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 #50

                 THURSDAY, APRIL 8, 1993, 12:49 P.M.

         MR. BOUCHER:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  I think 
you all have our budget package.  I'd just like to say a few more words 
about that before I start.

         In the budget package you'll see a statement by the Secretary 
and all the numbers arranged for you in different ways.  As you know 
also, the White House has released the President's Fiscal Year 1994 
budget this morning.  For the first time the international affairs 
budget is organized around core foreign policy objectives:  building 
democracy, promoting and maintaining peace, promoting economic growth 
and sustainable development, addressing global problems and providing 
humanitarian assistance.

         This is a transitional budget that reflects redirection in our 
foreign policy to address post-Cold War realities and to integrate more 
closely with our domestic priorities.

         The budget for the international affairs programs total $21.6 
billion in budget authority -- that is, the authority to commit funds -- 
and $21.3 billion in outlays -- that's actual spending.  This is $450 
million more in budget authority and $250 million less in outlays than 
the Fiscal Year 1993 levels.

         Significant increases are requested for assistance to the 
former Soviet Union, for contributions to international peacekeeping 
efforts and the multilateral development banks, for population and 
environmental programs, and a new non-proliferation fund.

         In addition, I would note that the budget requests $98 million 
in payments for our United Nations arrears for Fiscal Year 1994 and 
requests advance budget authority of $163 million to complete our 
payments that are owed to the United Nations by the end of the Fiscal 
Year 1995.

         As you all know, the Secretary has been on the Hill testifying 
about the budget and about his foreign policy priorities.  I think 
you'll see in this material that the money in this budget, while the 
budget is still transitional, it is directed at the areas and priorities 
for our foreign policy that the Secretary has identified.  Basically, it 
starts to put the money where his mouth is.

         And the money comes from by and large redirection of money that 
was in security assistance programs.  Those have been significantly 
reduced.  The operating budgets of the State Department, USAID and 
several other international affairs agencies are frozen at Fiscal Year 
1993 levels.

         By investing our scarce international affairs resources in a 
few priority areas, the United States will be investing in its own long-
term economic and security interests and will avoid far greater costs in 
the future.

         And that's what I have to say about the budget.  I think you 
all have a number of materials and numbers, and I can help in any way I 

         Q    Another subject --

         Q    Wait.  Let me ask one.

         Q    You want to do the budget?

         Q    Yes.  Richard, the document says that there's a reduction 
of about $400 million in security assistance.  From what countries is 
that money coming from?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Two things to say about that.  The reduction in 
security assistance, I think you'll note in the numbers, comes largely 
from something called the "special defense acquisition fund."  That's a 
fund that's a revolving fund that was set up under the Foreign 
Assistance Act.  Its purpose is to procure high-demand, long-lead-time 
defense equipment in anticipation of sales through the Foreign Military 
Sales Program.

         It's not a grant program.  Foreign customers still have to 
purchase the equipment, but it's sort of an inventory fund -- a 
revolving fund to buy things.  So that fund is being abolished.  That's 
$266 million, I think, out of that.

         As far as which countries the money is going to come from, the 
answer is we can't tell you that at this point because it's not decided.  
It will probably be several weeks before we can make the specific 
country allocations available under these broad accounts that you've 
been given today.  The budget cycle is very compressed this year.

         Country allocations can't be made until the account totals have 
been finalized, and that only happened a few weeks ago.  Country 
programs have to be worked out with the other agencies, and the 
tradeoffs have to be made.  So it will take a little time to complete 
that process.

         Q    Can you say which countries it won't come out of?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Well, the document that you have, I think, says 
what we said before about increasing the level of assistance to Russia 
by some $300 million, about maintaining the levels of assistance to 
Egypt and Israel, about maintaining significant amounts to Greece, 
Turkey and Portugal.

         Q    Richard, can I ask then, how is this decided?  I mean, do 
you basically take a sum of money and figure out how much you're going 
to have and then allocate it, which is what you're implying by saying 
that you're going to reduce it by X number of million, but you don't 
know which countries it's going to come from.  Or do you assess each 
country by what they've had in the past, and what they have now, and 
then see where you can reduce it.

         I mean, if you don't know which countries it's going to come 
from yet, how do you -- it doesn't make sense.

         MR. BOUCHER:  Well, the answer, Jan, is yes.

         Q    What was the question?

         MR. BOUCHER:  The process is basically one where we figure out 
how much money we have to put into peacekeeping, how much we can put 
into democracy, how much we can put into priority areas like 
proliferation, environment, and things like that; and then we divide 
that money among the countries and the areas and the programs which are 
most important to those areas.

         At the same time, when, for the reasons of all those programs, 
we have identified certain key priorities like expanding aid to Russia, 
maintaining a level of assistance that helps with the Middle East peace 
process and other things like that, there is, in fact, an interplay 
between both those factors.

         You identify your priorities, put most of your money in those, 
but at the same time you have to take into account your desires for 
certain of the specific country accounts.  So it's an interplay between 
the two factors that you cited.

         Q    Can you say whether the increase in aid to Russia is being 
made at the expense of aid to Eastern Europe or the other republics?

         MR. BOUCHER:  I can't give you any specific country allocations 
in those.  I think you'll see that aid to -- assistance to Eastern 
Europe and the other republics of the former Soviet Union is something 
that we have identified in the documents as priorities as well, but how 
the specific allocations will work out, I can't tell you at this point.

         Q    Richard, can you say what this budget plans to do with the 
U.S. Embassy in Moscow?

         MR. BOUCHER:  This budget doesn't do anything with the U.S. 
Embassy in Moscow.  The U.S. Embassy in Moscow we have the money for 
funded by the last budget; the money comes out of '92 and '93.

         The $240 million has been provided for a new secure building in 
Moscow.  That's $100 million from Fiscal Year '92 and $140 million in 
Fiscal Year 1993.  However, this Administration has said that in light 
of the changed conditions in Russia and elsewhere in the former Soviet 
Union, that we've decided to reassess the project.  I think the 
Secretary said that on the Hill not too long ago, and we'll be talking 
-- we are talking with Congress and with other agencies on how to -- 
what are the best options to pick to meet our needs for classified and 
unclassified space and develop and overall approach to this.

         Q    Richard, the cuts in the special acquisition program, does 
that reduction affect any projects that were in the pipeline?  Is the 
money just sitting there, or had any of that money been committed?

         MR. BOUCHER:  I'd have to assume it wasn't committed, but I'll 
get you a firm answer on that.

         Q    Could you explain a little bit more about this fund -- 
when did it start, what did it do, and so forth -- that you're --

         MR. BOUCHER:  Well, I think I just described what it did.  When 
did it start?  I don't know.  I'll check.

         Q    How much money was being moved out of the --

         MR. BOUCHER:  $266 million was --

         Q    But for this year --

         MR. BOUCHER:  -- for last year, and it's moved out.

         Q    That was last year's allocation.

         MR. BOUCHER:  Yes.  And there's none this year.

         Q    And could you tell us, you've got $50 million here for a 
new non-proliferation fund.  What is that going to do?

         MR. BOUCHER:  It's described, I think, to some extent in the 

         Q    Well, I couldn't find much of an explanation.

         MR. BOUCHER:  We'll help you find it or, if that's not enough, 
we'll try to get you the information then.

         Q    And what about State Department personnel?  You say back 
here the operating -- the State Department's operating budget is frozen 
at '93 funding levels and is consistent with the President's directive 
to cut the federal work force by four percent over the next three years.  
How much is the personnel of the State Department either being cut or 
not cut under this?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Under this, I don't think I can give you a 
precise figure in numbers.  I think elsewhere in that document it says 
that salaries and expenses account will stay the same. So given the 
inevitably increasing costs of inflation and personnel, and things like 
that, that would mean that we will be reducing in accordance with the 
overall program.

         The State Department has a temporary hiring freeze on now, and 
the management people are going over the specific steps that will be 
necessary to exactly meet those targets.  But in general it freezes the 
money available for the salaries and expenses.

         Q    Could somebody make an estimate at least about what is 
going to happen to State Department personnel under this budget?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Under that budget and future budgets, what is 
going to happen is exactly what it says in that document, which is we're 
going to meet the targets that the President has laid out for us.

         Q    Do you mean this work force cut of four percent over the 
next three years?

         MR. BOUCHER:  By two years or three years, yes.

         Q    Could I try something else?  Have you -- the U.S. floated 
with the Israelis the notion of having Faisal Husseini prominently 
displayed, maybe as the head of the Palestinian delegation?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Barry, as you know, we've been engaged in 
extensive discussions with Israel, with the Palestinians and with other 
parties, with a view to resolving the deportee issues and resuming the 
Middle East peace talks.

         In those discussions, the Israeli Government has indicated to 
us its readiness to be responsive in important ways to Palestinian 
concerns if the Palestinians make the decision to return to the 
negotiating table on April 20.

         Because this is an ongoing diplomatic negotiation, I'm sure you 
will understand that we can't discuss the specifics of what we've 
discussed with the Palestinians, the Israelis and the other parties.  
But we do believe that the Palestinians understand clearly that they 
stand to gain a great deal by returning to the negotiations.

         I want to emphasize, however, that we expect nothing to happen 
until we have a clear indication from the Palestinians that they have 
accepted the co-sponsors' invitation to resume talks on April 20.

         Q    What is Faisal Husseini's residence, please?

         MR. BOUCHER:  I'm afraid that's something you'd have to ask 

         Q    It's up to him to decide whether he's from Jerusalem or 
Ramallah?  You guys set the rules for this peace conference.  You've got 
to have an idea where he comes from. He's not -- you are not supposed to 
have people from East Jerusalem in the peace talks unless you can talk 
Israel into it.  So the one way around it is to have him come from 
Buffalo or from Ramallah, and I wondered what you've selected as his 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Barry, I'm not going to get into any further 
details of our discussions with the Israelis, the Palestinians and with 
the others.

         Q    When the President said Israel had done enough, was he 
speaking only narrowly of the deportations matter, and Israel hasn't 
done enough in the peripheral areas, such as this for instance?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Barry, I don't know what you mean by "this," but 
I did say --

         Q    Well, other than deportation, other issues, other elements 
of the --

         MR. BOUCHER:  Barry, we have an ongoing discussion with the 
parties.  I told you what I could about it.  I said the Israeli 
Government has indicated to us its readiness to be responsive in 
important ways to Palestinian concerns if the Palestinians make the 
decisions to return to the negotiating table.

         Q    The last question:  The President's statement that he 
recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital, is that State Department 
policy or just the President's statement?

         MR. BOUCHER:  I don't know what statement you're referring to.

         Q    You want me to get it for you?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Yes.  Secretary Christopher, I think --

         Q    No, I know about Christopher.

              MR. BOUCHER:  -- addressed the issue some time ago.

         Q    I'm asking -- the President is in charge of the 
government.  I wondered if that was a State Department policy or he was 
just making a remark of his own.

         I can find it maybe.  In an interview -- in an interview of the 
Middle East Institute, shortly after the Presidential election, Mr. 
Clinton -- insight -- excuse -- Middle East insight, he said, "I do 
recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and Jerusalem ought to remain 
an undivided city."  I know what the Secretary said.

         MR. BOUCHER:  Well, I would just point out that several weeks 
into February, I think it was, the Secretary addressed that issue, and I 
have nothing new to say today.

         Q    Well, which of those two things is U.S. policy? Or do you 
think they're not mutually exclusive?

         MR. BOUCHER:  I have nothing further to say on the subject, 
Barry.  We've addressed that issue, the Secretary has addressed that 
issue.  We stand by his remarks.

         Q    You stand by his remarks.  What about the President's 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Barry, you're not going to get into quoting me on 
something new on this.  Sorry.

         Q    It's not you.  It's the State Department.  You're just 
standing in here for the State Department.  The State Department has to 
have a policy, and it's whether it's the President's policy or it's a 
new policy.

         MR. BOUCHER:  The State Department has the policy that the 
Secretary expressed in the region.  I'm not familiar with those remarks 
you're quoting from the President, but you can ask at the White House, 
if you want to, about those.

         Q    Richard, when the Secretary was in Jerusalem, the 
Palestinians he chose to meet with or the main one he chose to meet with 
was Faisal Husseini.  Administration officials have said that he was the 
person who seemed to speak for them.  Is that still this 
Administration's position, that Faisal Husseini is the leader of the 
Palestinian delegation?

         MR. BOUCHER:  I think that's something you have to ask the 
Palestinian delegation.

         Q    I'm asking what this Administration's feeling is?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Our feeling is that we deal with the Palestinian 
representatives.  And, as you know, Faisal Husseini has led them in the 
talks that we've had with them.

         Q    Richard, the Secretary said the other day that good things 
will happen if the parties return to the table.  Any other good things 
that you'd like to disclose or not disclose?

         MR. BOUCHER:  No.

         Q    Richard, there's a report in the Miami Herald this morning 
that says that Federal prosecutors have drafted an indictment of 15 
Cuban Government officials, accusing them of being drug traffickers and 
a way station to drug traffickers coming to the United States.  Does the 
State Department support such an indictment?  And what would be the 
purpose of such an indictment?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Well, I think as far as the purpose of an 
indictment, you might have to ask the prosecutors on that.  I'm not in a 
position where I can comment on indictments or potential indictments, 

         Our views on drug trafficking with regard to Cuba should 
probably be covered in our annual narcotics report that we did just 
recently, so I'd invite you to look at that; and if it's not there, I'll 
try to get you something.

         Q    It seems like more of a message-sending type of thing.  
Seven of the 15 officials are already imprisoned.  Is it a message-
sending type of thing?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Again, you're asking me to answer questions about 
something that I know nothing about that's going on somewhere else, and 
it's not something that I can comment on.  I don't get into prosecutors' 
business while they're preparing indictments.

         Q    Richard, can you add anything more to the Secretary's 
comments this morning on Iran's purchase -- alleged purchase -- of 
missiles, medium-range missiles from North Korea?

         MR. BOUCHER:  We are concerned about reports that North Korea 
intends to sell such missiles to Iran.  We've in the past expressed 
concern about North Korean missile sales and about Iran's efforts to 
develop and acquire weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems 
such as missiles.

         You will remember that in April 1992, under our law, we made 
the determinations that these two countries, or entities in these two 
countries were engaged in trade that would violate the levels of the 
Missile Technology Control Regime, and we published in the Federal 
Register the notices about the entities that were involved and the 
sanctions that would apply.

         North Korea is developing a missile that we estimate has a 
range of 1,000 kilometers.  We have made clear to North Korea our 
opposition to its transfers of missiles and missile-related technology.  
In that context, we have urged North Korea to adopt the export 
guidelines of the Missile Technology Control Regime.

         We are working with our friends and allies to persuade North 
Korea to terminate its missile proliferation activities and to address 
Iranian missile acquisition efforts.

         Q    Richard, on that last thing you said, it's a little 
puzzling because China is usually reportedly the only country with any 
conceivable influence on North Korea.  So when you said "friends and 
allies," can you be more specific?  And I don't think China qualifies as 
either a friend or an ally -- certainly, not an ally.

         What do you mean?  Who's giving you a hand on North Korea?

         MR. BOUCHER:  I'll see if we can get more specific in terms of 
countries.  We have had contacts obviously with a large number of 
countries on this issue.  Proliferation is one of our key concerns -- 
missile proliferation is a key concern -- and we've talked to a great 
number of countries.   I'll see if we can give you some sort of listing 
and tell you whether it includes China.

         Q    And the other end, you remember Kozyrev in Vancouver went 
on at length how he had a deal with Iran and how difficult it was, much 
he tries.

         Has the U.S. tried -- has the U.S. had Russia's help to 
dissuade Iran from making such purchases, do you know?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Once again, Barry, I think as far as Russia's 
comments with Iran, I think I have to leave that to Minister Kozyrev.

         We have made clear in our discussions with a number of 
countries what our concerns are about Iran.  We've discussed those 
concerns with the Russians in the past.  I think we've told you about 
that.  We think that countries that are interested in proliferation -- 
in controlling proliferation-- should be concerned about this situation.  
We've talked to a great number of countries.

         Q    Richard, how soon do you think this deal could go through 
between Iran and North Korea?

         MR. BOUCHER:  That's not something I could get into.

         Q    And what if it does go through?

         MR. BOUCHER:  That's not something I can get into either.

         Q    On the North Korean front, the IAEA has referred North 
Korea's refusal to permit certain inspections to the Security Council.  
Mr. Blix has given the Security Council a briefing on it.  What's the 
next step?  Has the United States decided what to do, when to do, and 
what to ask for -- the Security Council on this issue?

         MR. BOUCHER:  At this point, Don, we are consulting with others 
at the United Nations on the next steps.  As you remember, in his 
testimony about a week or so ago, the Secretary talked about a 
sequential and deliberate approach, a series of steps that we would be 
taking in this regard.

         We've reminded North Korea that even if it decided to 
terminate, that it's still subject to the requirements of the NPT and 
the IAEA inspections regime for at least 90 days.  So we're discussing 
this up at the Security Council with the other members, and the Security 
Council does have available to it a variety of diplomatic steps, and 
we'll be looking at those.

         Q    On the missile issue -- related issue -- is the U.S. also 
consulting on sanctions relating to this sale from North Korea to Iran, 
sanctioning North Korea for that act as well?

         MR. BOUCHER:  The question of sanctions, Sid, is our law.  Our 
law requires that when we see entities overseas that are engaged in 
trade in missiles that would violate the MTCR, that we apply sanctions 
to those entities.

         Now, in the case of our -- that we not allow American companies 
to contract or trade with those entities.  Now, in the case of Iran and 
North Korea, obviously, that trade doesn't exist in any case because of 
the other prohibitions; and last April, we made that determination.  We 
published it in the Federal Register.  That's something that we 
determined, that they were engaged in trade that would violate the MTCR.

         Q    Richard, on this question of how we deal with violations 
of the MTCR, there have been some dispute, or at least discussion 
between the U.S. and Russia over a proposed sale to India by Russia of 
missile technology.  Was that issue resolved at the summit, or have we 
come to some sort of resolution with them on whether that sale will go 
forward or how we should interpret that, and whether it is a violation 
of MTCR or not?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Well, I mean, the sale itself was addressed -- I 
can't remember exactly when.  But the entities involved, we said, we did 
apply the sanctions to some time ago, or we said we would.  Anyway, it 
was a matter of record.

         I think if you look in the Vancouver document, you'll see that 
they did address the areas of high technology and missile trade.  I 
really don't have anything more for you on that at this point, though.

         Q    You don't know whether they've resolved the specific --

         MR. BOUCHER:  I don't have anything more at this point, no.

         Q    Any further word on the status of the remaining Haitians 
with HIV at Guantanamo Bay?

         MR. BOUCHER:  No.  That's something I've left to our friends at 
the Pentagon to describe.

         Q    Richard, can you add anything about the talks the 
Secretary had with the Latvian Foreign Minister this morning? Have you 
got any readout?

         MR. BOUCHER:  No, I don't have one now.  I'll try to get you 


         Q    You'll recall yesterday I asked you about the new 
sanctions on Serbia --

         MR. BOUCHER:  On Serbia.

         Q    -- and the possibility of the freeze of assets -- of 
Serbian assets -- in this country and other countries.  Can you break 
that down for me?

         MR. BOUCHER:  I do recall that, Barrie.  I think you'll recall 
that yesterday, when you asked me about these specific things that may 
or may not be in a resolution, I told you that the discussions are 
continuing up in the Security Council and we're not yet in a position to 
comment on them publicly.  I'm afraid that has to be my answer again 
today.  But we do support a resolution.  We're working on it with our 
friends and allies, other members of the U.N. Security Council.

         I've described in general terms what we're looking for in a 
resolution, and that's to call on the Bosnian Serbs to negotiate and to 
add the prospect of sanctions, to tighten sanctions against the Serbs -- 
they're the main backer of the Bosnian Serbs -- if they should continue 
to support this kind of aggression, if the aggression should continue 
and if they don't come and try to reach agreement with the other 

         Q    Do you have any thoughts to express on the occasion of 
NATO having evidently decided to begin to patrol the "no-fly" zone on 

         MR. BOUCHER:  No.  The Secretary General has expressed thoughts 
on behalf of the entire alliance.

         Q    Richard, has the Administration decided not to go forward 
with a possible oil embargo on Libya?

         MR. BOUCHER:  Carol, I think there may be a little 
misunderstanding on exactly what is happening today.  Today, the 
Security Council is reviewing the sanctions that were imposed against 
Libya by the U.N. Security Council Resolution 748 that followed Libya's 
failure to comply with the requirements of Resolution 731.

         We expect the Council to review compliance, as it does every 
120 days, to find Libya has continued to fail to meet the demands of 
those resolutions and therefore the sanctions would continue.  We think 
the Council should demonstrate solidarity in the face of repeated Libyan 
attempts to negotiate the terms of compliance and circumvent the 
Sanctions Regime.  But, today, it's a regular review of 120 days that 
will continue that Regime.

         Now, as the Secretary said, the U.S. is also consulting with 
our partners on additional sanctions, as we said we would. And as the 
President and the Secretary have said, we believe the time has come to 
stiffen the sanctions which are in force, and one of the things we want 
to talk about is an oil embargo.  That remains our goal.  That remains 
something we have raised and we will continue to discuss.

         Q    And when do you think action might occur on that, or what 
are you looking --

         MR. BOUCHER:  That's not something I can give you a time line 

         Q    So you're still pursuing it?

         MR. BOUCHER:  We're still pursuing it.  We're pursuing 
stiffening the sanctions.  We're raising the question of the oil 
embargo, and we'll continue to pursue that and see what we can do.

         Q    Back on Bosnia.  The World Court and part of its decision 
apparently denied the Muslims' request for an exemption on the arms 
embargo.  Does that further set back U.S. efforts to see a partial 
lifting of the arms embargo?

         MR. BOUCHER:  I haven't seen the whole text yet.  We have a 
brief readout from our people in The Hague, but we haven't seen the 
complete text of the decisions.  So I'm afraid that's something I have 
to defer comment on for the moment.

         Q    Was any progress made last night at the meeting, or late 
yesterday, between the Pakistanis and the Secretary toward the meeting 
of minds here on these issues that were under discussion?

         MR. BOUCHER:  I think we put out a readout of that meeting.  
That's about where we'll stay.

         Q    Can you say what --

         MR. BOUCHER:  Well, it says we continue to review and we 
continue to be concerned.

         Q    On the question of terrorism, does the United States have 
evidence that the Pakistanis are continuing to train and arm militants 
in Kashmir?

         MR. BOUCHER:  I'm afraid the answer last night addresses that 
point as much as we can.

         Q    Thank you.

         (Press briefing concluded at 1:17 p.m.) 


To the top of this page