Note: This Electronic Research Collection is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the
US DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING #14:
Source: State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #14
THURSDAY, JANUARY 28, 1993, 12:23 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I don't
have any statements or announcements, so I'd be glad to take your
questions.
Q Do you have anything on an LA Times story today that
Ambassador Armacost has told the Japanese that it would not be
useful for a summit meeting between President Clinton and the
Japanese Prime Minister unless the Japanese were prepared to make
some concessions on trade issues?
MR. BOUCHER: I think the formal or final answer on that has to
come from the White House, but I think I would say that we're
concerned about the trade deficit with Japan. Japan is an
important ally, and there are no preconditions for meeting with
the Japanese.
Q No preconditions?
MR. BOUCHER: No preconditions.
Q So when might a meeting be set up?
MR. BOUCHER: That's a good question to ask the White House
since it involves the President's schedule.
Q Why would you say those two things in the same sentence,
Richard?
(Laughter)
Q If there are no preconditions, why would you, on your own --
MR. BOUCHER: I was asked if we had set conditions for a
meeting.
Q Well --
Q Has Japan asked for a meeting?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know that, Sid. Again, those are
all White House questions about meetings at that level.
Q All right. Here's a State Department question.
Will Secretary Christopher go to the U.N. next week to meet with
Boutros Ghali? And, if so, what's the purpose of the meeting?
Q Could I finish up one more on Japan, please? Have
the Japanese protested their inclusion on the list of countries
which are accused of dumping steel products?
MR. BOUCHER: I can try to check on that for you, Jim,
to see if we've gotten anything here; but, of course, the
dumping matters are handled at the Commerce Department.
Q Yes, except that protests are handled here, right?
MR. BOUCHER: And that's why I said I would offer to
check and see here.
Q Do you happen to know, have any countries on that
list dropped off protests?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know.
Q Could you check?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll check on that.
Q Do you want to do mine?
MR. BOUCHER: Ralph's question was whether I could say
that the Secretary is going to the U.N. next week and, if so,
could I say what it was about -- or could I say what it was
about even if I couldn't say that he was going.
Q I didn't ask if you would say it or not.
(Laughter)
MR. BOUCHER: Let me --
Q Tell us what you can.
MR. BOUCHER: It's an approximate paraphrase. At this
point I have nothing to announce.
Q Is that on the record?
MR. BOUCHER: That's on the record.
Q Richard, can I ask about --
Q (Inaudible) -- Bosnia or Somalia or both?
MR. BOUCHER: Johanna, I don't want to -- I don't have
anything to announce. I'm sorry.
Q Well, Richard, as far as the Israeli Supreme Court
ruling, do you want to punt that to the White House, or are you
prepared to say something about it?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, as far as where we stand on the
question of deportees, we're in the process of consulting with
the Israeli Government on next steps which can resolve the
issue. We're also contacting other interested parties at the
U.N. and in the region, and that's about all we have to say for
the moment.
Q Are you shaken by the Palestinian threat to
abandon the peace talks unless these exiled people are brought
back to Israel?
MR. BOUCHER: Barry, I think we've expressed before our
view of the importance of the peace talks, our view of the
importance of the peace talks to the region and specifically to
the parties that are involved in them, and our view which we've
conveyed publicly and privately that the peace talks should
continue.
Q What about the Supreme Court decision itself?
Does the U.S. Government have a comment on what that does to the
peace process, what that does to the resolution of this dispute?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't.
Q No comment.
Q Was this matching your expectations?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, I don't set an agenda for foreign
supreme courts. And anyway, I don't think it's for me to
comment on their decision.
Q Richard, how about Prime Minister Rabin's
announcement following the decision about steps the Israeli
Government is taking with regard to legal appeals for
Palestinians who wish to make them and the review of cases of
the Palestinians who may choose, for one reason or another, not
to make a formal appeal?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think I told you that we are in
the process of consulting with the Israeli Government on next
steps which can resolve the issue. I'm afraid that's about as
far as I can go at this point.
Q Richard, can you give us some idea of the state of
play at the U.N. on this?
MR. BOUCHER: There were references to the deportees
yesterday during an informal Security Council meeting. They
were in the context of discussion of the regular semi-annual
renewal of UNIFIL -- the UN Interim Force in Lebanon -- of that
mandate. The Council will meet informally again today.
Q To discuss that?
Q Do you favor --
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have an answer. "To discuss
that" -- what do you mean "that"? Do you mean deportees?
Q More informal discussions about the deportees,
things like that?
MR. BOUCHER: It came up at a meeting yesterday, I
think. When the Council meets informally that people can raise
issues. But, you know, as far as what the agenda is for these
meetings, I don't have anything on that.
Q Also on Rabin's comments this morning that Ralph
referred to, it's pretty -- he sounded pretty confident that the
United States would not go along with any sort of sanctions
measures at the U.N. We've asked you this before, but has this
Administration assured Israel that it will not -- that it will
veto, or that it will veto any efforts that the United Nations
impose sanctions on them?
MR. BOUCHER: You've asked me that question before, and
I'll give you the same answer as before, that we're working this
diplomatically. We have described for you our efforts that
we're engaged in today. We'll continue those efforts; and, as
we've said over previous days, we think those efforts should be
pursued in order to try to resolve the issue.
Q Richard, just for one more time --
Q (Multiple questions.)
MR. BOUCHER: Let's slow down. Mary.
Q Do you look at it -- do you look at the high
court's ruling as a setback in your efforts to get peace talks
started again?
MR. BOUCHER: Mary, I really don't think it's for us to
try to comment on the high court's ruling. The point here is to
try to find a satisfactory resolution to the issue. We're
working it. We're talking to the Israelis about the next steps
that can be taken to resolve the issue. We're talking to
other governments at the U.N. and in the region. We're trying
to find a resolution to this issue. I think that's the point
that we're at right now.
Q I'm not asking you to comment on the ruling. I'm
asking to comment on what it has done to your diplomacy. I
mean, does it make it more difficult?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can characterize that.
These are efforts that we've had underway, that we're engaged in
today, and we'll continue and see if we can find a resolution.
Q Richard, does your position remain what it was
yesterday -- that there's no point in another Security Council
resolution on this at this time? In your statement yesterday,
you noted that you were pursuing what you said was active
diplomacy, and you also noted that the Supreme Court was
considering the situation.
The Supreme Court has finished considering the
situation. Does your position remain the same in the light of
that?
MR. BOUCHER: Our position remains the same as what I
said yesterday, what George Stephanopoulos said yesterday at the
White House -- that we want to pursue this diplomatically.
Those diplomatic efforts have to be given a chance to succeed.
We don't think it's time for a debate in the Security Council on
sanctions. We cited -- I think both cited -- the fact that the
Israeli Supreme Court was considering this. And we also said
that we don't think it's time until a diplomatic effort has been
made, until the diplomatic effort is -- until we see whether the
diplomatic efforts and the efforts that are underway and the
thinking that's underway elsewhere can try to resolve the issue.
Q Richard, the way I remember the phrasing yesterday
-- and I just wondered if it still stands -- there were two
things that you thought weighed against the court, not only -- I
mean, the Council -- not only not acting on a resolution but
even considering it.
You said the Court's about to rule, and there's active
diplomacy underway. O.K. The Court has ruled. So just to
clean this up, could you say straight out that even though the
Court has ruled, you don't think the time is right for the
Security Council to consider this issue because diplomacy is
underway.
MR. BOUCHER: There are efforts underway, Barry, to try
to see if we can find if there's a resolution to this issue. As
I said, we've been consulting with the Israeli Government about
the next steps to resolve this issue, and we just don't think
it's time for a debate over things in the Security Council.
Now, I've said there have been -- you know, the subject
has come up in informal discussions at the Council. Who knows,
it could come up again today. But we think that the primary --
the way to pursue this right now is to pursue it in discussions
with the other parties and in discussions with the Israelis that
we have underway.
Q Richard, are you far enough along in your
diplomacy to tell us whether you're satisfied that the Israelis
are truly trying to solve this problem?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can characterize
reactions at this point.
Q Richard --
Q Secondly, can you tell me just what incentive the
Israelis have? Since the Israeli population is very angry about
the killing of the soldiers, what incentive do the Israelis have
to solve this problem in such a way as to get these people off
that mountain?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't quite understand the question,
Saul.
Q Why should the Israelis want to do anything about
this?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I want to try anything off
the top of my head on that, Saul. I mean, the answer is
basically that there are a lot of reasons why they should.
Q Well, give me a couple?
MR. BOUCHER: The U.N. resolution, interest in the
peace process, interest in resolving problems in the region.
There's a lot of reasons why this issue would be -- it's
important to resolve this issue.
Q Richard, Secretary Djerejian has got a meeting
with the Lebanese Ambassador today. Is Lebanon going to be
asked to play any kind of role in this diplomacy?
MR. BOUCHER: I know we've been talking to the Lebanese
all along. I don't know what this particular meeting is about,
so I'd have to check for you.
Q What are you asking Lebanon to do?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, we've been talking to all the
parties all along about the issue. Obviously governments in the
region have had concerns and played a role in this. Not knowing
particularly what this meeting about, I can't try to specify
what we're asking Lebanon to do at this point.
Q Is the situation with the deportees making it
impossible for the U.S. to proceed with issuing invitations for
the next set of bilateral Middle East peace negotiations?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, this is something that we have
been discussing with the parties. I don't think we have started
discussing the dates yet for the next round of bilateral talks.
Q Why haven't you? Is this because of this problem,
or is there some other reason that has prevented you from doing
it?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll have to sort of check and see where
we are on that.
Q Richard, is "invitation" the right word at this
point? I mean, we have a new Administration.
MR. BOUCHER: "Suggested dates" I think is the right
word, frankly.
Q No, I also ask for the technical reason that
there's a new Administration, and I suppose it has the
opportunity to issue invitations and thereby somehow alter, if
it chose, the terms of attending.
Could you tell us -- now is as good a time as any if
you're able to tell us -- how is the Administration proceeding?
Is it simply saying "You all come on back," or is it going to
issue some invitations that, as I just said, might have some
conditions in it?
MR. BOUCHER: As you point out in your question, the
distinction on the word "invitations" was used because there was
a piece of paper that invited people to Madrid, and it set out
the terms of reference.
Since then, we have suggested dates to people, and
they've shown up. That is the way that we would expect to
proceed in the future.
Q Can you tell us whether Secretary Christopher has
had any further contacts beyond the ones reported that he had on
Sunday with the Israeli Government to discuss this issue of the
deportees?
MR. BOUCHER: Not that I'm aware of. I'm pretty sure
I'd know.
Q Are all his contacts to be found in the daily
appointment schedule, or has he been --
MR. BOUCHER: All his contacts? No. Not -- everybody
that he talks to is not on the public appointment schedule.
Q No, no. All his -- well, I don't want to give you
too narrow a word because then I'll exclude other ways of
talking to people -- telephone conversations, meetings,
approaches, maybe notes to the parties on this deportation
dispute? Has he been having any -- has he been busy in that
area, apart from what we see on the schedule, like having the
Lebanese in today?
MR. BOUCHER: Nobody's contacts, I mean, are on the
public schedule. Many of them we don't necessarily know about
at the beginning of the day, even if we wanted to try to write
down every single piece of paper that he was working on that day
or every time he picked up the telephone. I think that's a
little unreasonable to expect, Barry.
Q No, no. I'm just asking if there are other
avenues.
MR. BOUCHER: We have been talking with the Israeli
Government, for example, both through our Embassy out there and
I think we probably had some contacts directly with them from
here. And we are in touch with the other parties, as I said,
both in the U.N. and in the region.
Q In other areas in Bosnia and in Iraq the United
States sought Security Council authority to enforce the
resolutions, and here the United States is asking the Security
Council basically to postpone enforcement. How do you answer
the charge from Palestinians that this is a double standard?
MR. BOUCHER: Ted, the way I've answered it for the
last week -- it seems to come up every single day. The point is
to resolve the question, to resolve the problem. We're
describing to you the efforts that are underway to see if there
can be steps taken that would resolve this problem.
Q Richard, you're not describing them very
thoroughly. Can you be any more descriptive, since you make a
point of that?
MR. BOUCHER: No.
Q Richard, let me ask it a different way.
MR. BOUCHER: No.
(Laughter)
Q Does the U.S. -- can you at least say that we are
committed to enforcement of a solemn U.N. resolution, as a
former Secretary used to say about a different crisis? I mean,
that is something that's been missing so far from your
statements today, and I want to know, are we committed to
enforcing Resolution 799, whether or not diplomacy succeeds?
MR. BOUCHER: We've talked before about this, Warren.
We've referred again today to the need to find a satisfactory
resolution to the issue. And you know "satisfactory resolution"
means, as I said yesterday, one that's in accord with the U.N.
resolution that we voted for, that we supported, and with the
needs of the parties.
Q Richard, on another area, if we could --
Q I want to keep within this. Richard, do you
consider this problem as an urgent one? Is there a kind of
deadline, taking into consideration the fact that there are
about 400 people in the open air in this winter weather and --
MR. BOUCHER: We've cited all along the concerns we
have about the humanitarian problems, about the problems that
these people face out there. It is something that we're working
on.
Q Richard, on another area, the former Yugoslavia:
With the fighting that's erupted in Croatia and is continuing in
Croatia, there now seems to be a possibility of the U.N. troops
actually being pulled out of Croatia.
Can you give us an update on that, and whether there's
any truth to these reports? Boutros Ghali said the commander on
the ground says the situation is very serious for the U.N.
troops. Are there any diplomatic contacts going on about the
possibility of pulling them out? And what would the U.S.
position be on pulling those troops out?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think sort of basically the
situation is difficult, and it's very difficult for the soldiers
who are there on the ground. We have passed a U.N. resolution
that calls upon the parties who are engaged in the fighting to
stop it, to abide by the Vance Plan, and particularly to respect
the soldiers and the people that the U.N. has on the ground.
We can understand the frustrations of the Secretary
General with the situation and the danger that the U.N. troops
have been facing out there. On the other hand, a total
withdrawal of UNPROFOR would just likely end up broadening the
conflict. So it is a very difficult situation that we're facing
out there; and it's one where, you know, the Security Council
has passed a resolution, and the Security Council is looking to
see that the parties live up to that resolution.
Q Richard, what would be the -- could you just
explain to us a little bit what would have -- who would -- would
it have to be the Security Council making the decision that
those troops come out? And are you saying that the U.S. right
now thinks they should still stay? This isn't something, in
other words, that's left up to the Secretary General to say
"It's too dangerous for them; they've got to come out." It
would have to be the Security Council? And what is the U.S.
position?
MR. BOUCHER: I guess that's a question I would have to
check. I'd have to go back and see sort of how the resolutions
are worded and how exactly it is. I'd really describe our
position right now as looking for the parties to live up to that
resolution that was passed by the Security Council. That's the
key thing that has to happen right now.
Q You want to see them come out is what you're
saying.
MR. BOUCHER: Well, as I said, if you withdrew them
all, you'd likely just get a broadening of the conflict. But
the point here again is to try to -- the problem is not the
presence of the U.N. The problem is the fighting that's going
on, and to solve the problem you've got to have the people abide
by the U.N. resolution.
Q Would a partial withdrawal likewise broaden the
conflict?
MR. BOUCHER: I guess that's hypothetical. It would
depend sort of how things happen. But, as I said, the solution
to the problem out there is -- the problem is not the U.N.
presence, the problem is the fighting, and the solution out
there is for the fighting to stop.
Q Why is a partial withdrawal more hypothetical than
the total withdrawal you spoke of a moment ago?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I -- just in terms of what exactly
are we talking about. I mean, it's one thing --
Q What I'm trying to get at is --
MR. BOUCHER: -- to sort of understand what the
implications are of total withdrawal. I can't describe for you
the implications of all the various scenarios between what there
is now and what a total withdrawal might be.
Q So you want to describe the implication of one of
those scenarios -- namely, if the U.S. pulls out completely but
leaving open -- or the U.N., excuse me -- but you want to leave
open the possibility of some other scenario, including partial
withdrawal or reduction of the UNPROFOR forces in --
MR. BOUCHER: No.
Q You don't want to leave that --
MR. BOUCHER: No. I don't think --
Q Well, why did you choose to inject the word "total
withdrawal" there then?
MR. BOUCHER: I guess it's the concept that is easiest
to understand, and that was the context of the question as well.
The fact is that what we're looking for in this situation right
now is to get the parties to abide by that U.N. resolution. We
know that the U.N. out there has been active in trying to get
the parties to do that. The Security Council has stated very
firmly and clearly its views on what needs to be done.
The U.N. commanders on the ground -- I think Vance and
Owen have also been active; and the point right now is to try to
get the parties to abide by that resolution.
Q Richard, I still think there's something there
behind those carefully chosen words, and like Ralph I'd like to
pursue them with you.
MR. BOUCHER: Not all of them carefully chosen, Barry.
Q Yes, very careful, because, as you know, when this
issue came up with Bosnia, when the French and British were
reluctant to enforce the "no-fly" zone for fear their troops on
the ground might be targeted, various scenarios were considered,
and none of them involved the total withdrawal.
There was the idea of a temporary pullout or a partial
pullout or having them repositioned in safer places. I'm
inclined to think whoever crafted those words has something like
that in mind when they're talking about the U.S. is against a
total withdrawal.
Are you trying to -- is the State Department trying to
say that it would support some sort of a reconfiguration of the
U.N. forces to make them more secure but would not, of course,
have them totally withdraw?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I'm not trying to say that.
Q You're not trying to say that?
Q Richard --
Q Also on Bosnia, the Senate Armed Services
Committee is meeting this afternoon to discuss the issue and
Boutros Ghali is moving closer toward asking NATO to enforce the
"no-fly" zone.
Clinton, during the campaign and during the transition,
said he would favor enforcing the "no-fly" zone. What is the
latest on the U.S. taking part in a multi-nation enforcement of
the "no-fly" zone?
MR. BOUCHER: The Administration has been on record, I
think, supporting -- this Administration has and the past one
has been on record supporting -- the enforcement of the
"no-fly" zone; and we continue to work that issue up in New
York, to seek the enforcement resolution. The Security Council
has to pass it; it's not the Secretary General.
But we've also had discussions with our European
allies. NATO has been planning on what possible role NATO could
play, and certainly we're part of NATO, so --
Q Richard, should that "no-fly" zone be enforced in
the air exclusively, or should it be enforced on the ground and
in the air? And I can tell you why I'm asking.
MR. BOUCHER: I know why you're asking, Barry, because
that's sort of --
Q Well, I don't want to blind side you, because
that's what the Bosnians said. The Russians are insisting on
air only, and that's one of your hangups.
MR. BOUCHER: One of the issues that has been discussed
in New York is the exact wording of the enforcement of the
resolution. We said that before. We are continuing to discuss
the issues that arise with that resolution. We're continuing to
work on the language with the other countries involved at the
Security Council, and there are still some differences that
remain.
Q Could you give me something better than "language"
and "word" which are -- you know, can mean minimal differences?
Is there a difference on -- are there differences on the scope
of the "no-fly" zone, differences on how it would be enforced,
where it would be enforced? "Language" could just mean to use
"which" or "that" in a clause.
Does this go deep? You guys have been flaunting your
determination -- "you guys," the guys you used to be -- have
been flaunting -- (laughter)
MR. BOUCHER: The guys I am? (Laughter)
Q -- have been flaunting -- you know, the
Bosnian Ambassador, who's supposed to be a diplomat, said the
last Administration, which you don't have to defend anymore, was
half-hearted at best in its attempts to protect the Muslims from
the Serbian attack as soon as possible, we kept hearing.
Are there differences over scope or differences over
commas and semicolons?
MR. BOUCHER: Barry, I'm not sure I'm precisely up to
date myself on exactly what differences of language remain, but
they're not just commas and semicolons and "that's" and
"which's." There are a number of serious considerations that
have to be worked out with the allies. There are still
differences. We're still working on it.
As you know, this Administration has made very clear
its intention to move forward in the situation there. We are
reviewing options.
The Secretary described to you, again on the Hill
yesterday, his intention to move forward more actively, his
outrage at the violence, and the situation in Bosnia. This
Administration has made very, very clear it assigns a high
priority to looking at all the various options for how to move
forward.
Q The Russians seem to be assigning a high priority
to defend -- go ahead.
Q Will Secretary Christopher be participating in a
meeting of national security advisors at the White House this
afternoon, with the President, to discuss those options?
MR. BOUCHER: I can't talk about meetings at the White
House. You have to ask the White House there.
Q Will Secretary Christopher be going to the White
House this afternoon?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll have to check.
Q Richard, can you do any better --
Q Can you get an answer to that question?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll have to check and see what I can
say.
Q Could you do a little better than we were able to
get yesterday on the visit of the first Foreign Minister, the
Greek Foreign Minister? Any sort of a readout?
Do you now have a position on Macedonia which the
Secretary didn't have when the meeting began?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I thought I did pretty good
yesterday on the readout of the meeting with the Macedonian, so
I didn't try to amplify on it today, Barry -- on the Greek,
excuse me.
Q President Ozal of Turkey is in town. Mr.
Stephanopoulos said yesterday the President wouldn't be seeing
him; he was too busy lasering-in on economic problems. Will the
Secretary of State be seeing him?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, questions of meetings at the White
House should be asked over there. I'm not aware of anything at
this point on the Secretary's schedule with him.
I know that Tom Niles is at a lunch with him today and
will be seeing him.
Q Can you explain why a man who was one of the
staunchest U.S. allies during the Gulf War, who took political
risks to stand by the United States, a man whose country is
still a crucial, critical component of the coalition against
Iraq, a man whose country has a key position with regard to the
future of Central Asia, why the highest ranking official you can
get to see him is the Assistant Secretary for European Affairs
who himself will be out of office in a matter of a week or two?
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, I didn't say that the highest
ranking official that would see him was Tom Niles.
Q Who is the highest ranking official who will see
him?
MR. BOUCHER: It's not something I have an answer for
you on at this point.
Q Why wouldn't the Secretary of State be seeing him?
I understand that the President is too busy with gays in the
military and other things, but why not the Secretary of State?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, Alan, I don't -- this is a private
visit. He is here. At this point, I can't detail for you
exactly who will be seeing him. But I agree with you on the
importance of our Turkish allies and the role that Ozal has
played.
We are, indeed, in touch the Turks frequently. I just
pointed out, as a matter of fact, that Niles is in touch with
him; but I did not specify that that would be the highest
meeting that he would have.
Q Richard, do you have anything on the statements of
the Haitian Prime Minister that the de facto government there
will not accept human rights monitors?
MR. BOUCHER: Our understanding of it, George, is that
-- first of all, it's based on a preliminary review of the
statement. I'm not sure we've carefully examined the entire
text yet. But our understanding is that Mr. Bazin did commit
himself earlier in writing to support the deployment of a U.N.
and OAS civilian mission to Haiti, and that in his remarks
yesterday he reiterated that commitment.
We understand that there are differences over the terms
of reference for the civilian mission. We do believe that it is
important to resolve those questions quickly through good-faith
negotiations. We think Haiti has a window of opportunity to
solve its political crisis and that all Haitian leaders in
sectors have the responsibility to promote and not to obstruct a
resolution to the crisis which can end Haiti's suffering and to
restore President Aristide's democratic government.
Q Can you be a little bit more explicit on "terms of
reference" -- what that means?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, that's the "who, what, where, and
how" basically of the deployment of the expanded democracy
force. These arrangements, as you know, have been worked by the
U.N. and OAS Special Representative, Dante Caputo. He's still
working on those arrangements under which the Civilian Observer
Mission can be sent.
He is in touch with all the Haitian parties. We've
supported his efforts. And as I think you know from our public
schedule, he'll be coming in this afternoon, and the Secretary
can review with him the status of those efforts.
Q Do you have any idea or any way --
MR. BOUCHER: Slow down. Over here.
Q Mr. Caputo said at the OAS that although he was
willing to talk about terms of reference, he had no intention of
negotiating with the de facto government on the numbers of
monitors to be deployed. Do you know, is that still his
position? Is that the U.S. position?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if that is still his
position. Our position has been that we've supported the idea
of this deployment. We've supported the OAS resolutions. I
don't remember if they mentioned numbers or not.
We think it's important to get it down there, to get
the mission down there as soon as possible. We think it's an
important mission that can help reassure Haitians; that there is
a non-violent solution, and a restoration of their
constitutional rights that can be protected in the process. So
we think that the Haitians should reach agreement as soon as
possible.
On the details of this mission, as I said, Caputo is
working them out, so he'll have to work out something that meets
these goals that the OAS and others have set with him.
We also think, however, that the deployment of this
kind of mission in Haiti can have the benefit of creating a
better climate for further negotiations to end the crisis as a
whole.
Q Also on Haiti, do you have any means, numerical or
otherwise, of gauging the success of the new policy on this
flotilla of vessels and other measures to keep them at home?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll have to check for you. I haven't
gotten numbers in the last few days, so I'll get a new set of
numbers for you.
Q Richard, could you be a little bit more specific
on the differences between Mr. Bazin and the terms of reference?
What are the problems here?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. He would have to explain
his problems, and I think we'll get an update from Dante Caputo
this afternoon. The Secretary will be able to talk to him and
learn a little more detail on some of these questions that he's
pursuing.
Q Do you have anything new today on MPLA recognition
or Angola meetings?
MR. BOUCHER: On the Angola meetings, I do. The
fighting continues. There's fighting around Huambo and also in
parts of the northeast. We don't have any reports of military
activity in Cabinda.
At the same time, the UNITA and the Government
delegations did arrive yesterday in Addis Ababa. The U.S.
Observer Delegation has also arrived, along with those of Russia
and Portugal. The two sides held informal procedural
discussions last night with the U.N. Special Representative.
There appears to be a tentative agreement on an agenda
following this morning's initial formal sessions. The meetings
are going to continue this evening and throughout the day
tomorrow.
Q There's nothing on recognition of MPLA?
MR. BOUCHER: Nothing new on that.
Q And is the Foreign Minister going to meet here
next week, or the Deputy Foreign Minister, whoever it is?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure if that's settled yet. If
it is, we'll get it up; but I'm not sure it is.
Q You don't have anything on South Africa, do you --
on the constitutional talks that haven't gone anyplace for a
long time?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't, Connie.
Q Back to the Middle East for a moment. During
contacts -- diplomatic contacts -- with the different parties on
the problem over the deportees, is the United States putting
forward alternative proposals to solve the problem other than
the Security Council resolution?
MR. BOUCHER: The discussion, as I said --
Q Without getting into the details.
MR. BOUCHER: The discussions, as I said, are looking
to see the problem resolved on a satisfactory basis. We all
understand that that means in accordance with the U.N. Security
Council resolutions as well as the needs of the parties.
Q Ambassador Oakley had some pretty stiff words for
Boutros-Ghali yesterday. Is that an accurate representation of
the U.S. attitude at this point about handing-off to the U.N.?
Does the Administration feel that Boutros-Ghali is dragging his
feet? Are we looking at a period of six months for this phased
pull-out or one month? What does the U.S. want along those
lines?
MR. BOUCHER: We're working out through frequent
consultations with the U.N. and the Secretary General, working
it both in New York and in the field, on what we call the
"modalities" of the transition from the task force that's there
now to the second phase of the U.N. regular peacekeeping
presence. These include the basic how, when and where of the
phased hand-overs that will occur and the pace at which the
entire process can take place.
There's no pre-set schedule at this point for the
transition. The timetable will be determined by the local
situation. That's subject to regular evaluation. You can check
with the Pentagon a little more on some of the specific details
of their deployments.
At this point, we are working, though, with the U.N. on
this hand-over process.
Q Just to follow up, this phased process is actually
beginning. It began a couple of weeks ago. It's been said that
this is really more of a signal to the U.N. of our intentions.
Is that correct? Are we sending the U.N. signals in these slow
piecemeal phase-outs about our intention to withdraw the troops?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think you can describe that as
any particular signal, Sid. We made clear our intentions all
along, and that was to go in there to establish a security
environment necessary to feed people, to get the feeding going,
and then to hand it over to a U.N. presence, a regular U.N.
presence. That's the process that we've been working on with
the U.N. We've been discussing it. We have frequent
consultations with them in New York, as well as out in the
field. And overall I think we'd say that process is working
well.
Q But is the Secretary General showing any sort of
lack of eagerness to move on to the next phase?
MR. BOUCHER: As I said, overall, we think the process
is working well. It's something we have frequent and close
discussions with them on.
Q You disagree with Oakley's remarks? He clearly
doesn't have the same line on this that you do.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I've seen a full text of
Oakley's remarks. I've seen little quotes here and there. I
would just say that this is a description of the process as we
see it now.
Q Well, the other thing that was attributed to
Oakley is a sort of implicit threat by the United States that if
Boutros-Ghali didn't start moving on this, the United States
might not be so eager in the future to rush in and help in these
international crises. Is that true? Is there a carrot and a
stick?
MR. BOUCHER: I didn't see that. I guess I would just
say that we've been working with the U.N. We're in frequent
touch with them. We're in close touch with them. We're
planning this transition together with them, and overall we
think it's going well.
Q Richard, do you think you might have more of a
response once you see the transcript of what Oakley said?
MR. BOUCHER: Maybe not.
Q Do you have anything on the continuing saga of
these fugitive oil barges in the Danube?
MR. BOUCHER: Ah, yes. It's getting into a daily
action adventure series or something.
The latest reports from our Embassy in Bucharest
indicate that the Serbian barges were able to escape again from
Romanian control. There are two tugs with a total of 9 to 12
barges that are believed now to have passed into Serbian waters.
The last tug is reportedly several hours behind.
The Romanian forces reportedly challenged one tug and
its barges at midnight at Calafat, but the tug refused to stop.
To our knowledge, there was no force used.
Q A barge is not a speed boat. (Laughter) Does it
suggest to you that the Romanians or the Bulgarians are not
trying very hard?
MR. BOUCHER: I think you've seen the public statements
that they've made. First of all, they have authorized their
forces, the Romanian forces, to use whatever means necessary,
including coercion, to uphold the sanctions. We've made clear
-- the U.N. Sanctions Committee has made clear that they are,
indeed, not only authorized but responsible to ensure that these
violations do not occur.
They're apparently still reluctant to resort to the use
of military force on the Danube. I'll let them explain the
reasons.
We have continued to make clear that we look to them to
carry out fully their obligations.
Q Richard, their reasons are that they fear a
broadening of the conflict. You said yesterday that the United
States did not particularly put a lot of stock in that excuse.
Do you still feel the same way today?
MR. BOUCHER: I would say, Sid, as we've said before,
we think they're responsible for enforcing the sanctions fully.
Q "Broadening of the conflict" -- do you stand by
it? Yesterday, you said we don't think that's a big risk.
MR. BOUCHER: No, I think you asked me if that was
something that they had said or something like that. But,
anyway, the point I think has to be that the Sanctions
Committee, we, and others, have held that they have the
responsibility, the authority, indeed, the obligation, to
enforce the sanctions fully.
We've clearly been cooperating with them in the overall
issue of sanctions-monitoring and assistance. We'll continue to
assist them in ensuring the sanctions are observed.
Q Are you suggesting that -- I didn't quite
understand -- some of the tugs have successfully completed their
journey?
MR. BOUCHER: I think we already reported that the one
that was ahead, the Bihac, had gotten into Serbian port. And
now two more have, and there's one more that's a couple of hours
behind.
Q There's only one that's remaining and it hasn't
made it yet?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, that would be my understanding.
Q So we favor the Romanians and the Bulgarians using
whatever means necessary to stop the barges; is that right?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes.
Q Why is it that the United States -- I know this is
a comparison again -- but why isn't the United States not using
any means necessary to protect humanitarian aid into Sarajevo
and other places and to gain access for the ICRC to prison
camps?
MR. BOUCHER: Saul, we're back on the same thing we
tend to do everyday. You can't say that the way to stop a barge
on the Danube is the way to feed somebody in Sarajevo, or the
way to get somebody out of a detention center.
You know the efforts that we've made all along. We've
made general efforts to pressure Serbia to stop the aggression
and to pressure the parties into releasing people and allowing
the humanitarian aid in and, generally, meeting all the
commitments that they've made.
You know the specific efforts that we have made, and
particularly others with troops on the ground have made to get
the humanitarian aid through. You know the efforts the ICRC has
made to get the detainees out. These things are being worked on
and the only thing to add is what you know from the Secretary
yesterday -- that we're looking at all the various options of
moving forward actively.
Q Richard, when you say that there's a
responsibility on the part of the Romanians and the Bulgarians
on the one hand and on the other hand -- probably by this time
tomorrow all of the barges will have reached their destination
-- do you mean to imply there is some punitive action that could
be taken against Romania and Bulgaria for having allowed these
barges through, when you say it's their responsibility?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I was saying that, Mary. I
was saying that it is their responsibility. We've made that
clear, and we think they should take the efforts necessary to
stop these barges.
Q But they'll be no cost for letting them through?
MR. BOUCHER: It's too early to try to say anything of
that sort. It's just not --
Q Why doesn't the United States use military force
to stop those barges? Why is it up to Romania and Bulgaria and
not the United States?
MR. BOUCHER: First of all, people on the scene are in
charge, responsible, for enforcing the sanctions. You know that
we do have naval forces in the Adriatic, for example, as part of
the NATO force which, along with the WEU, is enforcing the
sanctions out there. So the people on the scene are the ones
that are responsible to enforce it.
I'd just add, as we've made clear, I think tightening
sanctions enforcement is obviously one of the areas that we all
have to look at.
Q Have we sent some customs agents? Are they
anywhere in the vicinity?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, they're working with the riparian
states.
Q (Crosstalk)
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know, Howard, but I doubt that
they would have the ability to stop the barges themselves.
Q Did you ever figure out where the oil came from?
MR. BOUCHER: We have reports that some of the oil on
the barges was loaded in Ukraine in late November and early
December. We've asked for Ukrainian Government assurances that
no oil or other commodities, in violation of the sanctions,
would be loaded in Ukrainian ports. In fact, the Government of
Ukraine has agreed in principle to the establishment of a
sanctions assistance mission in Ukraine.
There are U.S. team members from Romania that are now
visiting Ukrainian ports, and they've been asked to help
determine if any activity in violation of the sanctions is
occurring there.
Q What about the disposition of the guns that were
stopped by the Italian NATO fleet?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything new on that.
Q Richard, given the Romanians and Bulgarians have
been unable to stop these things on the Danube, would it be an
idea to patrol the Black Sea in the same way as people are now
patrolling the Adriatic?
MR. BOUCHER: It's obviously your idea. I think on
that, in general, all I can say is that we talked before about
the need for tightening sanctions enforcement. We're at a point
now where we are looking at all the various options for this
general area, and certainly a lot of different ideas will be
considered.
Q Does the Administration feel they need a
"no-float" zone resolution to enforce this thing? (Laughter)
MR. BOUCHER: It's a great phrase, Sid, (Laughter) but
at this point, as far as any specific option, be they mine or
yours, I think I'll beg off.
Q Is there a target date for the conclusion of this
Bosnian review? I mean, are we talking about next July or --
MR. BOUCHER: The Secretary has made clear in his
testimony and I think again yesterday, others have made clear
it's the highest priority; it's the top priority for
the Administration. They're doing it urgently. I can't give
you a final target date or anything like that.
Q Would you say that there would be gays allowed in
the military first, or the "no-fly" zone would be enforced
first?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not a betting man, Alan.
Q Thank you.
(Press briefing concluded at 1:05 p.m.) (###)