met in Pale on
January 20. They voted to accept the list of constitutional
principles that was given to the parties at the negotiations in
Geneva on January 4.
At the same time, the Bosnian Serb parliament issued a
statement, saying that it reserved the right of the Bosnian
Serbs to self-determination.
The constitutional principles are one part of a
three-part package that was presented by co-chairmen Cyrus Vance
and Lord Owen. The three parts are the list of constitutional
principles; the map of provincial administrative districts; and
a military agreement.
The entire package, as we understand it, has not been
accepted by all the parties, but negotiations on the package
will resume on Saturday, January 23, in Geneva.
Q How about the partial action that the Serbs took?
Is that something the State Department's pleased with?
MR. BOUCHER: That's something that allows them to
continue negotiations and, of course, we have supported the
effort that the United Nations and the European Community,
through their negotiators, Cyrus Vance and Lord Owen, have been
making to achieve a negotiated settlement.
Q Does that have any impact on our -- on the
enforcement resolution for the "no-fly" zone?
MR. BOUCHER: The situation with the "no-fly"
enforcement resolution is that we're continuing our
consultations with other governments on that; that we are
talking with key allies up in New York, and we are working
towards agreement on a text -- trying to get agreement on a text
as soon as possible.
Q Has there been bombing by the Serb -- Bosnian
Serbs?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have an update at this point.
And I think it's been some time since the Secretary General
submitted a report to the U.N. But that, of course, is the
first place to check.
I don't believe in any of his recent reports, he has
reported military attacks -- in any of his reports, in fact,
going back to the beginning, that he has reported any military
attacks by the aircraft. But there have been additional reports
of flights that were not authorized by the United Nations.
Q Richard, if this agreement goes against the
principles that you've laid down -- that the United States has
laid down for some sort of a settlement there, what is the role
of the United States at that point if this agreement doesn't
meet those requirements?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, Saul, I think that's a
hypothetical. We have supported the work that Lord Owen and
Secretary Vance have been undertaking on behalf of the U.N. and
the EC. They are working on the basis of the agreements in
London, the agreements -- the CSCE principles, the principles in
the United Nations resolution.
That is their mandate. Those are the principles that
they're basing their work on. I don't think it would be
appropriate for us to try to second-guess or prejudge what the
outcome of their talks would be; and, when they reach some
conclusion, if it's a peaceful settlement, certainly we'd look
at that when they reach it.
Q Well, wouldn't it be too late by then? If, for
example, it does not reverse the Serbian aggression as laid down
by the United States, wouldn't it be too late by that time to do
anything about it?
MR. BOUCHER: Once again, Saul, we and other
governments have participated in the discussions that led to the
mandates that they have. We and other governments have
indicated what the international community thought should be
done in this crisis. It's up to Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance to
try to negotiate this and try to get something that all the
parties can agree on.
So it just wouldn't be appropriate for me at this point
to start second-guessing or prejudging the outcome of
their efforts.
Q Richard, then could you please clarify something
that Mr. Christopher said during his confirmation hearings, if
indeed the United States supports the negotiating process?
He was asked by Senator Biden whether it was odd that
the United Nations/EC negotiators were sitting down with
Milosevic while the United States had branded him a war
criminal, and whether the map that was drawn up by the two of
them indeed was a ratification of ethnic cleansing.
I believe his response was that, "I share some of those
concerns." Could you explain what are Mr. Christopher's
concerns and whether or not his statement isn't contradictory
with supporting this peace process?
MR. BOUCHER: No, it's not. I believe he expressed
personal doubts or personal concerns about some aspects of this.
I don't think I'm prepared to get into the entire gamut of his
thinking. He discussed this quite a bit during his testimony.
He was asked about it.
In discussions I've had with him, he expressed doubts
about whether it can realistically be achieved, whether they
can, in fact, find an agreement, find a solution that's
peaceful, that the parties will, in fact, agree to. I would say
that's the nexus of doubts that I've heard him express.
Q So while you support the work, there are concerns
about whether this process can succeed. If there are concerns
about whether it can succeed, what are these concerns?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, the concerns are the obvious ones
-- that it's a very difficult situation. There have been
agreements by the parties in the past to do certain things which
they haven't done. Clearly, it's a difficult process of
bringing these parties together, since the carnage, the
fighting, has been so horrible; the deprivations that have been
visited on people there have been so horrible. So, obviously,
it's a very difficult task to bring them to a political
settlement that will stick, and that will actually solve this
situation with the agreement of different parties.
Q But there's at least one new element, and that is
the new Administration has a President who has ruled out only
the use of ground forces and has spoken of applying military
pressure, even arms to the Muslims, of bombing perhaps; a more
vigorous approach to defend these beleaguered people who are the
targets of this ethnic cleansing.
Has this been communicated to these negotiators, and
does the Administration stand by that threat?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, Barry, I think you're basing your
assessment on the public statements that they've made; and,
indeed, Secretary Christopher in his confirmation hearings
discussed many of these specific issues. And, as you say, the
statements that they have made, that President Clinton and
Secretary Christopher have made, make it clear that they are
indeed deeply concerned about the war and about the possibility
of broader Balkan conflict, particularly if the fighting were to
spread in Kosovo or Macedonia.
They understand, and they've made this clear, that
there are many difficult decisions that they're going to have to
make in this regard, and they'll be looking at those things on
an urgent basis.
Q But I guess the question that I wondered about
earlier was, you know, how are we doing this? That is to say,
are we having any input in what Vance, who's an old friend of
Christopher, is doing there? Are we watching the process and
suggesting any -- our concerns about reversing the Serbian
aggression, for example, or ratifying ethnic cleansing?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, as I answered before, Saul, we have
been participating in a whole series of meetings -- the United
States Government has -- where we have joined with the
international community in expressing the kinds of principles,
the kind of situation, that we felt had to lead to a political
settlement that was to be in any way fair.
We have had someone out there in Geneva. Vic Jackovich
has been out there and keeping in close touch with the
negotiators out there, providing our views and getting feedback
back to us. There has been high-level discussions with Vance on
a fairly frequent basis, and I'm sure that will probably continue.
Q So have we expressed to Vance our -- these concerns that
we've had or that Secretary Christopher says he's had?
MR. BOUCHER: Once again, Saul, there have been a
variety of things expressed publicly by Secretary Christopher
and President Clinton about the situation in Bosnia --
Q And we can assume --
MR. BOUCHER: And I'm not aware of any specific contact
that he's had at this point with Vance since his swearing-in
yesterday afternoon at 5:24 p.m. But we have people on the
scenes. We've had a steady back-and-forth with them, and we
have indeed supported the efforts that have been made by the
international community to try to guide a political settlement.
Q Is there any specific process of review of this
policy that has -- that has been undertaken that you know of?
MR. BOUCHER: The basic outlines, I think, of what
we're trying to accomplish have been expressed by Secretary
Christopher, as they were expressed by the previous
Administration. You know there are a variety of things we're
doing in trying to feed people, in trying to prevent the
spillover of the conflict, in trying to bring the proper
pressure on the Serbs so that they would indeed stop the
fighting and stop the aggressive behavior and bring about a
peaceful solution; and that we've been supporting the efforts of
the negotiators to try to reach a political solution.
So the basic goals, I think, are clear, and they will
be looking at ways to further this in their meetings and
discussions, at ways to further these goals, at ways to bring us
closer to a peaceful solution, and bring whatever pressures are
necessary to achieve that. All I can tell you at this point is
that they will be looking at it; they will be discussing this.
They're aware of the difficult decisions that lie ahead, and
they'll be looking at it urgently.
Q Well, let me put the question in a more general
sense. This is one of those rare moments when a spokesman is
allowed to say that the policy has changed utterly or has
changed partially, and there's not only no penalty attached to a
change in policy, there may be some benefit or credit accrued.
Have you said anything here today that you couldn't
have said a week ago during the Bush Administration?
MR. BOUCHER: I've said where the situation stands
today, and obviously last week I couldn't have told you where
the situation stands today. (Laughter)
But I will take your little chit of no penalty attached
to a changing policy and save it for a time when I might need
it. But not today.
Q Richard, I want to try this one more time. Is the
view of the current Administration, the new Administration, that
the peace plan on the table in Geneva, the three-part plan that
you've described earlier -- is it the view of the Clinton
Administration that that plan codifies ethnic cleansing?
MR. BOUCHER: Johanna, I'd just have to go back to say
that we've supported the efforts of Vance and Owen to try to
work out a peaceful solution that accords with the international
principles; with the principles that have been made. And it's
not for us -- it's just not appropriate for us to stand here and
try to second-guess that process from this distance.
Q Well, that's what the last Administration said.
MR. BOUCHER: I think this is pretty much what the last
Administration said.
Q Richard, could I ask you, one of the names notably
absent on the list of appointees passed out on Monday was an
Assistant Secretary for International Organizations. Given the
fact that the U.S. is placing so much emphasis on the United
Nations, why is that?
MR. BOUCHER: John, I didn't get any specific timetable
for announcement of the other positions, but there were a number
of other positions that weren't announced at that point, and I'm
sure as soon as they are ready, we will announce them to you the
way I've announced two of them to you today.
Q Richard, another policy that never changes is, you
know, U.S. policy on the Middle East. But Israel's policy has
changed. The legislature's overturned its prohibition on
talking to the PLO, which evidently isn't a terrorist
organization anymore.
Will the U.S. approach to the peace talks change in any
way? In other words, are different Palestinians now welcome at
the table? Will the U.S. resume its talks with the PLO?
MR. BOUCHER: A number of questions in there, Barry. I think,
first of all, I'd refer you to the comments that the Secretary made
this morning when he was asked by your colleagues about this step.
Q I heard them. They're very marginal. I thought
we'd get some more from you.
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I thought they were clear and
insightful, but that may be --
(Laughter)
Q Well, there were about three --
MR. BOUCHER: -- a different understanding.
Q They were very clear -- all three words of them --
but I wondered if you could elaborate on them.
MR. BOUCHER: Certainly we view this as a potentially
positive development for the peace talks.
Q He said that.
MR. BOUCHER: That's what he said. As far as the U.S.
dialogue with the PLO and the effect on that, I think I'd say
that this is an Israeli decision. It's an Israeli internal
matter that they've decided on, how they want to handle this
situation as far as decriminalizing Israeli contacts with the PLO.
There's been no change in our policy regarding the
suspension of the U.S. dialogue with the PLO.
Q How about your view of the PLO? Is it still a
terrorist organization?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, there's been no change in our
policy as regards the PLO, Barry.
Q Richard, does the United States still require that
the PLO meet certain conditions, harkening back to that beach
raid in l990 before it will reopen ties to them?
MR. BOUCHER: I think it was -- what? -- June 20th or
June 22nd, l990, when they broke off the dialogue, and at that
time certain conditions were expressed.
I haven't sort of reviewed the present situation to see
exactly which apply, but basically there has been no change in
our policy regarding the dialogue --
Q But is there --
MR. BOUCHER: -- and that's where we are today.
Q Is there some reconsideration being given to
reopening the dialogue?
MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't put it that way, no.
Q Where is this Administration at on scheduling the
next round of the peace talks?
MR. BOUCHER: It's something that we will be discussing
with the parties.
Q You mean newly -- in a new sort of way? Hard
question to put. In other words, you sort have been waiting on
them? Is there a new attempt to get a date fixed, or would you
say it's just about the way things were last week?
MR. BOUCHER: It's something that we will have to
discuss with the parties, and we will be discussing it with the
parties at the appropriate time. I can't move it any further
than that at this point.
Q Wouldn't you have said that if we asked you that last
week?
MR. BOUCHER: I think I did when you asked me that last week.
Q Yes. (Laughter) That was you, wasn't it?
MR. BOUCHER: It was somebody. (Laughter)
Q Richard, there's a report out of Cairo that the
Palestinians have informed the rest of the other parties -- I
presume also the United States -- that they will not resume the
bilateral talks until the Palestinian deportee question is
settled to their satisfaction, but that they might consider
going ahead with the multilateral talks. Have you been
receiving such messages?
MR. BOUCHER: I haven't seen that precise statement,
Jim, and I haven't checked if we've heard that internally.
Certainly, we've seen various statements by Palestinian
negotiators and others involved with the talks about this. We
are -- certainly we continue to believe in the importance of
the talks and the importance of the talks to all the parties,
and we would certainly continue to urge those involved in the
talks to take them up and continue with their discussions.
The situation with the deportees is still -- the U.N.
is still working on that. We understand that the U.N. Special
Envoy, Mr. Gharekhan, is meeting this evening for a second time
with Prime Minister Rabin on the deportation issue.
We understand the Israeli Supreme Court will take up
the matter of the legality of the deportations again on Monday.
We continue to fully support the U.N.'s ongoing efforts
to resolve this problem, and we're looking forward to a readout
of the results of Mr. Gharekhan's meetings with Israeli leaders.
And we continue to urge the parties to resolve this
quickly on a humanitarian basis; and, as you know, our position
is that the parties really should focus their attention on the
essential issues of peace that are being discussed in the
bilaterals and not allow themselves to be diverted into other
issues.
Q And how are you responding to --
Q Could I just ask clarification of which parties
you have in mind?
MR. BOUCHER: Anybody that can help resolve it.
Q Well, you don't mean Australia. Do you mean
Lebanon should be part of this process?
MR. BOUCHER: Barry, we've talked to the Lebanese,
we've talked to the Israelis, we've talked to other governments
about this situation there; and we do think it's something that
needs to be resolved.
Q How are you responding to those Arab parties which
have been saying publicly, at least, that the United States uses
a blatant double standard in regard to enforcement of Security
Council resolutions -- one standard for a country like Iraq,
another for a country like Israel?
MR. BOUCHER: Jim, I don't think I have the fully
fleshed-out response here for you. But, you know, basically our
attitude is that we have supported U.N. resolutions that say a
variety of different things; and those resolutions get carried
out in different ways.
With Iraq, we've had a series of U.N. resolutions that
established the cease-fire. And the past Administration and
this new Administration have made very clear their full
determination to see those complied with.
The U.N. resolution on the deportation issue asked the
Secretary General to get involved in this way, and we have fully
supported his efforts -- his envoy's efforts -- to try to work
towards a resolution of this problem.
Q Richard, on the topic of Iraq, have we spoken with
any of their representatives in the last -- this morning --
since the incident in northern Iraq?
MR. BOUCHER: Not that I'm aware of, Sid, but let me
double-check that and see.
Q And how do we interpret that, in light of recent
events?
MR. BOUCHER: I think we interpret it the way the
Secretary explained it to you this morning and the way the
Pentagon, if they choose to do so, will explain the incident.
This Administration -- President Clinton, Secretary
Christopher, have made very clear their full determination to
see that Iraq complies with U.N. resolutions and that U.S.
pilots, when they are challenged, when they are threatened --
particularly with radar lock-ons -- will respond as necessary.
We have made very clear to Iraq over time, both in the
U.N. resolutions and in other discussions that we've had, what
is required for them to comply with the terms of the U.N.
resolutions and with the terms of the "no-fly" zone. So it's a
simple matter for them to do that.
Q Has the Clinton Administration launched a review
of U.S. policy towards Iraq and whether or not there is some way
to enforce the U.N. resolutions without it coming to having to
do it militarily every time something like this happens?
MR. BOUCHER: I would go back to, again, what the
Secretary said this morning -- that the Clinton Administration
has made very clear their determination to see Iraq comply, has
made very clear that if U.S. forces are challenged that they
have the right to respond; and it has made very clear that they
stand shoulder-to-shoulder and foursquare with the policy of the
Bush Administration.
Q The Secretary referred to both U.N. resolutions
and the "no-fly" zone. I just -- you know, in a sense, I
apologize for these questions, but we have a new Administration,
so it's nice to get things cleared up.
What is this Administration's view of the resolutions?
That they're "derivative," as Fitzwater calls them? -- which is
a little bit squirmy. In other words, you imposed the "no-fly"
zone.
MR. BOUCHER: Yes.
Q -- you, Britain, and France. And, of course, the
Iraqis says, or at least Aziz says, they don't intend to defy
the U.N., but they consider the "no-fly" zone something that
doesn't derive from the U.N. resolutions.
Is there any different view here about the "no-fly" --
you put them on the same level with the resolutions themselves?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I would say that there's clearly a
different view between us and the Iraqis, if that's what they
contend. But this matter has been discussed many, many times,
both with regard to the "no-fly" zone in the north and with
regard to the "no-fly" zone in the south.
It is very clear that the U.N. cease-fire that exists
and the other U.N. resolutions that prohibit Iraq from
repressing its people, make it appropriate to impose the
"no-fly" zones to prevent Iraq from carrying out the kinds of
air attacks that they were carrying out prior to the imposition
of those zones and that those zones are there for a humanitarian
purpose that is completely consistent with the U.N. Security
Council resolutions on that subject.
Q Richard, do you have a reaction to the French
statement yesterday that the Tomahawk missile attack on Sunday
went beyond the scope of the U.N. resolution?
MR. BOUCHER: I would just say that on January l7th the
White House announced that the attack on the nuclear-fabrication
plant by Tomahawk cruise missiles -- or announced the attack --
said that President Bush had consulted with Prime Minister
Major, with President Mitterrand, and with Prime Minister
Demirel before the attack.
I would say that we acted fully in concert with our
allies, and I would note also as well that the President-elect
was consulted and that he expressed his full support.
Q So you're saying that the -- what? -- that the
French have suddenly had second thoughts? If you say that we
acted fully in concert with the allies, that seems to indicate
that on Sunday they approved it and on Wednesday they didn't
approve it.
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I don't want to try to get into
analysis of this, John. I just tell you what the facts are, as
we said them at the time.
Q Well, one second.
Q The fact is and what you're saying is that on
Sunday we acted in concert with them --
MR. BOUCHER: And that President Bush --
Q -- and on Wednesday --
MR. BOUCHER: -- consulted with a number of leaders,
including Prime Minister Major --
Q Including President Mitterand.
MR. BOUCHER: Yes.
Q -- and on Wednesday their Foreign Minister comes
out and says, "Wait a minute. This went beyond the scope of
what we'd all agreed to."
Which is the case? Did we have their approval or
didn't we?
MR. BOUCHER: We acted fully in concert with our
allies.
Q Well, you did militarily; but we're asking, I
guess, if they approved of it?
I mean they were there; they were part of the military
operation, I believe, on Sunday. They were only cover, I think,
later in the week -- flying cover -- but did Mitterrand approve
--
MR. BOUCHER: No. We're talking about the attack by
cruise missiles on the nuclear fabrication --
Q That's right.
MR. BOUCHER: -- facility.
Q Well, you did in act in concert with them.
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure exactly what the French role
was in that.
Q All right. But I mean this question is still
alive. I mean, you know --
MR. BOUCHER: The question is still there. I guess the
question is one for the French -- is to ask them what their
views really are. We had consulted with them. We felt that
this strike was necessary to demonstrate to Iraq that it had to
pay a price for failing to meet the requirements of the U.N.
Security Council resolutions; that the requirement that UNSCOM
be able to fly in without conditions is part of that U.N.
Security Council process, the process of destruction of Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction. This was established by the
Security Council as necessary to prevent Iraq from being a
threat to peace and stability in the region -- and that the
strike was carried out in order to secure Iraqi compliance with
that.
Q Do you think maybe the French are just --
Q Did they agree with that assessment?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to try to characterize the
French reaction. You'll have to ask them.
Q Do you think maybe they're just feeling the heat
at home and decided to welsh on the deal?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, John, I'm not going to try to
characterize the French reaction.
Q Richard, do you have a readout on --
Q Richard, was the concerted effort confined to
Great Britain and France and not extended to cover other
countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt -- those who fought with the
United States in the Gulf War?
MR. BOUCHER: These are the people that I know that
President Bush consulted with before the attack. Certainly,
during this whole period, we've been in touch with a variety of
governments; and I think you've seen statements by individual
governments giving their views. I think you've seen very
consistent statements by the coalition partners that Iraqi
compliance with all the U.N. resolutions was, indeed, a
necessity.
Q Richard, this may be a military point, but was the
results of the attack the same as what was talked about before
the attack in the consultation? Maybe the results went a little
further than the consultation, perhaps.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't quite know how to answer that,
Saul. I don't have that kind of information.
Q Is it possible we hit something we didn't say we
were going to hit or, you know, the President tells Mitterand
and Major what we're going to hit in general and then it turns
out to be something more specific and that it had nothing to do
with what the President was talking about?
MR. BOUCHER: I just don't know, Saul.
Q Do you have a readout on the Secretary's meeting
with Nelson Mandela or with Jesse Jackson?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't. I'll have to try to get
that for you.
Q O.K. And are there other meetings that were not
reflected on his public schedule?
MR. BOUCHER: That's all that I know of at this point
for today.
Q Got any musicians to announce -- (Laughter)
MR. BOUCHER: I forgot to check that. I'll check that, too.
Q Richard, a Serb/Iraq-related question: If the
United States is committed to enforcing the U.N. resolutions
with Iraq -- including "no-fly," including delivery of
humanitarian aid -- is the Clinton Administration committed to
delivering humanitarian aid by all necessary means in Bosnia?
We know the position on the "no-fly" zone.
MR. BOUCHER: You know that that has been part of the
U.N. Security Council resolutions and that the U.N. has in fact,
in a variety of ways, expanded, not only their UNPROFOR, their
armed presence, to help with convoys, but expanded their
convoys. They've gotten into new cities; they've gotten into
Zepa -- the city that was reported in dire straits last week.
So, indeed, they have been, in a variety of ways,
expanding their presence and expanding their convoys to
different places in Bosnia.
As far as specific further steps that could be taken to
continue along those lines to expand that goal, I guess there's
not much I can give you right now at this point. These are all
questions that will, indeed -- that do, indeed, arise and that
have to be looked at.
Q Is the forcible delivery of humanitarian aid to
Bosnia under review?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I would say you already have a
forcible presence -- the presence of UNPROFOR forces that assist
with the delivery of aid in Bosnia -- but as far as specific
further steps that could be taken to expand the deliveries and
ensure it gets to all those people who need it, that's something
I just don't have any further detail for you at this point.
Q Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at l:08 p.m.)