930205 Daily Press Briefing  Return to: Index of 1993 Daily Briefings || Electronic Research Collections Index || ERC Homepage

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

To the top of this page