Note: This Electronic Research Collection is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the
US DEPARTMENT OF STATE DAILY PRESS BRIEFING #19:
FRIDAY: 2/5/92
Source: Deputy Secretary Wharton
Description: Washington, DC
Date: 02/05/92
Category: Briefings
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #19
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1993, 12:35 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. If I can,
I'd like to tell you a couple things off the top about the Secretary's
trip, and then let me introduce the Deputy Secretary who can brief you
on the Department's reorganization that was just announced to the
employees this morning. And then after that, if you need me to, I'll
come back and answer a few questions. Otherwise, we can all go have a
sandwich and listen to the President a little later today and get better
answers to the questions. But I'll be available after the Deputy
Secretary's finished.
On the trip, just to give you a brief update, the President
announced yesterday that he has asked Secretary Christopher to travel to
the Middle East to meet with the parties to the peace process. I also
want to announce today that the President has asked the Secretary to
meet with Russian Foreign Minister Kozyrev and with our NATO and EC
allies during this trip.
The Secretary will meet with Foreign Minister Kozyrev in Geneva
on February 25. They will discuss a full range of issues. Russia is,
of course, the co-sponsor in the Middle East peace process, and the
Secretary and the Foreign Minister will want to discuss his trip to the
Middle East. They'll also discuss the summit between President Clinton
and President Yeltsin.
On February 26, the Secretary will be in Brussels to
participate in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council at NATO and for
a meeting with the EC.
That's all the additional information I have to announce on the
Secretary's trip today. We'll provide more details once the schedule
firms up.
And with that, if I can, let me introduce to you the Deputy
Secretary, Clifton Wharton.
DEPUTY SECRETARY WHARTON: Good morning, or afternoon, I guess
it is now. Earlier this morning in a message which was broadcast to the
employees, I described the various organizational changes that we
believe will adapt the State Department to meet a new era. And I wanted
to spend a few minutes with you today just to focus on what these
changes mean in terms of our foreign policy operation and
implementation.
A copy of my remarks, I believe, are available to you, and I
will not therefore repeat what is in there.
I'd like to make clear what may be obvious that we don't
believe that merely by changing the structure of the State Department
that means that we're going to change the world. But what it can do is
to help us strengthen our ability to deal with the various challenges
that we will be facing.
Our goal was to make the Department more efficient, more
responsible and more directed, particularly at the agenda of the new
Administration.
I would also emphasize that, in doing this particular effort,
we were very fortunate in that there had been previous work done,
particularly by a group of individuals in this building, which came out
as "State 2000."
As you know, the President and the Secretary have set a very
positive agenda for U.S. foreign policy -- namely, to build democracy;
to contribute to U.S. economic interests, along with our political and
security interests; to fight against terrorism and drugs; to halt the
proliferation of dangerous weapons; and to work more actively in
peacekeeping. We believe that the reorganization will strengthen us in
each one of these areas.
I would also like to emphasize that at the outset one of the
key elements in the reorganization is the strengthening of the role of
the Under Secretaries. This is designed to give them line authority
over the bureaus that are under them. We thereby believe that we will
enhance communication within the building. We also believe that it will
improve and provide for better coordination on cross-cutting issues, as
well as strengthen their role in the interagency process.
Now, under this structure, of course, as the Assistant
Secretaries will now report through the Under Secretaries, we believe
that the arrangement will actually facilitate their contacts with the
Secretary and with me and strengthen their role in the policy-making
process. I'll mention another aspect of this in a few minutes.
In terms of building democracy, to give you some sense of what
is involved, we had separate offices for assistance to Europe, to the
New Independent States, for labor matters and human rights and various
responsibilities in the regional bureaus.
The Human Rights Bureau will now be consolidated and expanded
with democracy and labor goals, and a mandate to address these issues on
a worldwide basis.
We are also naming an Ambassador-at-Large for the New
Independent States to focus on the unique problems of building democracy
and supporting economic reform in those countries.
We're creating a Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration
in order to elevate our concern about the global population explosion
and its effects.
In terms of our economic interests, the Under Secretary for
Economic and Agricultural Affairs will add business to her title to
underscore our intention to harness the assets of the Department to
assist U.S. companies competing overseas.
We are creating an Office of Business Facilitation in the
Economic Bureau to identify and establish as a priority support for U.S.
business, and we are moving the Bureau of Communication Policy into the
Economic Bureau as well.
In the fight against narcotics, terrorism and crime, these
functions will be integrated to work together against international
crime.
In the proliferation area, we had three special offices and one
special ambassador. These will be brought together in the Bureau of
Political-Military Affairs and placed under the leadership of an Under
Secretary who has arms control as well as international security as part
of her brief.
And, finally, for peacekeeping and the U.N., President Clinton
has elevated the Ambassador to the United Nations to Cabinet rank, and
we will also create an Office of Peacekeeping in the IO Bureau.
The reduction of redundant staffs, the clarification of lines
of communication, and the roles of the Under Secretaries are designed to
put more responsibility for action at the expert level of the
Department.
The Secretary and I hold daily meetings with the Under
Secretaries and the U.N. Ambassador, and once a week we hold meetings
which include all the Assistant Secretaries. These meetings are
designed to facilitate cross-
bureau communications and exchanges on major issues and developments.
The studies that have been done, both inside and outside the
Department, reach the same conclusions. Those conclusions were that we
needed to streamline the structure, to change the management style, to
be in a position to act effectively in the new foreign policy era.
We believe that this is a plan that will do that. It will
create a State Department that can play an active role in dealing with
the challenges and priorities for the U.S. in the new age.
I now would be very pleased to respond to any questions.
Q Secretary Wharton, would there be any reductions in actual
numbers of staff? Will there be any RIFs as a result of this
reorganization?
DEPUTY SECRETARY WHARTON: There undoubtedly will be
reductions. As you will have noted in my remarks to the staff just a
few moments ago, I pointed out that one of the major ones is a reduction
in the number of Deputy Assistant Secretaries.
We are targeting for a 40 percent reduction in the number of
Deputy Assistant Secretaries, but the reductions are not limited at the
Deputy Assistant Secretary level. You'll also note that I've emphasized
that indeed the seventh floor also is going to be targeted with
reductions in terms of positions.
But keep in mind that from our perspective the reductions are
not being done merely for the sake of reduction, but rather as a way of
trying to improve upon and streamline the way in which we conduct our
business. So many of the things which we're doing are designed
particularly to achieve those objectives.
Q A follow-up on that. Do you have a number as to the --
DEPUTY SECRETARY WHARTON: No. We do not have the numbers yet.
No.
Q How many are there now?
DEPUTY SECRETARY WHARTON: The issue on that is that only as we
proceed with this will we begin to get a sense of what will be the
actual impact on this in terms of actual numbers.
Q Do you intend to keep ACDA and AID and USIA as free-
standing agencies?
DEPUTY SECRETARY WHARTON: That's a very good question, and I
don't believe that it's possible to answer that at this time. As you
know, the Secretary has asked me to take a special look at the
reformulation and refocusing of AID. And you will notice in my comments
that I have indicated I will attempt to meet a 90-day deadline to have a
recommendation to the Secretary with regard to AID.
On ACDA, we're also taking a look at ACDA, because, as you
know, there have been three different studies which do not all agree as
to what the future role and status of ACDA would be. And that is under
study.
But the AID one is under study, and that is particularly under
my aegis.
Q Is your early estimate that the reductions will be
attainable through attrition, or will there be actual RIFs?
DEPUTY SECRETARY WHARTON: I don't believe that we can even
indicate at this time, because keep in mind that where we started was,
we started with a goal of streamlining the structure, first and
foremost. We did not start with a targeted number of reductions of
people. That was not the objective.
Keep in mind also that when the previous studies were done,
particularly the "State 2000" study, it sought to answer following
question: Given the structure that is in existence, which was designed
for the Cold-War period, and given the changes today in the post Cold-
War period, what is the kind of structure that we ought to have to meet
the challenges of today in the post Cold-War period?
So, therefore, it began with that as a basic premise. It did
not begin by saying we must eliminate a certain number of individuals or
number of positions. So what we have done is to try to come forward
with an organizational structure that we believe will undoubtedly lead
to reduction in the numbers of individuals, but that was not the goal.
Keep in mind that our goal is efficiency.
Finally, I think it's important to emphasize that we also have
instances where there have clearly been cases of overlap and duplication
and redundancy. In those cases we also have cases where there are areas
of the Department which are indeed deficient in terms of individuals and
resources. So there will be movement of individuals among the different
categories.
Q May I follow up on that. There is redundancy and overlap
with other agencies as well. Was this study done just in a vacuum
concerning the State Department itself, or was there coordination with
other agencies as well?
DEPUTY SECRETARY WHARTON: No. This is done by us just in this
particular period. To the extent that there are areas of overlap, these
will be subject, I'm sure, to interagency discussions, working with the
NSC and their interagency review process. But what we did was to come
forward with one that meets our particular needs.
Keep in mind that, as we go forward on this, obviously there
will be areas where questions will arise about the locus of particular
responsibilities. We began with what we consider to be the basic
charter of the Department of State -- what our particular functions and
goals are -- and that is the way in which we proceeded.
Keep also in mind that we have a situation, or have had a
situation, in which quite clearly different elements have been added
through time. When you ask yourself the question, "How can you improve
upon it," we have come forward with attempts to improve it.
Let me give you one example, because I was intrigued by this
myself. When we asked the question about how in fact do we address the
needs of U.S. business overseas in today's environment where
competitiveness is crucial, where in fact a very significant fraction of
our GNP is dependent upon exports, how does the State Department
interface with U.S. business?
What I was told was that one unit was responsive on aviation, a
second different unit was responsible with regard to business in the
Soviet Union, another one was dealing with -- and you go right down with
exporters -- another one was dealing with it, and sometimes was and
sometimes wasn't. That is the recipe for total proliferation, let's
say, of the bureaucracy. We said that ought to be indeed concentrated
and given a particular location where in fact it would be able to carry
it out.
So what we did was, we said, all right, if businesses have each
contacts with the six regional bureaus in all these different
departments, shouldn't we in fact have an entity which would begin to
provide a locus for focus on these efforts in the business field? And
so, therefore, the Under Secretary for Economics and Business and
Agricultural Affairs is now going to create an office for business
facilitation. That's going to begin to pull all of these things
together in order to be able to reduce that redundancy and begin to
focus it.
Q If I may follow on that particular question, how are you
going to mesh this with the fact that your commercial attaches belong to
the Commerce Department, the Agricultural attaches belong to the
Agricultural Department?
DEPUTY SECRETARY WHARTON: Clearly we were going to have to
work on this together.
One of the things which I feel very strongly about -- and I
think in this Administration I at least am going to work on very hard --
is that it is one Administration. Therefore, from my perspective, where
there are areas where there are differences with regard to areas of
responsibility, which may indeed overlap or conflict, I think it is for
us to sit down and work those out.
As long as we all have the same objective, then I believe it
can be done.
Q In your talk about reducing positions, particularly the
DAS positions by 40 percent and the Seventh Floor positions, I
understand your problem with streamlining; but these are traditionally
what have been regarded as, you might say, the threshold positions for
members of the career Foreign Service to pry themselves up, for the most
part -- probably 70 percent of them -- to basically show whether or not
they can move on into senior management or ambassadorial positions, and
things like that.
There have been complaints by AFSA over shrinking opportunities
for several years now. Now you're going to shrink them by at least 40
percent more. Have you made any assessment of how this will affect
Foreign Service morale, or whether AFSA has a position on it?
DEPUTY SECRETARY WHARTON: No, but I do think that there's
nothing that is perhaps more detrimental for morale than individuals
being placed into positions which are redundant with somebody else's and
which in fact may very well not achieve the overall objectives of the
Department.
I've always been convinced that individuals want to do their
jobs to the best of their ability, and they want to have a scope and a
focus that will allow them to achieve that. If you have four or five
people with overlapping responsibility, that's a recipe for frustration.
It's not a recipe for providing that individual with the opportunity to
show his or her competencies to be able to move up within the career
ladder.
So from my perspective, the question that you address, which I
also addressed in terms of the disruption in my remarks, is one that we
need to deal with. But that is not the issue. The issue is, can we
improve upon how we are currently functioning and indeed make the
opportunity for that individual more meaningful?
Q Can I follow up on that question and sharpen it perhaps a
little bit? Secretary Christopher has talked about the attention that
he will give to the Foreign Service. But you've given most authority,
line authority, to five Under Secretaries, all of whom I believe are
political appointees.
Aren't you, in effect, sending a signal that there's a glass
ceiling in this Department for the Foreign Service?
DEPUTY SECRETARY WHARTON: No, no, not at all. Quite the
reverse. As a matter of fact, I believe that what is going to happen is
that the individuals within the Foreign Service -- if you're speaking of
them, in particular -- will see that with this streamlining their
ability to influence and participate in foreign policy will be
significantly enhanced, to the extent that you have a structure in which
you have a supernumerary of individuals -- let's say here in Washington
-- who may be involved in overlapping fashion.
I would have to say to you, if I were a career ambassador
located in a particular foreign country, I would find the opportunity
for me to increase my level of participation with clear lines of
responsibility far more than having the system which we have at the
present time.
Q Would you be open, in principle, to appointing one of
these people to one of these five important Under Secretary positions,
because, at the moment, you've sent --
DEPUTY SECRETARY WHARTON: Well, those have already been
designated.
Q But in the future? This is a long Administration.
DEPUTY SECRETARY WHARTON: Oh, surely. Surely, That has
happened in the past and will happen in the future.
Q Secretary Wharton, two questions: If you could explain
the rationale here of putting Intelligence and Research, Legislative and
Public Affairs, etc. --
DEPUTY SECRETARY WHARTON: Those have been there all along, and
those are the ones that were left there.
Q O.K. And at the risk of sounding parochial, how are you
going to organize the Public Affairs department? Is the Assistant
Secretary of State going to be insulated from reporters? Will there be
a new Spokesman? And most importantly, will the person who stands up
there and speaks with us also be sitting in the meetings with the
Secretary of State?
DEPUTY SECRETARY WHARTON: I think the answer is no, yes, yes.
The Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs-designate will be available,
is going to be available. He does participate in these sessions and is
conversant with all of the policy issues that have been developed.
There will be a Spokesperson, it's my understanding; but I can
assure you that, based upon the pattern of operation that the Secretary
has followed and I have followed, he is fully conversant and fully
involved in all of this. I think you will find that he is most
knowledgeable with regard to these issues.
Q You're saying he won't brief, though?
DEPUTY SECRETARY WHARTON: I'm sorry?
Q You're saying that he will be fully conversant but there
will be another person who will be the Spokesperson who will be --
DEPUTY SECRETARY WHARTON: No, not necessarily. But sometimes
the communication is direct, sometimes it's indirect, with regard to the
Spokesperson. Sometimes they sit in on the meetings; sometimes they
don't. It depends on the meetings. So it's not a question of whether
they're being excluded.
Q Let me just understand. You're going to have two people
here -- an Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs will be one of them
and a Spokesperson will be the second?
DEPUTY SECRETARY WHARTON: This is the intention. I don't know
whether that will happen. At the present time, there has been an
Assistant Secretary who has been designated -- as you know, Mr. Donilon.
Q The Secretary will tell the Assistant Secretary who will
tell the Deputy Assistant Secretary who will tell the Spokesman who will
tell the Deputy Spokesman who will tell us?
DEPUTY SECRETARY WHARTON: No, no, no. Let me try to clarify
it. Let me give you an example. Mr. Donilon participates in our daily
meetings with the Secretary, myself, and all the Under Secretaries.
Okay? Mr. Donilon and Mr. Boucher participate in the weekly meetings
that we have with all the Assistant Secretaries.
There are many meetings which I would have or the Secretary has
on specific issues with certain individuals that both of them
participate in, so it depends upon the issue. So it's not a question of
exclusion at all.
Q Mr. Secretary, how will you and Secretary Christopher
divide up the world and issues that the Department deals with?
DEPUTY SECRETARY WHARTON: I'm not certain that I would use the
phrase "divide up the world." At the present time, Mr. Christopher has
indicated to me -- and we've talked about this -- he prefers what he
calls the model that he utilized when he was Deputy Secretary, which is
the "Alter Ego" model.
One of the great advantages that I have as Deputy Secretary is
that the present incumbent, in the position of Secretary, previously
held my position, so he has a great deal of understanding and
sensitivity to what may be involved and is required.
The notion of the "Alter Ego" is that I'm involved completely
in all of the areas of policy formulation and implementation in the
Department. This is critically important because when the Secretary is
not here, then I become the Secretary in terms of carrying out the
policies and implementation of the policies of the Department and the
Administration.
For example, when the Secretary leaves to go on his trip to the
Middle East, then I have to take over. In those circumstances, it is
vitally important that I be involved across the board.
Secondly, in terms of an addition to the "Alter Ego" role, the
Secretary also has asked me to become involved in certain specific areas
on an ad hoc basis from time to time, as these arise. That's only
natural and understandable.
For example, as soon as I was designated, one of the first
things he asked me to do was to get involved in the reorganization
proposals. These were well along the way, but he wanted me to review
these on the basis of my own experience in running huge, large
organizations. I will not use the term "bureaucracy." And he wanted me
to become very heavily involved in the whole reorganization set of
proposals.
Similarly, he asked that I become involved with regard to the
refocusing of AID, the Agency for International Development. In that
particular case, it was because of my prior involvement in the foreign
development field for some 22 years. So he felt that I certainly might
have some degree of insight and understanding of what was involved in an
agency for international development.
Third, he had asked me to become very heavily involved in the
whole process on the budget. Again, that relates to my experience in
running large organizations and institutions. Whether it was running
the State University of the New York system, which has more total
employees than the State Department does, or running a pension fund with
a $112 billion, I bring a certain amount of competence and experience to
budgets as well as to organizations.
And, lastly, he has asked me to take a special look -- and this
relates to one of the earlier questions -- at ways in which we can work
on improving and enhancing the morale and the spirit and the involvement
of the career Foreign Service. One of the reasons I suspect that he was
interested in my doing that is a very personal one. As you know, since
I'm Foreign Service brat and my father was a career Foreign Service
Officer for some 40 years, I think he believes that I would have some
understanding of what it means to be a Foreign Service Officer or a
diplomat or an ambassador in a foreign country.
I have to tell you, one of the earliest memories I have as a
child was my father sending cables back and forth to the Department of
State and waiting to find out what some of the answers were. It was not
by telephone. It was not by airplane and airmail. It was by cable. So
I'm quite conscious of what it means to be the Ambassador Extraordinary
and Plenipotentiary representing the United States and the President in
a foreign country, and therefore I think he believes that I would have
some understanding of, and sympathy with, the role and function of the
Foreign Service Officer.
MR. BOUCHER: We'll take maybe one more question.
Q Do we intend to shut down overseas stations -- embassies
or consulates? And if so, where and how many?
DEPUTY SECRETARY WHARTON: There was a list which was set up, I
think January 14, if I'm not mistaken. That is a list that had been
previously prepared before this Administration. However, once the Under
Secretary for Management, Mr. Atwood, is confirmed, we plan to review
that list to be certain that we are fully in accord with those posts
that have been designated. But I believe that's available, if I'm not
mistaken.
Thank you very much. This is my first one with you, and I look
forward to many others similarly. Thank you.
MR. BOUCHER: I'd like to thank the Deputy Secretary very much
for being with us. If you have anything else you'd like to talk about,
I'm available for your questions.
Q Could you talk about Bosnia? I think there are stories
suggesting that the Administration would like more negotiations.
MR. BOUCHER: There are a lot of stories out there, George. I
think at this point all I can say to you is that the policy is under
review. There have been a series of high-level meetings and
discussions; and until that process leads to some decisions and
announcements, that's about where we're going to stay.
Q Richard, could you tell us a little bit more about the
mechanics of it? Who is reviewing it? I mean, is there --
MR. BOUCHER: I think the White House has confirmed over a
number of days that they've had various meetings at the principals'
level -- the Secretary and his counterparts in other agencies.
Obviously there's a lot of work going on for those meetings at different
other levels in the bureaucracy -- preparation of papers and options and
studies, and things like that.
So that's a process that's been underway and one that continues
now.
Q Is one of the options a special mediator for Bosnia?
MR. BOUCHER: I can't get into any particular options, Jim.
Q On Haiti, the Secretary said today that tightening the
sanctions is one of the options that's being considered. Has he met
with Ambassador Caputo and was that specifically -- moving it from the
OAS into the United Nations in trying to get a sanctions resolution
there -- was that specifically discussed?
MR. BOUCHER: The Secretary met with Dante Caputo -- it was
about a week ago, right? -- and since then obviously we've been in touch
with the U.N. and OAS Special Envoy. Now he has just returned from
Haiti -- Caputo has -- and we understand he'll report to the OAS at 4:00
o'clock this afternoon.
The Secretary noted that he, Caputo, did not reach agreement on
this visit that would allow the mission to deploy. We'll obviously have
to take stock after we hear his full report. But I would reiterate what
the Secretary said today, that Mr. Caputo has only made two trips to
Haiti. We think it's premature to conclude that that process is at an
end.
We expect all the parties in Haiti to recognize the
inevitability of a return to democracy. As the Secretary said, those
who hold illegal power are swimming against the tide of history. We
won't tolerate interminable delays in this process. We will press
forward, and we hope that the parties will press forward as well.
"This new Administration," as the Secretary said, "is going to
work as hard as it can for the restoration of democracy in Haiti."
Q Does the Secretary have a meeting himself scheduled with
Caputo?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think there's one scheduled at this
point. I think obviously we'll -- Caputo is today meeting with the
whole of the OAS, so that's where he'll have his report.
Q He said he would.
MR. BOUCHER: I'll have to check and see if there's any further
meeting between the Secretary and Caputo at this point.
Q The meeting with Aristide, how long did that last?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know exactly, Alan.
(TO STAFF) Do we know?
STAFF: Half an hour.
MR. BOUCHER: About a half hour.
Q Well, I understand that the Secretary was due to escort
Mr. Aristide out of the building at 11:00 o'clock, but colleagues told
me that they were gone within ten minutes actually.
MR. BOUCHER: I'll double-check on that, Alan. I wasn't in the
environs at the time.
Q Richard, following on the Haiti thing, Caputo told the OAS
about a week and a half ago that there could be absolutely no discussion
on the part of the de facto authorities in Haiti about the numbers, the
terms or the limitations on the international observers that go in
there; and that was endorsed at the time by our Ambassador Luigi Einaudi
in follow-up remarks.
Now apparently they have said that they will not accept them
without those, so how can you say that this process is not at an end?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, because it's not. He's made two trips to
Haiti. There is a lot of encouragement for the restoration of democracy
in Haiti; and, as I said, we're determined to see that that happens. We
won't tolerate interminable delays; and, as the Secretary said this
morning, sanctions are obviously one thing that has to be looked at.
But I think it's premature particularly for us to conclude at
this stage in the process, after only two trips, that the process would
be at an end. It is a process that can and should succeed, and Caputo
has our every confidence and support in continuing his efforts.
Q Richard, when you say "process," do you mean negotiations?
MR. BOUCHER: Excuse me?
Q When you say "process," do you mean that's the same as
negotiations?
MR. BOUCHER: I meant the process of deploying the democracy
civilian mission to Haiti.
Q Well, he said that he expected them to be deployed by the
end of January. We're now past that. So when does our patience end?
MR. BOUCHER: John, if you need to ask him questions about his
timetables, I think you ask him.
Q Yes, but that once again was endorsed by the U.S.
Ambassador.
MR. BOUCHER: He has our confidence. He has our full support,
and he has our attempts to encourage all the parties to cooperate with
him.
Q Richard, in the meeting with President Aristide this
morning, did the Secretary ask him for any new flexibility?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know, Mark.
Q Do you have any kind of a substantive readout you can give
us?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, not specifically what they talked about. I
think what I described for you was -- what the Secretary described
before the meeting was more or less the way the meeting went. It was an
opportunity to discuss the situation in Haiti, discuss the efforts to
restore democracy.
You know, the Secretary restated the determination of this
Administration to see democracy restored, and they talked about the
status of Mr. Caputo's efforts. I don't have anything more beyond that.
Q Richard, what has been happening with attempts by people
to leave by boat or alternately get themselves processed in-country?
MR. BOUCHER: This is the day that I should have brought my
numbers with me, and I didn't. Generally, Howard, the departures by
boat have been very few since the policy was announced by President
Clinton and the Coast Guard blockade was established.
The few people that we have picked up at sea are being returned
to Port-au-Prince. When they return to Port-au-Prince, we give them
information on the in-country processing. We had a team down there for
a week last week to look at expanding in-country processing, and they
are preparing reports so that we can do that.
Q When do you expect that process to be -- specifically when
do you expect the Clinton Administration to follow up on that stop-gap
measure?
MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't call it a "stop-gap" measure, Sid, but
I'll get you information on the expansion as soon as we have it.
Q You said expansion of in-country processing, is that
right, Richard?
MR. BOUCHER: That's right. Yes.
Q Well, does that mean that that's going to be a more
permanent solution, as opposed to what President Clinton proposed during
the campaign?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, the permanent solution, Susan, is the one
that President Aristide and the Secretary described this morning, and
that's to resolve the political problems in Haiti. You've seen a lot of
our efforts devoted to that, and that's something that we're working on
intensively.
As the President announced, I think -- was it the 19th? It was
shortly before or after the inauguration -- he would continue the policy
of returning people to Haiti even as we worked on the solution to that
but he also wanted to expand in-country processing. So that's something
that we're working on, too -- to do that, to make sure that people in
Haiti, rather than risking their lives, risking death by travelling on
rickety boats, had an opportunity, a full opportunity, to apply in-
country.
Q I understand the long-term goals. But has the idea that
you're looking at, expansion of the in-country processing, mean -- does
that represent a total abandonment of the idea which candidate Bill
Clinton put forward in the campaign that these people would be allowed
the same hearing rights as other refugees?
MR. BOUCHER: They get the full hearing in-country.
Q But other refugees are not returned for hearings if they
claim to be political refugees. This was the point he made in the
campaign, that he disagreed with the Bush policy.
MR. BOUCHER: Susan, rather than debate things in the campaign,
I think it's better for me just to tell you that the in-country
processing is an implementation of what President Clinton has announced.
Q Richard, along those lines, is the Department consulting
with the Justice Department on what the government's arguments should be
when the case involving the Executive Order reaches the Supreme Court
for oral arguments next month?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know specifically "consultations" on a
particular case. In all these cases that involved Haitian refugees --
and we've been through quite a series of them -- we have worked very,
very closely with the Department of Justice in presenting the U.S. side,
the government side.
Q Richard, can I go back to Bosnia for a moment? Last fall,
you announced that 1,000 Bosnian Muslims, approximately, who had been --
some of whom had been in the concentration camps -- and their families
would be admitted on a special immigration quota.
According to a committee reporting to the Congress this
morning, the number of those people who have arrived in this country is
zero. Is that correct?
MR. BOUCHER: That's not correct. I can see this a day that I
should have brought my numbers with me. I think I remember them.
We offered to take 1,000 refugees and their families, or 1,000
people -- refugees and families -- to reach a total of a 1,000. I think
you're familiar with the fact that when the initial detainees were
released there were offers from Switzerland, among other countries, to
take them so that they could move on immediately to another temporary
place so that more people could get out of the camps and get to the
center that had been set up at Karlovac.
Since then, there's been a process of referral from the U.N.
High Commissioner for Refugees. And as they identify people who want to
come to the United States, they have referred people to us. I think
they've only referred to us something like 139, give or take a few.
That was the latest number I saw, because by and large these people want
to stay in Europe. They want to stay near their homes, and they want to
be able to return.
This week, we have INS officers, I think, that are out there
interviewing these people. Some of them were referred to us recently.
I think at this point the total that have come to the United States is
37.* But, in any case, the bottom line is that the numbers are small
because the referrals are small; and the referrals are small because of
what basically I think what we've been telling you all along, and that
is that most of these refugees, rather than trying to go as far as the
United States and permanently resettle, are just looking for a place to
be safe for a while until they can return to their homes.
* The 37 have not yet arrived in the U.S. [See answer posted in the
Press Office.]
Q One hundred thirty-nine, you think. Are those prisoners
or is that the total of family members plus prisoners?
MR. BOUCHER: I think that's family members plus prisoners.
There were some that were referred to us that were processed and that
were then waiting for their family members to arrive.
Q Richard, it might be useful to have a background briefing
on Bosnia so that we can have the benefit of the Administration's views,
say, for example, about the pros and cons of the Vance-Owen plan?
MR. BOUCHER: I understand that. We might be able to arrange
that at the appropriate time.
Q Richard, will the Secretary's visits to Geneva and
Brussels be an outgrowth of the developing American strategy toward
Bosnia?
MR. BOUCHER: Mark, I wouldn't tie these visits to one
particular aspect of policy. The Secretary has a broad range of issues
to discuss with Foreign Minister Kozyrev, with the Europeans. They're
all interested in the Middle East; they're all interested in U.S.
relations with them. We're all interested in Yugoslavia, and I'm
certain that Yugoslavia and Bosnia is certain to be a subject of
discussion with Foreign Minister Kozyrev as well as NATO and the EC.
There's a full range of issues. The Secretary, in his
confirmation hearings, indicated his intention to visit the parties to
the peace talks as well as to visit our allies, and he's doing this.
Q When does the sign-up sheet go up?
MR. BOUCHER: I think it's up already.
Q When does it come down?
MR. BOUCHER: When does it come down?
(TO STAFF) What did we settle on?
MR. SNYDER: Close of business Monday.
MR. BOUCHER: The close of business Monday.
Q Just to bring up a subject -- a big foreign policy subject
-- the Clinton Administration hasn't yet weighed in on the war on drugs
which the Bush Administration spent upwards of a billion dollars or so
to implement.
You probably don't have it there, but if we could get some sort
of detailed explanation of how the Clinton Administration expects to
approach that problem, whether they intend to be as active in Latin
America and other countries -- South East Asia -- as the Bush
Administration was, and how much money do we intend to spend on it?
MR. BOUCHER: Sid, you know that many of these decisions are
not made inside the State Department. For our part, we have expressed
our commitment to fighting the war on drugs. The Deputy Secretary just
explained how the reorganization would further that and allow us to do
that more effectively. I'm sure you will get from the Clinton
Administration at some point a more detailed explanation of budgets and
money and all that sort of activity. I don't think that's something I
could provide for you right now.
Q Thank you.
(Press briefing concluded at 12:50 p.m.)
(###)