930412 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.

                                                      DPC #52

                  MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1993, 12:55 P.M.

          MR. BOUCHER:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  I don't 
have any statements or announcements, so I'll be glad to take your 


          Q  Richard, can you tell us anything about these suggestions 
that there may have been more American POWs in Vietnam than they had 

          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.


          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 

          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 

         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 

         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 

         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 

         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 

         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 

         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 

         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 

         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 

         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.) 

To the top of this page