930331 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.





                         DEPARTMENT OF STATE
                         DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

                                                      DPC #45

                WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 1993, 12:50 P.M.
                (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)


    .....MR. BOUCHER:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  First, 
just a housekeeping announcement.  The Secretary of State will be 
appearing in open session before the Subcommittee on International 
Operations of the House Foreign Affairs Committee at 10:00 a.m. on 
Thursday, April 1.  Room Number is 2172 of the Rayburn House Office 
Building.  The subject is the Foreign Relations Authorization Request 
for 1994-95.  Given the Secretary's testimony, there will not be a 
regular State Department press briefing here tomorrow.

          And with that out of the way, I'd be glad to take your 
questions.

          Q  What was that committee, Richard?

          MR. BOUCHER:  The Subcommittee on International Operations of 
House Foreign

          Q   Do you happen to know when the State Department budget 
will be ready?  There was some chatter the other day that it would be 
delayed a bit.  Do you know when it's basically --

          MR. BOUCHER:  No.  The Secretary has been doing this testimony 
--

          Q  No, I know.

          MR. BOUCHER:  -- and as he's noted in his testimony, the final 
figures aren't out yet.

          Q   Yeah, I know that.

          MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not sure exactly when it is.  It's in the 
next week or so that we would expect the figures to be out.  And, of 
course, we'll provide those to you.

          Q  Didn't he testify at the same Committee last week?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I don't remember.  I get the names confused.  I 
think it was different.  It's a series of committees that he's done.

          Q    Richard, is the Terrorism Report coming out -- when? -- 
tomorrow?

          MR. BOUCHER:  No.  The Terrorism Report is April 30.

          Q    April 30.  Sorry, I thought it was April 1.

          Q    And the Narcotics Report?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Is March 31 or April 1.  In the next couple of 
days, the Narcotics Report comes out.

          Q    Richard, do you have any reaction to the World Bank 
decision yesterday to loan Iran some money for its electricity system?  
Coming just a couple of hours, as it did, after the Secretary said that 
the United States would try to block such loans.

          MR. BOUCHER:  Well, the United States, first of all, votes 
against such loans because of legislation that requires that we vote 
against all such loans to Iran, which has been designated a state 
sponsor of terrorism since 1984.

          The facts are, however, in the organization, that our vote 
alone does not constitute a veto.  And, as you said, on March 30 -- 
yesterday -- the World Bank Executive Board approved a $165 million 
power-sector efficiency loan to Iran.  It's the latest of several recent 
World Bank loans to Iran for infrastructure and development programs.

          As the Secretary said yesterday, we've done more than merely 
vote against the loans; we've actively opposed the resumption of World 
Bank "business as usual" lending to Iran. We think it's inappropriate 
given Iran's record of terrorism, its building of weapons of mass 
destruction, and, in addition, its mounting debt arrears.

          We've made that position known to other governments. We've 
lobbied against these loans.  But the fact is that our vote alone 
doesn't constitute a veto, and we'll continue to pursue that.

          Q    Richard, the United States, I believe, has 20 percent of 
the shares of the World Bank.  Does that mean that U.S. money that goes 
to the World Bank is actually now going to Iran?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Alan, I think the accounting and the procedures 
like that, you can ask of the World Bank.  We don't think that the loans 
-- that the world community, whether through multilateral loans like 
this or bilateral, or whatever, should be providing this kind of support 
to Iran given Iran's record.  What concerns us is Iran's record of 
terrorism, it's record in the area of weapons of mass destruction.

          Q    Was the U.S. lobbying effective at all?  I don't know 
what the vote was.  In his testimony, he referred to France, Germany, 
and others doing these things.  And of course, it wasn't to yesterday's 
loan that he was speaking.  Do you know if any of your friends heeded 
the U.S. appeal?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I don't remember what the final vote was.  I 
think there were some abstentions.  We may have been the only vote 
against.  But in any case, it's something that we do feel strongly 
about, as the Secretary made clear, and it's something that we'll 
continue pursuing.

          Q    What do they tell you when you pitch?  Do they say, 
indeed, business as usual?  Do they not share the U.S.'s apprehension 
about -- what did he call Tehran yesterday? -- an outlawed terrorist --

          MR. BOUCHER:  International outlaw.

          Q    International outlaw?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I don't think it's for me to characterize the 
views of other governments.  I think the Secretary did discuss that to 
some extent yesterday, however.

          Q    Has the State Department begun its consultations with 
other countries about expanding the sanctions against Libya?

          MR. BOUCHER:  We have had a variety of discussions with other 
governments.  We are consulting with a number of countries, both in 
foreign capitals as well as in New York, regarding steps -- the next 
steps we can take to stiffen the sanctions on Libya.

          As you know, we want full Libyan compliance with the U.N. 
Security Council resolutions.  We constantly monitor and follow up on 
reports of possible violations of existing sanctions.  We have an active 
program of ensuring the sanctions are adhered to, and cooperation from 
other governments has been good.

          But as the Secretary said yesterday, we're consulting with 
other governments on next steps in order to stiffen the sanctions.  We 
think that's something that should be done.

          Q    And are the consultations centered around an embargo on 
oil, or are there other ideas?

          MR. BOUCHER:  As the Secretary said yesterday, that one of the 
things that we want to talk about is an embargo on oil, but there are 
other things that we're discussing as well.

          Q    What are you talking about?

          Q    Like what other things?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I can't give you a full list, Jim.  I think the 
issue of oil technology and equipment has come up. We're looking for 
ways to stiffen the sanctions.

          Q    I wonder if we could ask you about the "no-fly" zone 
enforcement?  According to several reports, the Russians would be for 
the resolution if it were phrased to prohibit attacks on ground targets.

          Now, I don't know that the U.S. is in favor of attacking 
ground targets or not.  Could you clarify whether there is any 
disagreement?  Or where does the U.S. stand on that?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Barry, some of these specific things I really 
have to leave for discussion up in New York.  I think it's worth noting 
that discussions have, indeed, resumed up in New York.  Issues 
concerning the rules of engagement -- these kind of issues that you 
raised -- are being discussed, and we think they're being resolved.

          We anticipate the Council will be able to vote on this soon.  
The Council is having a -- we expect them to meet informally on this 
subject this afternoon, and we would expect to get a vote fairly soon -- 
very soon.

          Q    When the Secretary came down with Mr. Kozyrev last week, 
they spoke as if there's some agreement between the two on how to 
proceed.  Now maybe it didn't go into detail or maybe it did.

          Was there any compromise necessary or were the U.S. and Russia 
exactly on  --  you know, in agreement on how to proceed?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Barry, I can't say that we were in exact and 
complete agreement right from the start with anybody. Certainly, as we 
move towards these kinds of resolutions, there's always further 
discussions and complete discussions of the language.

          What the Secretary and Minister Kozyrev said last week is that 
we had agreed to postpone this discussion for seven days; and indeed, 
today, you find that seven days later, a meeting with the Council and 
working and resolving, we think, what the final issues are, and we do 
expect to see a vote soon.

          Q    Richard, has the United States demurred in endorsing the 
U.N's endorsement of the Vance-Owen plan?

          MR. BOUCHER:  "Demurred," huh?  Let me --

          Q    I don't know quite what the exact verb is, so I'll leave 
it to you to put the verb to it.

          MR. BOUCHER:  It's a good verb, John.  Let me sort of tell 
you, in addition to the "no-fly" zone, what we're doing. We're talking 
with the Perm Three plus Spain about an omnibus resolution on the 
Bosnian crisis that would call upon the Bosnian Serbs to reach agreement 
with the other two parties under the Vance-Owen process and which 
provides for tougher economic sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro if 
they fail to do so.  I think I described for you last Friday some of the 
areas that we might explore in that regard.

          We hope to reach agreement soon among the Perm Three and Spain 
on a draft text which we could then circulate to the full Security 
Council.

          On this question of plan versus process:  the policy, as 
announced by Secretary Christopher on February 10, made clear that we 
support the Vance-Owen process as a means to arrive at an agreement that 
can be acceptable to all the parties.  As you know at this point, the 
parties haven't all agreed to a plan.

          We certainly fully endorse the process, but our position has 
always been that we shouldn't try to impose a particular plan upon the 
parties but rather we should try to work with the parties in order to 
find a viable resolution that the parties can accept.  So that is what 
we are doing.

          The specific language of this resolution on this point is 
being discussed up in New York, but I'm told it's something that we are 
well on our way towards resolving.

          Q    So your objection, then, is one of principle rather than 
to the idea of the U.N. endorsing the plan as a means to bring pressure 
on the Bosnian Serbs?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Certainly, John, the -- the short answer is yes.  
Our view has been to very much make it clear to the Serbs, through a 
variety of means including the possibility of not only tightening 
existing sanctions but, as the Secretary says, toughening up the 
sanctions, and we're working on that in terms of this resolution, to 
make very clear to the Bosnian Serbs that it's in their interest to 
reach an acceptable agreement and then to carry it out.  So we have 
major efforts underway.

          The Secretary described, I think, the diplomatic efforts.  He 
said we were going to tighten and toughen sanctions, and that is what 
we're working on.  We think it's very important that the Bosnian Serbs, 
as rapidly as possible, reach agreement in the context of the Vance-Owen 
process on the plan that will be agreed to and implemented.

          Q    If that's the case, why not go on record with other 
members of the Security Council as endorsing the Vance-Owen plan?          
MR. BOUCHER:  John, this isn't -- first of all, this is not a major 
issue.  This is a question of the wording of a resolution that's being 
worked out.

          Second of all, our position, as you know, has been that this 
is an important process.  We absolutely think that the Serbs should play 
ball with this process, should reach agreement, should work on an 
agreement, and we're bringing diplomatic and other pressures on them to 
try to make them understand that it's very much in their interest to do 
that. But as to the specific wording of this resolution, that's 
something that we're working on.

          Q    Richard, I may have missed a nuance on this, but my 
understanding last week, when the President and the Secretary were 
talking about it, was that the object was to pressure the Serbs into 
signing the agreement which the other two parties had already accepted.  
If that's the case, then why not endorse the agreement that you're 
trying to pressure the Serbs into signing?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Again, Norm, this is not a big issue. This is 
something that's being discussed and resolved.  The exact wording of a 
resolution is being discussed and resolved in New York at the 
discussions up there, and I'm sure there's something that accurately 
characterizes our views.

          Q    It might not be a big issue to those drafting the 
resolution, but it could very well be a big issue to the Serbs as to 
whether or not they will, in fact, sign this agreement.

          MR. BOUCHER:  Well, the Serbs at this point, we understand 
based on press reports, have said that their so-called -- their self-
styled parliament is supposed to take up the issue of the Bosnian Serb 
adherence to the agreement.  Press reports indicate that that may take 
place on April 2.

          Lord Owen, in the meantime, has been consulting with other 
members of the steering committee.  And, as you know -- as I've said 
before -- we think it's very important that they reach agreement on a 
plan that can be implemented.

          Q    Richard, does the United States believe that the Serbs 
should sign the agreement that's already been accepted by the other two 
parties, or does it believe that the Serbs should try to renegotiate 
some other agreement?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Certainly we don't -- we think that the Serbs 
should in this process reach agreement with the other parties.  I think 
at that point I should stop.

          Q    Richard, pardon my ignorance, but who are the Perm Three, 
and what is an omnibus resolution?

          Q    Thank you.

          MR. BOUCHER:  An omnibus resolution is one that covers a whole 
number of subjects and makes every stop along the way. It will both 
endorse the process underway, call upon the Serbs to reach agreement, 
and provide additional incentives for any party that might not want to 
reach agreement in this process. It covers a lot of ground.

          Q    (Inaudible)

          MR. BOUCHER:  No, you don't, Barry.

          Q    Richard, just to clarify that, this is also the Sanctions 
Resolution as well, though, right?

          MR. BOUCHER:  That's what I just said.

          Q    Sorry.  But it's not the "No-Fly" Resolution.

          MR. BOUCHER:  It's not the "No-Fly" Resolution.

          Q    No.  That one is not an omnibus; it's a single-stop 
resolution, right.

          Q    Richard, on sanctions --

          Q    Wait, wait.  Perm Three.

          MR. BOUCHER:  The Perm Three.  The Perm Three is the U.S., 
U.K., France.

          Q    Richard, on sanctions, speaking of press reports, have 
you seen those which say that the sanctions have had the reverse effect 
of strengthening Milosevic in the sense that he now has a villain on 
which he can pin his domestic economic problems, and do you think that 
just might be the case?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I think I'd just simply say, Jim, that we just 
don't agree with that kind of analysis.  We think the sanctions are 
useful.  We think the sanctions are important, and we intend to proceed 
with them.

          Q    During the period when they're trying to evacuate 
civilians from Moslem pockets like Srebrenica, what is the U.S. position 
on trying to expedite the process, to organize it better so that people 
aren't crushed to death as they are trying to get out of these 
(inaudible).

          MR. BOUCHER:  I don't know, John, that we're in a position or 
able to give too much specific advice on how to, you know, line up the 
trucks or the number of trucks in each individual instance.  I would 
say, however, that we have stressed again and again the importance of 
stopping the fighting in the area and allowing full access by the United 
Nations, both for the evacuation of the wounded and to get food in to 
people.

          Now, the pressure from the United States, the United Nations, 
General Morillon and others has succeeded now in getting a second convoy 
into Srebrenica, and they were able to take out some 2,000 people -- to 
evacuate some 2,000 people from that area, with a tragic circumstance or 
incidents occurring while they were loading the trucks -- that some of 
the people were killed.

          We have -- I think the best resolution to this is what we've 
been pressing for all along, and that's stopping the fighting, allowing 
full and complete access for the United Nations to provide as many 
trucks, as much food and as much transportation as it takes to take care 
of these people.

          Q    Richard, do you have any reaction to the new "open-fire" 
regulations announced by Israel, whereby soldiers are now allowed to 
fire at any Palestinian that they see has a weapon?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Alan, I'm not going to be commenting on any 
specific steps.  I'll give you our general view of the situation out 
there, and that's first of all that we deplore the rising violence in 
the occupied territories.  It has profoundly endangered the lives of 
many innocent people on all sides.

          We've made it clear that we believe that the Israeli 
Government has the responsibility for providing security for its people 
and for the security of the territories under its control.  We have also 
urged the parties to act with restraint. Once again, I'd repeat that 
only a political settlement will help solve the problems that underlie 
the violence in the Middle East, and the increase in violence, as the 
Secretary has said, makes it all the more important to renew the peace 
negotiations.

          Q    Richard, is this new "open-fire" policy in line with the 
current human rights standards that the United States is pressing so 
hard for around the world?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Sid, I really don't think I can go into detail 
on any of the specific measures.  Some of these issues are indeed 
discussed in our human rights report, and I'd refer you back to that.

          Q    Richard, on Haiti, is the U.S. actively consulting with 
Caputo in the negotiations currently going on, and what would be the 
U.S. policy should these talks fail to produce a settlement?

          MR. BOUCHER:  The United States is absolutely, actively and 
closely following the efforts of former Argentine Foreign Minister and 
currently U.N. and OAS Envoy Dante Caputo.  He is down in Haiti.  We 
understand he plans to return from Haiti today to report on his latest 
round of talks.  We continue to follow and to support his efforts to end 
Haiti's crisis.

          From Washington our Special Adviser, Ambassador Pezzullo, and 
in Port-au-Prince Ambassador Redman remain closely involved in those 
efforts and in close contact with Minister Caputo.  This return to 
Washington is a normal part of the process of negotiations that are 
going on.  He'll confer with U.N. and OAS officials and with us, and 
then he'll continue to pursue the negotiations.

          We share the same goals:  return of democracy to Haiti, the 
return of President Aristide, and international cooperation to help 
rebuild Haiti's economy.

          Q    What about the second part of the question?

          MR. BOUCHER:  If the talks fail, I would say that's a 
hypothetical question at this point, Steve.  We're supporting the 
efforts, and we hope they succeed, and we're doing what we can to help 
make them succeed.

          Q    Return to Bosnia for just a moment and see if you can set 
the record straight on the issue of lifting the arms embargo.  Has the 
U.S., first of all, begun a renewed round of consultations with its 
allies, or is it just making public announcements at this point, warning 
the allies that these consultations are coming?

          MR. BOUCHER:  John, this is a subject, as you know, that's 
been discussed and in play for some time.  It's a subject that we 
continue to discuss with allies, and I think the Secretary talked 
yesterday about some of the concerns and considerations that we'd heard 
back.  It's a subject that continues to be discussed.

          Q    So when would this -- where does this fall in your 
chronology of intended future actions?  It looks like your omnibus idea 
is the first thing you're going to walk down the pike, or is "no-fly" 
coming before that, and then if those don't work, some weeks or months 
down the pike you begin to discuss and push lifting an arms embargo?

          MR. BOUCHER:  John, I don't think I can give you a precise 
timetable or chronology or -- well, precise sort of schedule of all of 
this.  Certainly, the arms embargo is something that we have raised, 
that we will continue to raise, that we will continue to discuss with 
others.

          This week we are working on the "no-fly" resolution. We are 
working on the economic sanctions and further pressures on the Serbs 
that would be contained in this broader resolution that calls on the 
Serbs to reach agreement with the other parties in the Vance-Owen 
process.

          We're also, as you know, moving forward on the War Crimes 
Tribunal, and the Secretary General is preparing his report, I think, 
for mid-April on that subject.  That's something that we have an intense 
interest in, as the Secretary discussed yesterday, and, as he said 
yesterday, we continue to move forward on the humanitarian front with 
the airdrops and the continued support for the convoys.  So there are a 
number of things we're doing now. There are other things, obviously, 
that we're discussing, including the arms embargo.

          Q    Richard, Assistant Secretary-designate Winston Lord this 
morning indicated that this Administration is much further along towards 
normalization -- full normalization with Vietnam than the Bush 
Administration.  Is that a correct assessment of what he was saying up 
there?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I didn't hear what he was saying, Sid, but I'm 
sure he explained it very clearly himself.  So I wouldn't think it's my 
duty to re-explain it.

          Q    What does the Perm One think should be the next step as 
far as North Korea and nuclear non-proliferation? (Laughter)

          MR. BOUCHER:  I'm sorry.  I'll expunge the term from future 
guidance.

          The situation with regard to North Korea is that the IAEA 
Board of Governors met today in Vienna to hear the Director General Hans 
Blix's report on North Korea's refusal to allow inspections of the two 
suspected nuclear waste sites in North Korea.

          In our view, North Korea has not taken any action to meet the 
IAEA's request, including the specific request to allow such 
inspections.  So if the board finds North Korea in non-compliance, it 
would be bound by Article 12(C) of its statute to report its finding to 
the U.N. Security Council and the U.N. General Assembly.

          At this point I don't have any more information about the 
Board's discussions today.  We expect them to consider its actions today 
and probably actually vote on a resolution tomorrow.

          Q    Richard, there continue to be press reports that the 
United States is going to offer Russia an additional $1 billion in aid.  
Do you have anything on that?

          MR. BOUCHER:  No, I don't, John.

          Q    Richard, could I ask a question about Ambassador 
Rabinovich's statement that the United States did not have any right to 
promise no further deportations.  He very clearly stated that on "Call 
Israel" yesterday.  Is it true that there were no assurances beyond -- 
that have been given by Prime Minister Rabin that this was an 
exceptional circumstance in December, but there would be no promise of 
further deportations?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I didn't see Ambassador Rabinovich's comments.  
I think we've commented on this to the extent we can in the past.  As 
you know, we've discussed the deportees in great detail with various 
parties.  We're working on the resumption of the round in April, but I 
really can't go beyond that at this point.

          Q    Could I follow up on that?  The Jordanian delegation is 
due to come in when -- Jordanian-Syrian --

          MR. BOUCHER:  Are you telling me something I don't know or 
asking to find out if they are?

          Q    There's been an Amman Radio report that Majali and a 
small delegation is coming in either just before or just after Mubarak.

          MR. BOUCHER:  I'll have to check on that and see.  I hadn't 
heard of that, but I'll check on it for you.

          Sid.

          Q    Does the Administration have an opinion about elections 
in Jamaica?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I hadn't checked to see if we had any observers 
or any opinions down there, Sid.  I'll see if we do.

          Q    Richard, could we go back to the Secretary's testimony 
yesterday.  He said -- and I think I'm getting the quote right -- that 
Saddam Husayn may actually be getting worse?  Do you have any 
information that you can share with us to elaborate on this?

          MR. BOUCHER:  None that I can share.

          Q    Richard, is the Administration taking any action on the 
issue of ethnic Russian status in the Baltic states?  The Secretary had 
some remarks yesterday -- not on the Baltics per se, but on the ethnic 
Russian issue in the other Republics at large.

          MR. BOUCHER:  This was a subject that the Secretary and 
Minister Kozyrev discussed last week, and I think they discussed it with 
you at the readout that they gave at the end of their discussions.  So I 
think I'll leave it at that for the moment.

          Q    Nothing since then?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not aware of anything new.

          Q    Richard, have the Russians pressed us and other members 
of the CSCE about increasing the number of troops that they are allowed 
in the Transcaucasian -- for the Caucasian region next to the republics 
of the Caucasus?

          MR. BOUCHER:  It's the CFE Treaty, John.

          Q    Right.  That the CSCE members are signatories to.

          MR. BOUCHER:  Twenty-three of them.

          Q    Right.

          MR. BOUCHER:  The Russians in fact have publicly expressed 
concern about -- that planned redeployments of troops to Russian 
territory in the Black Sea region would conflict with their CFE flank 
zone limitations -- the flank zone being those areas outside of the 
Central European zones that were established.

          The limits take effect in 1995.  The Russians also say that 
they do not want to jeopardize the CFE Treaty.  So we have told them -- 
the U.S. authorities have told them that we're ready to discuss their 
regional security concerns, but both the U.S. and the NATO allies have 
made clear that it's in no one's interest to re-open the CFE Treaty.  
These things are currently being discussed at the CFE Joint Consultative 
Group in Vienna.

          Q    What does "discuss the security concerns" means? Are we 
willing to give them some -- cut them some slack on this?

          MR. BOUCHER:  We're willing to hear them out.  We don't want 
to re-open the treaty, and we'll discuss this with them, as we are 
discussing it with them in Vienna.

          Q    Thank you.

          MR. BOUCHER:  Thank you.

          (The briefing concluded at 1:16 p.m.) (###)

To the top of this page