Note: This Electronic Research Collection is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the
US DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #52
MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1993, 12:55 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I don't
have any statements or announcements, so I'll be glad to take your
questions.
George.
Q Richard, can you tell us anything about these suggestions
that there may have been more American POWs in Vietnam than they had
acknowledged?
MR. BOUCHER: George, here's what we know, and I think the
first thing to say is that questions that are raised in the document
will be raised with the Vietnamese by General Vessey as the first order
of business on his trip to Vietnam later this week.
The document that has been reported is a Russian translation
of a report apparently given by General Lieutenant Tran Van Quang to the
Vietnamese Politburo of the Central Committee on September l5, 1972.
This report indicates that the total number of POWs held by
North Vietnam at the time was l,205, even though the number of American
POWs returned at homecoming in 1973 was 59l.
The Administration was notified of the document in mid-
February by a Congressional source. National Security Council officials
contacted Harvard researcher Steve Morris and asked to meet with him at
that time.
Mr. Morris met with the NSC in mid-February, and there have
been several subsequent conversations.
Morris did not provide the NSC with a copy of the document but
on the basis of the information that was provided by Morris, the White
House asked the Department of Defense to evaluate the information.
The Defense Intelligence Agency did so and raised some
questions about it.
Last month, U.S. officials, working through the U.S.-Russia
Joint Commission on MIA/POW affairs asked the Russians about this
document, and it was turned over to Ambassador Malcolm Toon on April
8th, and it is now being evaluated by U.S. Government experts on an
expedited basis.
As I said, questions raised in this document will be raised by
General Vessey as the first order of business in his talks in Vietnam
later this week.
Q Richard, what impact will this have on our move towards
normalization with Vietnam?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can speculate on that, Sid. It
is important to remember that General Vessey's trip is -- the purpose of
the trip is to evaluate the progress that we have seen in POW/MIA
affairs and to seek further progress on the accounting of POWs and MIAs.
The President has pledged the fullest possible accounting for
our service personnel and said that this must be at the core of our
policy with Vietnam. There unquestionably has been progress on POW/MIA
accounting in Vietnam. The issue for the President remains whether they
are cooperating fully.
So upon his return, General Vessey will provide the President
with an assessment of that cooperation.
Q Richard, is there a question about the validity of the
document, or a question about the accuracy of the information contained
in it?
MR. BOUCHER: Mark, I can't, at this point, go any further
into it. The document is being evaluated now on an expedited basis, but
I don't have any conclusions for you.
Q Who is evaluating this document?
MR. BOUCHER: I assume the principal focus is in the Defense
Intelligence Agency, but probably there are others involved as well.
Q Did Russian have any knowledge of the existence of this
document before we asked for it, or the U.S. Government asked for it?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know.
Q Was there any hint of this in the records that the United
States obtained with much fanfare -- I believe it was last year -- from
the Vietnamese? All of a sudden, all these archives were opened to us.
MR. BOUCHER: That, again, is probably a better question for
the Pentagon than over here. That has been an ongoing process. We
obtained a lot of information from the archives, but we also have
researchers that continue to work in those archives.
Q If this information is accurate, does it suggest that
indeed there may be some American POWs alive in North Vietnam?
MR. BOUCHER: Pat, I just can't speculate at this point. At
this point, we are evaluating this document on an expedited basis.
General Vessey is going to raise it with the Vietnamese as the first
order of business on his trip, and provide us with an assessment from
that end of where we stand on the cooperation in POW/MIA matters.
Q It sounds like you are taking it --
MR. BOUCHER: I really can't speculate beyond that.
Q It sounds like you are taking it very seriously. Does it
seem to be a credible document?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, I'm not in a position before the
evaluation is finished to try to comment on its credibility or questions
that might be raised and things like that.
Ted.
Q You noted that it was a Russian translation. Are you
suggesting that it is possible that in the process of translating this
document from the Vietnamese to the Russian to the English that the
wrong impression might have been created?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, Ted, I'm not able to evaluate the
document. I'm just telling you what I know about it.
Q Richard, since we have long believed that North Vietnam
was not telling us the full story until relatively recently, I'm not
sure I appreciate what the meaning of this document is, if true. Does
it simply add to our fund of information about the inaccuracy of what we
have been hearing from the North Vietnamese? Is it more explicit?
Could you explain, if it's right, what would be significance of it,
since we have already believed for a long time that they weren't telling
us the truth?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, again, I mean that's the sort of
evaluation that we have to go through, that we have to look at. What
does the document say? And what does it add to what we know? We have
to compare it against everything else we know, against what we know from
our side, what we have learned from other sources, and see if it adds
new information that we don't have, and see if it leads us to any
further conclusions.
But at this point, the evaluation is underway.
Q Do you know how far along the evaluation process is? How
long have you -- have you obtained an original copy of this document?
MR. BOUCHER: We have the Russian document. We got the
Russian document on April 8th.
Q And how far along are you in the evaluation?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I can't say that. Vessey -- the
White House announced the Vessey trip on Saturday. He is out there the
l8th and the l9th.
Q Have you asked the Vietnamese for anything, the
particular document, or an explanation?
MR. BOUCHER: At this point, I think I'll just say that the
document is going to be the first thing that Vessey raises when he gets
out there.
Q Can we move on?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes.
Q The omnibus has stopped rolling, it seems. Surprise,
surprise I am interested in your explanation.
MR. BOUCHER: Well, without getting into further metaphors and
status of engines and motors on the omnibus, the Secretary was advised
in a telephone call from Foreign Minister Kozyrev that the Russian
Government is actively working to bring about a more responsible
approach by the Bosnian Serbs to the crisis.
Bosnian Serb leader Karadzic has written to Lord Owen that he
is willing to participate in a resumption of talks in Geneva. We also
understand that Karadzic and possibly the other parties will likely be
meeting with Cyrus Vance and Lord Owen within the next two weeks.
I would also point out that Ambassador Bartholomew will be in
the region next week consulting with the various parties.
Therefore, in order to provide an opportunity for these
developments to yield results, the Russians have asked us that we delay
a vote on the sanctions resolution.
And in view of these factors and after other diplomatic
consultations, we have agreed to urge a postponement of the vote until
April 26th, on the understanding that the Russians will cooperate in the
adoption on April 26th of the resolution to tighten sanctions if the
Bosnian Serbs have not come into an agreement on the Vance-Owen process
and ceased their military actions by then.
In light of the belief expressed by Russia that progress may
now be possible, and the other factors that I have mentioned, we believe
this delay is reasonable.
But I would also point out that you know, I think, the
resolution currently before the U.N. Security Council contains a
provision whereby implementation would take effect two weeks after
passage of the resolution.
This concept would no longer be necessary in view of the delay
in the vote, and therefore the result will be that there is no delay in
the actual implementation of the resolution.
Q This has nothing to do whatsoever with the fact that
there is a referendum coming up in Russia the day before you say that
you want to enact this --
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, the Russians asked for this two-week
delay. I've given you the reasons for which we agreed to it, in view of
this diplomatic activity that is going on.
As for any other factors that may be in their thinking, I
guess you'll have to ask them.
Q Have the Russians agreed to play along and said they
would support the sanctions if we delayed it for two weeks?
MR. BOUCHER: The Russians have told us that they are prepared
to continue to work constructively to achieve a political settlement to
the conflict. We are proceeding on the understanding that they will
cooperate in the adoption of the resolution to tighten sanctions if the
Bosnian Serbs have not come into agreement on the Vance-Owen process,
and cease their military actions by then.
Q Well, does that mean that they will vote for it if there
has been no progress?
MR. BOUCHER: Exactly how the Russians will vote, you'll have
to ask them. We are proceeding on the understanding that they will
cooperate in the adoption of the resolution.
Q What does "cooperate in the adoption" mean?
MR. BOUCHER: John, it means what I say it means. If you want
to know their precise voting intentions, you'll have to ask them.
Q What does "proceed on the understanding" mean? You have
an understanding which you gained how and from whom?
MR. BOUCHER: From our conversations with the Russians.
Q The Russians have given you to understand that they will
cooperate with the passing of the resolution.
MR. BOUCHER: That's what I said.
Q Richard, doesn't this require some -- a leap of faith to
the effect that on April 26th, Boris Yeltsin will be sufficiently in
control of the foreign policy apparatus of Russia to make sure that this
keeps rolling?
MR. BOUCHER: Mark, I don't think it requires much of a leap
of faith. We are working on this in conjunction with their government
representatives, and we expect to continue working with them.
Q Richard, this is the first day of NATO's enforcement of
the "no-fly" zone in Bosnia, and what can you tell us about it? Any
trouble?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, the operation, called "Operation Deny
Flight", began at noon Greenwich Mean Time, which would be 8:00 a.m.
Eastern Daylight Time. The United States, the Netherlands and France
are currently involved in "no-fly" enforcement.
The United Kingdom and Turkey have also offered fighter
aircraft, but NATO is holding them in reserve, if required. NATO has
AWACS and fighter aircraft monitoring compliance with the "no-fly" zone.
We have l2 F-l5, l2 FA-l8, and 5 KC-l35 tankers for the operation.
As I said, the operations have started. I guess -- my
information was that at 8:34 Eastern Daylight Time, which would be 34
minutes after it started, but at that point, there had been no reported
incidents. So the first 34 minutes went fine. You can check with the
Pentagon for an update on that.
Q Richard, can you tell us anything about the rules of
engagement for these pilots?
MR. BOUCHER: I can't. As you know, we really don't comment in
any detail on the rules of engagement. I'd say -- I've told you about
what we have out there. We think that NATO's participating fighters are
capable of intercepting aircraft that are violating the U.N. sanctions.
NATO and its participating nations have agreed to strict rules of
engagement that will ensure action is taken by the Alliance in
proportionate terms.
The United Nations has also approved these rules of engagement.
Q Richard, I'd like to ask you about the touching faith that
you have in the Serbs having a sudden change in heart, given their
record --
MR. BOUCHER: I think I have expressed no such faith, Alan.
Q Well, you have expressed a certain amount of optimism, at
least in terms of being willing to delay this resolution, which only
last Friday you said the United States wanted to see adopted soon. And
I think you even used the words "very soon." All of a sudden you are
convinced or persuaded by the Russians that there is new hope, and I
want to ask on what basis this hope rests, given the Serbs record, given
the fact that the United States itself has declared your interlocutors
as war criminals, given the fact that they are even today bombing of
Sarajevo again and Srebenica again. What's it based on?
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, if I had expressed any such hope, I might
be willing to agree with you and express doubts of it; but, in fact, I
haven't. We continue to believe that it is necessary to bring pressure
on the Serbs. Toughening sanctions on the Serbs is certainly an
important aspect of that.
We have agreed to a two-week delay in the vote that will not
delay the actual implementation of the tougher sanctions, and which,
therefore, has the effect of continuing the pressure on the Serbs.
The activity that I have described to you is activity directed
at bringing pressure on the Serbs. It is U.S. activity, Russian
activity, and others, to try to get the Serbs to take a different
approach, and that diplomatic activity will continue, and we have an
understanding, as I said, about proceeding with a vote on April 26th.
And that continues to be a factor that we expect will bring further
pressure on the Serbs.
Q How hard and fast is this sort of deadline? It is a kind
of deadline. How hard and fast is it?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, it's a clear understanding that we will
proceed with this resolution on April 26th. If the Serbs have not by
that time joined -- agreed to reach agreement within the Vance-Owen
process, or otherwise ceased their military activity.
Q Can they further stall? I mean, the Serbs have been
pretty good at stalling and so have the Russians, for that matter, as in
the "no-fly" zone?
MR. BOUCHER: I gave you the factors that would lead to any
further delay. If they stop the killing and join the peace process,
then that's what we're trying to get.
Q So supposing they declared a cease-fire -- I know this is
a hypothetical, but given their past --
MR. BOUCHER: It's a hypothetical. We've seen tons of cease-
fires declared before. We've seen declarations of a cease-fire. That
didn't prevent us from proceeding with a "no-fly" enforcement, which was
also where we did the same kind of arrangement, a delay in that vote for
one week with a commensurate taking out of the resolution a one-week
delay in implementation.
Q So they have to sign --
MR. BOUCHER: So we've had the same kind of arrangement here.
They have the same kind of pressure hanging over them, and we have a
full intention to proceed unless we see a real change in the situation.
Q Richard, going to another aspect of the same subject?
Can you elaborate any further than you are quoted as having
done over the weekend, and as the White House has done, on this report
by the team that was sent to Bosnia on safe havens?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if you'll consider it "any further,"
but I will tell you what I can about it. The Secretary, as you know, on
February 10, said that we would be sending a U.S. Government team to
assess further humanitarian needs.
An interagency humanitarian assessment team that was focused on
the urgent crisis in Bosnia-Hercegovina traveled to many parts of the
former Yugoslavia between February 24 and March 10. Parts of that team
visited a large number of locations in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
The team identified a wide range of options for augmenting U.S.
contributions to the large and ongoing international relief effort. A
large majority of the team's findings fall within the competency of
various departments -- that would be the State Department, the Agency
for International Development, or the Department of Defense -- to follow
through on, and appropriate actions are already under study or, in some
cases, actually underway.
In a few cases, possible courses of actions have broader
implications either for money, for their impact on other initiatives, or
their affect on diplomatic efforts, and those implications must be
considered at the policy level of the Administration.
The review process of those particular issues is not yet
concluded. And until that process is concluded, we're not prepared to
comment on the specifics of those issues.
Q But how does that square with the White House saying that
we haven't received any report?
MR. BOUCHER: As I said, the report -- the recommendations and
ideas in the report have been divided up basically on two tracks. Some
of them solely in the area of humanitarian deliveries are being looked
at or implemented by individual departments; others with broader
implications are being studied and reviewed. So that review is ongoing.
Q Richard, what is your response to the allegation which is
being made by -- people actually even in this building -- that the
senior levels of the State Department are attempting to suppress or
censor this report?
MR. BOUCHER: Look, there hasn't been any suppression. We have
not aired in public all the specific ideas or recommendations that came
out of this group. We normally don't air in public things that are
still under deliberation and discussion that are being looked at and
reviewed, as I said. But all of the ideas that they put forth are being
looked at. As I said, they've been divided up.
There are some -- those relating directly to humanitarian
deliveries -- that are being seriously considered, studied, and in some
cases, implemented. There's a separate set that has broader
implications, and those also are being looked at separately as part of
an ongoing policy review.
Q Would you care to comment on the whole notion of setting
up enclaves which would have to be protected by an international force?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I would at this point, Barrie.
Clearly, it's an idea that you know has been around for a while. It's
been discussed and raised many times in the past. I think it was
discussed and raised at the conference in December in Geneva. So it's
an idea that's been around. It's something, obviously, that gets looked
at periodically.
Q It's an idea in that report?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can get, at this point, into
specifics of what's in the report.
Q (Inaudible) the comprehensive review that the
Administration did prior to what it announced on the 10th of February?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure, John, that I'm in any more position
to lay out the specific ideas that were deliberated upon at that time
before the 10th of February --
Q But you said you were looking at every aspect.
MR. BOUCHER: Well, then, I'm sure that every aspect was looked
at.
Q There are reports of food supplies running low to Bosnia.
What can you tell us about that?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have precise figures. There are some
shipments that are their way from the United States and Canada. There
are secondary warehouses in Bosnia that apparently have some food in
them, but we are concerned that there may not be enough food in the
pipeline for coming months and we're raising the issues at high levels
with donor governments.
Q Richard, can I just take you back to this report for just
a moment? What about the question of members of this team testifying
behind closed doors on the Hill last week and not addressing the
controversial recommendations? Were they told to keep their mouths
shut?
MR. BOUCHER: As I said, Barrie, in the process of reviewing
ideas and recommendations from any group, whether it's people looking at
military options or diplomatic options or humanitarian options, we
normally don't lay out our various options or ideas as they're being
studied, whether it's on the Hill or in public.
We are proceeding with looking at these different options in
separate tracks. But we're looking at the options and really don't have
anything to lay out for people now. Obviously, everything that we've
decided to do, or directions that we've decided to go in this process,
we've always consulted with Congress.
Q Is the Administration embarrassed by the leaking of this
draft report?
MR. BOUCHER: What can I say, Barrie? We're working on these
ideas. We're working on these recommendations that came out of the
report. The team was one that we sent out there, and we're taking their
work and it's receiving the attention that it deserves. I don't think
there's anything to apologize for in that.
Q There was an instruction not to brief members of Congress
on the recommendations that had broader policy implications; is that
correct?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I'd phrase it that way, Mark. I'd
phrase it the way I did, and just tell you what I can. And that's that
we don't normally and wouldn't normally lay out policy recommendations,
especially those with these broader recommendations until we've had a
chance to proceed with our deliberations, and that policy is something
that still continues today.
Q Back on the resolution, isn't it a fact that the United
States really doesn't want to do anything between now and the 25th that
could possibly undermine Boris Yeltsin?
MR. BOUCHER: Mark, I've given you the reasons to which we
agreed to the delay that was requested by the Russians. We think that
those requests are reasonable. There is a lot of diplomatic activity
going on. Vitaly Churkin was just out in the region. The Russians are
trying to get the Serbs to take a more constructive approach. We have
Ambassador Bartholomew in the region right now, and those are the
reasons for which we agreed to this delay.
Q But this was a request, as I heard you say it, from
Kozyrev to Christopher. Was that made personally?
MR. BOUCHER: It was discussed in their telephone calls, yes.
Q When was the call?
MR. BOUCHER: They talked once on Saturday and once again this
morning.
Let's go to the back.
Q What does the State Department think of Israeli Government
decision to seal off the occupied territories indefinitely, until
further review?
MR. BOUCHER: We have, I think, expressed ourselves on subjects
like this before, and I'm really not going to get into any specifics.
Our general view is, first of all, to note that we deplore the
increasing violence. It has claimed innocent lives in both the occupied
territories and in Israel. We've made it clear that we believe the
Israeli Government has the responsibility of providing security for its
people and for the security of the territories under its control. We've
also urged all parties to act with restraint.
At the end of the day, only a political settlement will help
solve the problems underlying the violence in the Middle East. The
increase in violence makes it all the more important to renew the peace
negotiations.
Q Same region, different topic. Has the U.S. Embassy in
Cairo been conducting discussions with the group that's been accused of
bombing the New York Trade Center? And did we cut them off as we did
with Hamas?
MR. BOUCHER: The Islamic Group, as it's known, has repeatedly
claimed responsibility for acts of terror in Egypt.
There's been no effort on our part to establish contact with
members of this group. The Islamic Group has not contacted us to
discuss human rights or any other issue. We strongly oppose the
terrorist tactics by any organization to achieve its political goals,
and we have no interest in conducting a dialogue with groups who
advocate the violent overthrow of governments or resort to extremist
acts.
Q So you do not flatly deny that U.S. Embassy officials in
Cairo met with representatives of the Islamic Group?
MR. BOUCHER: We meet with a wide variety of people around the
world to keep abreast of trends that affect our interests. We don't
have meetings -- we do not have meetings with anyone we know to be in
this group.
I know the article says -- I think quotes some of the people as
saying they met with us but they didn't tell us of any affiliation with
this group. But we don't have any meetings with people we know to be in
this group.
We do have meetings with opposition people in Egypt. We have
meetings with people who are affiliated with the Moslem Brotherhood in
parliament, but that group does not advocate the violent overthrow of
the Government of Egypt.
Q Richard, were any contacts suspended immediately after the
World Trade Center bombing?
MR. BOUCHER: Mark, as I said, we don't have any contacts with
anyone we know to be in this group. We have no intention of
establishing those contacts and no one has contacted us. So I don't --
Q Were any contacts with the Egyptians who may or may not be
in this group suspended after the World Trade Center bombing?
MR. BOUCHER: You mean, is there somebody who we met with
before who we won't meet with again? Is that the kind of idea?
Q Yes.
MR. BOUCHER: That's something I'll have to check on, Mark. I
don't know.
Q Just going back to -- in these conversations on Saturday
and today between Kozyrev and the Secretary, did they also talk about
politics in Russia?
MR. BOUCHER: My understanding is that they talked about this
resolution and, of course, they'll see each other again in Tokyo. They
talked a little bit about that.
Q Did, perhaps, the Foreign Minister bring the Secretary up-
to-date on what's going on inside Russia?
MR. BOUCHER: Not that I know of, Saul.
Q Richard, could you take us to Armenia and Azerbaijan and
give us your reading of the situation there? Is the U.S. Government
engaged in any effort of mediation been the Armenians and the Azeris?
MR. BOUCHER: We have -- the short answer to your last part is
basically "no." We have continued to urge both sides to support the
Minsk Group talks as the best avenue for a peaceful resolution of the
conflict. We're going to reaffirm that point to both parties in the
meetings that the Deputy Secretary is having today, and we'll press for
an end to the fighting as well.
In terms of what's going on out there on the ground, the
fighting continues in the region, including around the Azerbaijani town
of Fizuli in southwestern Azerbaijan. We have no reports of any new
offensives.
The Acting Secretary, as you know, met this morning with the
Azerbaijani Foreign Minister to discuss the recent offensive in the
Kelbajar District, and the peace process. He's meeting this afternoon
with the Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister, Libaridian. They'll discuss
the same issues as with the Azerbaijani Foreign Minister.
As you know, we have condemned the offensive, and he will
reiterate our condemnation of the continued offensive by ethnic
Armenians. He'll press the Government of Armenia to do what it can to
end the fighting and bring about the withdrawal of ethnic Armenian
forces from Kelbajar, and then we'll see what we can do to urge the
parties to get back to the Minsk Group talks.
Q Richard, do you have any information on Turkish pilots who
were shot down and taken captive a couple of weeks ago in Armenia?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't.
Q Richard, do you have any comment on all these optimistic
reports about a settlement being imminent in Haiti?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't, except to say that Foreign Minister
Caputo is heading back to the region tomorrow, or at least early this
week. We remain in close touch with him. Ambassador Redman down in
Haiti, and Ambassador Pezzullo up here have been in close contact with
him, and we'll leave it to Dante Caputo to comment on the status of the
talks.
Q Any further word on who is coming Tuesday?
MR. BOUCHER: Tuesday and Wednesday, we have some people
coming. The Assistant Secretary, Ed Djerejian, and others in the peace
team will meet with the Jordanians and Syrians on Tuesday, and with the
Palestinians and Lebanese on Wednesday. We also expect to meet with
Israeli representatives early next week.
Q Are these the actual delegations, or is there a different
level?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have the exact list of who they are. I
think they're basically at the delegation level.
Q We have not had any formal responses, have we, on --
MR. BOUCHER: No changes in the formal responses.
Q Thank you.
(Press briefing concluded at 1:25 p.m.)
(###)