Note: This Electronic Research Collection is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #43
FRIDAY, MARCH 26, 1993, 1:03 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I do have
a statement for you at the beginning about the expansion of admissions
of Bosnian refugees, and then after that we can move on to your
questions.
The United States is expanding its admissions program for
Bosnian refugees to include additional groups of special humanitarian
concern to the United States.
While the initial program was limited to former detainees and
their immediate family members, we will now accept refugee applications
from other persons such as women victims of violence, victims of
torture, and other individuals referred by the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees as being in need of resettlement. `We will:
also accept applications from Bosnian Muslim relatives of U.S. citizens,
lawful permanent residents, refugees and asylees, and of parents and
siblings of minor U.S. citizen children who have been displaced as a
result of the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This expansion will also
allow for the resettlement of up to 3,000 Bosnian refugees.
The main focus of our efforts to help the over three million
refugees and displaced from the former Yugoslavia remains humanitarian
assistance in place. To date, the United States has contributed over
$200 million in cash and in kind and will continue to give generously
until this humanitarian tragedy has ended.
I have a slightly more complete statement that will give the
contact points for people who need information on this and the
processing areas.
Q Is this open only to Muslims?
MR. BOUCHER: This is open to people in all the categories that
I've described: women victims of violence, victims of torture, other
individuals. The relative provision is for Bosnian Muslim relatives.
Q Richard, the Secretary talked this morning about tougher
sanctions on the Bosnian Serbs. Could you give us anything on that?
MR. BOUCHER: Certainly. First, I think it's important to note
the major step that was taken by the Bosnian Government and the Bosnian-
Croatian delegation yesterday in signing the peace plan. We hope that
the Bosnian Serbs will sign the plan soon, but we are discussing with
other Security Council members the steps to be considered in the event
that the Bosnian Serbs continue to block a peace agreement.
Some of the steps under consideration in the imposition of
additional and more stringent sanctions are things like further
restricting Serbian financial ties to the world economy, extending
sanctions to U.N.-protected areas within Croatia and areas of Bosnia-
Herzegovina under control of the Serbs, imposing much tighter controls
on transshipments through Serbia and Montenegro, and ensuring that
severe penalties are imposed on sanctions violators.
I should point out as well that we do have extensive efforts
underway to make sure that the existing sanctions are tightened, as the
Secretary this morning said they would be. I think you're aware of a
number of areas where we've moved forward with further assistance for
neighboring countries, with detaining and deflagging ships, with tighter
documentation on transshipments, and things like that.
Q One clean-up item on the refugee matter. Can you give us
-- you said that this program would allow resettlement of up to 3,000
refugees into the U.S. What's the total number of refugees who have
been, to use your words, resettled up to now under the previous program?
MR. BOUCHER: Let me run through that, but, first, to point out
that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees referred an
initial group of 139 detainees to us for possible resettlement in the
United States. Of those, only 39 wanted to be interviewed for admission
to the United States. So some of these numbers are smaller than the
1,000 places that we've allotted. But the reason is that, as people are
referred to us, some of them decide they don't want to come because they
don't want to leave the area or they don't want to leave their families.
You'll see in the arrivals that one of the key considerations
for many of these people is that they want to stay in the area until
they can gather in their family members, and then we bring the whole
family over.
The first 136 Bosnian refugees arrived in the United States in
February. Of these, 39 were released detainees and 97 were family
members. There are a further 99 former detainees presently in the
transit center in Karlovac, Croatia, that have expressed interest in
resettlement in the United States. The UNHCR is presenting locating
their family members and transporting the family members to Karlovac.
We would expect that several hundred family members would be
processed with this group.
Refugee processing is expected to begin immediately, and we
expect the first refugees from the second group to arrive in the United
States by the end of April.
Q Richard, on the sanctions, how fast do you plan to move on
this? Are these things just now being discussed with the allies? My
understanding had been that you were actually talking with them about
potential tightened sanctions for some time.
MR. BOUCHER: We have been. We've had teams out there that
have, first of all, worked with allies and other governments to
formulate and implement the tighter steps that you've seen are being
taken already. The steps of the tightening of the existing sanctions
are going forward.
We had two teams out there. If I'm lucky I'll find the
description of what went on.
We proceeded on two tracks to increase the impact that
sanctions are having on the Serbian economy and those responsible for
it. The first track has been to significantly tighten the application
and enforcement of the existing sanctions. The second is to consider
what new and even more stringent sanctions measures could be applied
through new U.N. Security Council resolutions.
We launched a diplomatic initiative to bolster the sanctions
enforcement with two teams, one dealing with trade and financial
matters. And in our meetings with the EC and the CSCE, we sought
procedures that you now see being implemented to curtail the
transshipment exemptions -- the abuse of the transshipment exemptions --
to expand the sanctions assistance missions; obtain technical assistance
to the frontline states; to better implement the financial sanctions;
and take on the Serbian companies and banks that are violating the
sanctions.
We've had some success with our interagency task force in
curbing violations. And, as I said, these groups went out to talk about
these steps and implement these steps, and then to discuss the possible
further measures such as the ones that I've outlined.
Q So the question remains, though, when do you expect to
move on new sanctions?
MR. BOUCHER: I can't give you a specific timetable. I think
I'd have to turn the question around and and point out that we've made
very clear that the Serbs -- it's now incumbent upon the Serbs to
abandon the fighting, to stop the conflict, to stop the killing, and to
participate and sign-on to these peace agreement immediately. We've
made that very clear.
We do have steps to tighten the sanctions already underway, and
we will consider further measures as we've been discussing them already
with other governments.
Q Richard, can you tell us what, if anything, the United
States is doing to persuade the Security Council to lift the arms
embargo against the Bosnian Government?
MR. BOUCHER: I think I've laid out -- and the Secretary has
laid out -- the program that we're following with regard to sanctions.
With regard to the arms embargo, I think it's no secret to say
that there has been substantial opposition to date in the U.N. Security
Council to a measure that would lift the arms embargo. Whether it will
change or not if the Bosnian Serbs continue to fail to come to agreement
remains to be seen.
We will keep this under careful review, as the White House has
said. But we do think we can move forward on things such as the
Secretary said -- economic sanctions and "no-fly" zone resolutions.
Q A follow-up on that, too.
Q Just a second. Does that mean that the United States
Government actively supports at this time lifting the arms embargo and
that you're hoping the opposition is reduced in the Security Council?
MR. BOUCHER: That means that, as a fact of life, Ralph, this
is not something that we can do unilaterally. It's something we have to
do with other governments. There is substantial opposition in the U.N.
Security Council to this. We want to move forward wherever possible.
The areas where we think we can move forward now are with the "no-fly"
zone, with the economic sanctions. We'll keep the arms embargo question
under review.
Q But that's not quite at the point of what you said a
minute ago. In answer to a question about whether the U.S. was going to
push the arms embargo in the Security Council, you said "opposition
remains" and don't know if that will drop. Is the U.S. opposed to it?
Is the U.S. among the countries whose opposition might drop if the Serbs
continue to behave as they have?
MR. BOUCHER: As we've said, Ralph, it's something we're
considering. It's as far as I can go.
Q As a practical matter, the arms embargo is preventing most
arms from reaching the Bosnian Muslim side, the Bosnian Government side.
There are tanks, artillery, trucks, jeeps moving across the Drina River
from Serbia into Bosnia in support of the Bosnian Serb offensive. Isn't
this fundamentally unfair? And isn't the embargo basically a failed
exercise?
MR. BOUCHER: Terry, as a practical matter, as you point out,
there are cross-border movements and activities by the Yugoslav National
Army. These are a direct violation of the U.N. arms embargo. They're
directly counter to the efforts to bring peace to Bosnia. They
constitute direct intervention by an outside power, and we condemn that.
There are -- as a practical matter, again -- existing sanctions
against Serbia because of Serbia's role in this war. You know that
they've been tightened, and you know we're discussing further tightening
of those.
Q Richard, successive administrations now have reviewed this
issue of an arms embargo at various points. Is there any change in the
Clinton Administration policy today from what it was last week on this
question of an arms embargo, or is it the same review?
MR. BOUCHER: It's something that we're considering, Carol.
It's something that we've been looking at and that we are indeed
considering.
Q Are you asking other countries -- members of the U.N.
Security Council -- to reconsider their opposition?
MR. BOUCHER: Carol, once again, it's something that we keep
under careful review. We've talked about the situation in the Security
Council. It is a subject that is discussed with other Security Council
members, but at this point there remains substantial opposition
Our efforts are, as you know, devoted to trying to bring
pressure on the Serbs to get them to sign the agreement; and if they
don't sign, whether that opposition by other members remains, I don't
know. We'll see.
Q But that's also the case -- that's also the same situation
with a "no-fly" resolution. The distinction is that the U.S. has said
all along that it favors enforcement -- prompt enforcement -- of the
"no-fly" resolution. The fact that you haven't got it may be
disappointing to you, but you've said that you favor it. In the arms
embargo case, you're not saying you favor it. Am I correct in making
that distinction?
MR. BOUCHER: It's something we have under review that we're
considering.
Q So you don't favor it? You're considering it?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, that's what I said. I said we're
considering it.
Q Richard, in urging Izetbegovic -- the Bosnian Government
-- to sign the peace accord, did the U.S. tell them that if they did and
the Serbs did not, the Administration would then go back and reconsider
the question of its position on the arms embargo? Is there a connection
there?
MR. BOUCHER: Terry, we had probably an important role in
working with the parties to help bring about an agreement. We helped to
resolve some of the issues -- like the interim government arrangement
and the arrangements for Sarajevo -- where the Bosnian Government saw
enough change or enough improvement in the situation for them to decide
to sign on.
We also think that the fact of our willingness to become
involved in implementation if the parties received a viable agreement
helped them sign on. But, ultimately, it's their decision.
We did talk to them. We made clear that if the Bosnian
Government and the Bosnian Croats signed an agreement but the Bosnian
Serbs did not, there would be a new dynamic that would come into play.
And, as we've said, there are additional economic and diplomatic
pressures that we can bring to bear. The Administration did discuss
those pressures and elements with President Izetbegovic. That's where
we are now. We're bringing about, we're moving on those pressures to
try to get the Bosnian Serbs to sign.
Q Did you say this new dynamic would include revisiting the
question of lifting the arms embargo?
MR. BOUCHER: I've described to you the status of lifting the
arms embargo. Of course, that was discussed, among the other measures.
It's something that is under review, that will remain under careful
review. But, as you know, we don't have the other elements in the
Security Council to do it.
Q Since the Bosnian Serbs fighting in Bosnia in the past
didn't show a lot of respect for what's going on at the U.N., even if
Karadzic would sign the peace plan, how optimistic are you that the
soldiers down there would care about this and stop fighting?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, as you say, it's hard to say because many
of the promises we've gotten in the past have not been implemented. At
the same time, these are negotiations that will be carefully supported
by the international community. We have expressed our willingness, as
well others in NATO, to work with others in NATO and the United Nations
to see that it is in fact implemented. It was probably a key element in
moving this far forward, and it remains a commitment of the United
States.
Q Richard, there's a certain implication in all of this that
you've been saying.
The Bosnian Serbs pretend or claim that they are essentially
independent. By your extending the sanctions on the rump Yugoslavia --
Serbia and Montenegro -- you in effect are saying that what is happening
in Bosnia is really the result of marching orders sent out by Milosevic
and his people. Is that a correct --
MR. BOUCHER: Jim, I don't think we've ever made a secret, ever
since we started pushing for sanctions against Serbia, that they were
indeed supporting the Bosnian Serbs, and that they were indeed
responsible for the continuation of the conflict, and that when we
started pushing through sanctions almost a year ago now, that support
was what we were attempting to get at.
Q And, specifically, do you think the Bosnian Serb
Government is refusing to sign the agreement so far because of orders
from Belgrade?
MR. BOUCHER: I can't try to pretend to analyze their internal
politics. But the government in Belgrade certainly has it within its
power to influence the situation. We want them to do that.
Q Richard, in light of Serbia's continued resistance and the
United States is now considering trying to forge lifting the embargo, is
the United States also considering or discussing with the allies other
potential military action?
MR. BOUCHER: Steve, I don't want to speculate on other things.
I told you what we're doing. The Secretary talked this morning about
certain specific things that we're working on now, and I've expanded on
them here; but I don't want to speculate on everything possible.
Q There are reports of a new cease-fire attempt. Do you
know anything about that?
MR. BOUCHER: No. I've just seen the reports. We've always
supported a cease-fire. Let's see it happen.
Q Richard, while we're on the sanctions, the Secretary spoke
about seeking tougher sanctions resolutions. Maybe I missed it; but in
your description of tougher sanctions, I thought all of those things you
discussed were already authorized by the resolutions in place.
Is there something deficient about the current resolutions on
sanctions that the U.S. feels need to be remedied or enhanced?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have the specific resolution with me to
compare the language, but I think you'll find that most of the things
that I cited were things that would require a new resolution. We're
doing everything possible under the current resolutions to tighten up
the enforcement of those sanctions, and these are things we would
consider to put in a further resolution if the Serbs don't join in the
peace process.
Q Do you have anything on the downing of a U.S. Navy plane
over Yugoslav territory?
MR. BOUCHER: I hadn't heard anything at all like that. Check
with the Pentagon.
Q Another subject?
Q One more question on sanctions. Does the U.S. support
impounding the rump Yugoslavia vessels, trucks, detaining any aircraft
as part of a sanctions regime? I gather it's included in the EC's
proposed sanctions measures.
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to.
We've had an active campaign to deflag vessels that were violating the
embargo. I think we've talked before about the need to -- I don't know
what the precise words are -- but basically seize vessels that were
found in violation. I think there is some existing authority in that
area already.
I'm not clear enough on the idea to say what would be new and
to say whether there's something additional we'd have to push for. But,
certainly, any other ideas that the EC or others might have, we
certainly discuss them with them.
Q Richard, on the Ukraine, what did the Ukrainian Foreign
Minister tell the United States about his country's current posture on
START? Did he promise again another date far in the future when it
would be taken up, or basically did he say "I can't give you a
commitment," or something different?
MR. BOUCHER: Carol, I think he discussed with you all before
the meeting the status as far as the Ukraine Government was concerned.
I don't think I should speak for them.
Q What are you talking about, at the press conference?
MR. BOUCHER: He did a press conference afterwards as well, but
at the photo op he described it as being before Parliament.
Q Is the U.S. satisfied with the assurances it received this
week from the Ukraine Government about the prompt passage or
ratification of the START Treaty?
MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, as you know, we've been concerned and
disappointed by the delay that has occurred already. We would be
concerned and disappointed by any further delay. We would like to see
prompt passage.
Q Well, does this Administration have any strategy for
ensuring eventual passage, even if it's not prompt? I mean, it's been
over a year.
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure, Carol, that it's in our hands to
ensure. It's in the hands of the Ukrainian Government and the Ukrainian
Parliament to actually pass it. As you know, we've had discussions with
the Ukrainian Government about some of their concerns in the security
area. We've had discussions with the Ukrainian Government about the
possibility that we could offer $175 million worth of Nunn-Lugar funds
to assist them in the nuclear safety and dismantlement area. And so
certainly there are things that we have discussed with the Ukrainian
Government. But in the end it's up to them to ensure its passage.
Q So does that mean, even though the United States is
disappointed Ukraine hasn't acted so far, that ultimately if Ukraine
fails to act on START, it will just accept that as a reality?
MR. BOUCHER: That's extraordinarily hypothetical, Carol. We
want to see the thing ratified. It's important that Ukraine ratify both
START and NPT. We've made very, very clear that that's important in and
of itself to bring about the further reduction of nuclear weapons. It's
also important to the U.S.-Ukrainian relationship, and we've made no
secret of that.
Q The President actually said it was not only important to
the relationship; he said, I think yesterday or the day before, that it
was a precondition. I think he used the word "precondition." Is the
U.S. taking any steps to curtail, curb, stop, prevent from moving
forward the U.S.-Ukraine relationship? Is there anything concrete that
is being done to demonstrate that, without the steps the President said
was a precondition, the following will not occur or are not occurring?
MR. BOUCHER: I guess, Ralph, I don't have the exact words that
the President used the other day. We've made no secret of our concern
about this area. We've made no secret that failure to move forward in
this area would have an impact on our relations. And we've made very
clear that some of the cooperative projects -- for example, the money in
the nuclear area -- as a practical and a political matter couldn't be
used and given until after we had ratification of START and the NPT.
Q Are there any cooperative projects that are going on at
the moment despite the problem with the START and the NPT Treaty?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have the exact totals, but we do have
humanitarian assistance and some technical assistance programs that are
going on.
Q And those will proceed in spite of the status, or will
they be halted, stopped, reduced, curtailed?
MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, at this point we continue to urge the
Ukrainian Government to ratify -- Ukrainian Parliament and Government to
ratify -- the NPT and the START agreements. We do have certain programs
designed to help people, designed to help them reform their economy.
These are all very important things to the United States.
We want to have a cooperative relationship with Ukraine, but
we've stressed again and again the importance of their moving forward in
this area of START and NPT. We've made clear that there were certain
aspects of the relationship that we couldn't move on, like the Nunn-
Lugar assistance, until after they had ratified that; and it continues
to be an issue that we discuss.
Q Two concerns that have been raised consistently by the
Ukrainians are, one, the adequacy of the Nunn-Lugar funds and, secondly,
the adequacy of the security guarantees from the U.S. Is the
Administration in talks this week or after talks this week prepared to
increase the amount of aid available to dismantle nuclear weapons beyond
the $175 million? And is the U.S. considering or discussing further
security guarantees to Ukraine?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I know the answers precisely to
those, Terry.
Q Those have been the two central issues that they have
raised, and I'm not sure whether --
MR. BOUCHER: We have made clear in the past that we were
prepared to discuss security assurances, and we indeed have discussed
them with Ukraine. I've made clear in the past, as I have again today,
that we had plans to spend $175 million in Nunn-Lugar funds.
Q So in your mind both things are -- both matters are
basically settled, and it's up to the Ukrainians now to live with those
terms?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, it has been up to the Ukrainians for quite
some time to ratify these agreements, and we hope that they do.
Q Richard, a different subject: What does the Secretary
hope to accomplish by his meeting this afternoon with the Palestinians?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm sure the Secretary may have more to say than
I do about that, but he's meeting this afternoon with Faisal Husseini
and the Palestinians to discuss further steps in the peace process.
Q Are you still as confident as he was a few weeks ago that
all the parties will show up on the 20th?
MR. BOUCHER: We continue to think it's important for all the
parties to show up. We continue to think it's in their interest. As
you know, we've invited them, and we expect them to show up. You can
ask him personally later if you want to.
Q What other delegations have accepted the U.S. invitations
for these sort of pre-negotiation discussions, aside from the Israelis
who have already held theirs?
MR. BOUCHER: The status on both the formal talks and the pre-
consultations is that there hasn't been any change.
Q So no other delegations, other than the Palestinians, have
accepted invitations to come and discuss --
MR. BOUCHER: Of course Prime Minister Rabin was here, and we
talked to him about the peace process. And we have other high-level
visitors coming. But in terms of talks like these and the ninth round,
there has been no change. We understand the Arab parties are going to
meet this weekend in Damascus to discuss these issues.
Q Richard, do you plan readouts after the meetings, both
with the Palestinians and with the South Korean this afternoon?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll see what I can get you.
Q Richard, on another subject, yesterday in his testimony
the Secretary talked about possible sanctions against North Korea,
should they not accept international inspection.
He wasn't quite, though, when those might kick in. Would it be
after the IAEA deadline of March 31, or would it be if they let the 90-
day clock run out on their withdrawal from the NPT?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, it would be -- and I think the Secretary
described the process, saying that if the IAEA concluded that North
Korea is in violation, then the matter would be referred to the U.N.
Security Council. They could decide after March 31, when they've
scheduled a meeting to discuss the refusal to accept the inspections.
At that point they could decide to refer the matter to the U.N. Security
Council, and that would be something that we would support if the North
Koreans haven't reversed their decision.
Q In other words, it wouldn't have to wait for the 90-day
withdrawal period to --
MR. BOUCHER: North Korea continues to be obligated by those
obligations to the withdrawal period. The obligation to accept the
special inspection is something that the Board will consider March 31.
Q And also on nuclear matters, the other day President de
Klerk of South Africa mentioned that his country had at one time six
nuclear arms -- bombs. Did that come as a surprise to the U.S.
Government?
MR. BOUCHER: Jim, there's a level of detail -- actually,
there's a level of generality -- to which I can't go on this question,
because what we knew obviously involves intelligence matters. I would
just say that -- and you've seen them appear in the press as well --
there were reports out there of the possibilities.
Q And do you believe his statement that there had never been
a South African nuclear test?
MR. BOUCHER: That's not something I could comment on.
Q Do we believe they have in fact been destroyed?
MR. BOUCHER: At this point, John, as you know, they've invited
the IAEA to come and inspect and verify those kinds of things. The IAEA
was already in the process of verifying their declarations on nuclear
materials. The IAEA said in the past the cooperation from the South
Africans was satisfactory, but they have not at this point completed
that process and reached any conclusions. So I really can't answer that
question at this point.
Q Richard, it wasn't necessarily true that the U.S. would
have to have known about South Africa's nuclear weapons only through
intelligence. It could have been that the South African Government
might have informed the U.S. Government. I take it that you're saying
that South Africa never told the U.S. that it had these nuclear weapons?
If the U.S. knew, the only way it would have known would have been
through intelligence, is that what you're saying?
MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, as you know, there were reports that were
circulating. I think if you look at the South African President's
speech, he never said that he had informed us. I haven't really checked
precisely on that possibility, but I think he said that they had not
told anybody about it.
Q Richard, on --
MR. BOUCHER: Jim had a question.
Q On his remarks -- the missiles -- the civilian -- alleged
civilian uses of satellite launching by South Africa. Is the United
States satisfied with their program for satellite launching?
MR. BOUCHER: Let me get you something further on that later.
We have no sort of cooperation with that program because of the Missile
Technology Control Regime and the U.N. arms embargo.
Q Richard, still on that subject, I realize there are some
things that you have been told you cannot talk about, but I hope you
understand that this is not just morbid curiosity on our part, that it
goes to whether the United States' ability to monitor such a
comprehensive program is or was adequate. And if you could answer it in
any way, it would go to answer those doubts that may have arisen in our
minds.
MR. BOUCHER: I'll see if there's any way I can answer your
doubts, Jim.
Q Still on that question of South African nuclear
capability, now that the United States has been made aware of South
Africa's large nuclear weapons program, is the U.S. revisiting its
earlier investigation of Israeli-South African cooperation on nuclear
matters? Is it requesting of the Israeli Government any further
information about their cooperation?
MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, I'm afraid that's not something I can get
anything for you on.
Q Wait a minute. You've got a strategic relationship with
Israel, extensive military cooperation, and all kinds of pledges of
other sorts of cooperation. Now that you have new information, or
presumably new information, wouldn't it be prudent for the U.S. to
revisit that issue? Or are you just going to let it go by and not deal
with that issue?
MR. BOUCHER: We'll take your suggestion, Ralph, but I'm afraid
that's not an area that I would feel comfortable going into.
Q Do you have any reports from the Abidjan meetings between
the U.S. and UNITA?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, I do. Our principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for African Affairs Jeffrey Davidow met with a UNITA
delegation in Abidjan yesterday. The U.S. and UNITA delegations
exchanged views in a cooperative atmosphere on a number of issues key to
resolving Angola's current crisis. Discussions continued throughout the
day. The U.S. delegation also met separately with high-level Ivorian
officials.
Bilateral meetings with UNITA are continuing today and will
probably run through tomorrow. Our goal in these talks remains a
renewal of face-to-face meetings between the Angolan parties under U.N.
auspices.
The UNITA delegation includes Information Secretary Valentim
and three other officials who participated in the Addis Ababa talks in
January. UNITA's Washington and Abidjan representatives are also
participating.
Q Does the composition of that delegation satisfy your
concerns as to its ability to commit the organization?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I would comment on the composition
of another government's delegation. Obviously we're interested in
having productive and useful talks. Those talks are ongoing, and I've
told you what our goal is. We'll see what we can get, what happens.
Q One other subject but not related to Angola, in case
anyone wanted to cover --
Tensions again are rising in El Salvador, and the military has
now strongly denounced the Truth Commission report and asked Cristiani
basically to hold the line against its implementation. Do you have any
reaction from here?
MR. BOUCHER: I'd refer you back to what the Secretary said
yesterday -- that we supported the Truth Commission's report, we think
it's important, and we think it ought to be implemented.
Q Okay. And on the Secretary's testimony, he said something
about "piercing the amnesty." Did he mean that only in the sense of
permitting U.S. citizens who might have been wronged by the abuses
outlined in the Truth Commission the right to sue or to seek redress in
U.S. courts, or was he speaking of a more general approach that would
include other people's ability to seek redress? Do you know? The
wording is a little confusing.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to try to get into interpreting
specific remarks by the Secretary. You know our position has been that
we support the overall peace process. We think that all the parties
should carry out the commitments that they've made. We support the
recommendations of the various commissions -- the Ad Hoc Commission and
the Truth Commission.
The Secretary was asked yesterday specifically about the
question of American citizens. Prior to the passage of the amnesty law,
we made clear to the Salvadoran Government our serious concerns about
American citizens who have been killed there and what would happen to
those who had committed those acts of murder. We believe that justice
ought to be done in those cases.
Q Richard, as a practical matter, do you think -- or does
the Secretary think or does the Department think -- that the U.S.
Government could actually itself move against any of those military
officers?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can get that specific. As the
Secretary said yesterday, these were questions that we would have to
look at from a legal point of view. We're also discussing questions
involving the cases involving U.S. citizens. We're discussing those
with the Salvadoran Government, but I can't give you final answers at
this point.
Q I don't recall him mentioning this issue of the government
-- it frankly didn't occur to me until now -- and I wondered whether you
could just pursue that and see if that in fact is something that's being
looked at.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know, Carol. I'll have to see. I
certainly wouldn't give you any final legal judgments at this point.
Q I'm not looking for final legal judgments. I'm just
looking to elaborate on what the Secretary said yesterday and whether or
not the United States is examining not just whether individual private
citizens might be able to pursue this matter, but whether the government
itself.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't -- I mean, I don't think he specified one
or the other. He said that there were legal issues that we would look
at, that were involved in these things. I've made clear our concerns
about the cases of people who killed the Americans down there. I think
the Secretary was asked about the nuns and the Jesuits. We also had
Marines that were assassinated by the FMLN in 1985.
We're concerned about those cases. We've raised them with the
Salvadoran Government. We are looking at the legal issues. But to try
to tell you exactly who would be able to bring complaints and prosecute
them, it's just too early for me to do that at this point.
Q Richard, there's a report that the Prime Minister of
Vietnam, who's now visiting Japan, has said that a U.S. delegation will
be coming to Vietnam to discuss normalization next month. Do you know
anything about that?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't. That's something I'll have to check on.
I just saw that right before I walked in and didn't have a chance to
check.
Q Richard, could I return to Jim and Ralph's questions? In
the context of the fact that Jonathan Pollard was an Afrikaan-speaking
Naval intelligence officer in charge of monitoring any Naval information
out of South Africa, and that his amnesty petition is now moving through
the Department of Justice, is there any chance that South Africa was
testing weapons not for South Africa, as stated by the Prime Minister,
but testing for other countries?
MR. BOUCHER: I really can't try to give you appraisals of
questions like that. You've seen President de Klerk's statement.
There's just not much more that I can say. The IAEA has been invited to
go down and look at this whole program; and, if they have any
conclusions from their efforts that they can make public, I'm sure that
will be very interesting. But there's nothing I can really say at this
time.
Q Richard, one more subject. Has the Egyptian Government put
in a request for the extradition or deportation, whatever, of Sheik
Rahman?
MR. BOUCHER: That's a question you'd have to ask the Egyptian
Government. We're certainly not at the point in the process where we
would be contacting other governments about receiving him, since he
still has appeals left.
Q Well, I'm not asking whether they sent one. What I'm
asking is, has the United States Government received a request for his
presence?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll check and see if that's something I can give
you, Jim, but you might check directly with the Egyptian Government.
Q Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:42 p.m.)
(###)