Note: This Electronic Research Collection is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #54
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1993, 12:42 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I don't
have any announcements or statements, so I'd be glad to take your
questions.
Q Richard, the statement you all distributed last night about
the Chinese -- did the Chinese -- was that the plane the Chinese shot
down?
MR. BOUCHER: That was a -- yes. I think I have a little more
information on it. It was an incident that occurred on August 21, 1967,
after the plane inadvertently entered Chinese air space, the plane was
shot down by Chinese forces.
We had earlier information from the Chinese that the airmen had
died when their aircraft was shot down, but the photos and evidence that
we obtained are the first hard evidence that would confirm that.
Q Is that the only plane we know of that the Chinese actually
shot down during the Vietnam War?
MR. BOUCHER: The Pentagon may have more on this. I'm told
that there are eight Americans listed as unaccounted for in China as a
result of the Vietnam War. None of them are believed to have survived
their incidents.
Betsy.
Q Do you have anything to add to Mr. Bartholomew's statement
this morning about possibly lifting the arms embargo?
MR. BOUCHER: I haven't seen the exact text of what he said.
The press reports are along the lines of what we said before and what
the Secretary, in particular, has said before, that if the Bosnian Serbs
don't come into the negotiating process in a constructive way and cease
the aggression, that we would intend to raise with others in the Council
the prospect of lifting the arms embargo.
In the meantime, we're strongly supporting the U.N. Sanctions
Resolution, the so-called Omnibus Resolution, which would toughen and
tighten the sanctions regime and bring more pressure on the Serbs to
come to an agreement. As you know, we're also participating in the "no-
fly" zone and doing other things.
Ambassador Bartholomew is now in the region and he's making
these points to his interlocutors in the region.
Q Is this government any further along in its thinking? I
know there will be a vote on the sanctions on April 26, if there is no
movement by the Serbs in the negotiations. But is this moving further,
closer to some kind of action?
MR. BOUCHER: We are taking action in all the areas that I
mentioned -- the "no-fly" zone, the airdrops, the trip by Ambassador
Bartholomew to the region, the sanctions resolution -- that remains
where the action is. What he said about the arms embargo, as I
understand it, is similar to what we said before.
Q Richard, on the subject of lifting the arms embargo, we
realize that this was something that was tried once before and no one
was interested.
But could we ask you, if you plan to do this, would it be done
more vigorously? Would it be done at the highest levels? Would it be
done seriously?
MR. BOUCHER: The obvious answer is, yes, Barrie, without
leading you to any particular conclusions. I think it's important to
point out that we understand the difficulties that other governments
have with the idea. Both the President and the Secretary have referred
to those and talked about them before.
We also understand the importance of continuing to pressure the
Serbs, and we are moving in a variety of ways to pressure the Serbs,
both diplomatically and through the new sanctions resolution that we're
promoting at the United Nations, and we intend to continue to do that.
But if you look at our track record, when this Administration
has decided to do things, as the Secretary outlined the series of steps
we would take on February 10, he has followed up vigorously and, as
necessary, at high levels with each of those steps.
Q The British Government, in particular, has said that were
the arms embargo to be lifted, it would cause the humanitarian effort in
Bosnia to dry up; and the President has acknowledged that as a problem
of lifting the arms embargo.
MR. BOUCHER: And the Secretary has as well.
Q Well, does that mean that you are now willing to accept
that consequence, that you're willing to sacrifice a humanitarian effort
for the sake of lifting the arms embargo?
MR. BOUCHER: Mary, as far as I know, I have not said anything
new on the arms embargo today nor do I think that Ambassador Bartholomew
has.
It remains our intention to raise this if the Serbs continue to
fail to come back into the negotiating process and fail to cease their
aggression. But I've told you the things that we're actively working on
right now. The arms embargo is an issue, it's a complicated issue, it's
a multilateral issue, it's something that would have to be discussed
with others.
Q Excuse me, Richard --
MR. BOUCHER: But we haven't done anything new on it today.
Q But that doesn't answer the question. The question is --
Ambassador Bartholomew confirmed what you said the United States already
has said it wants to do, which is lift the arms embargo. The British
Government has said, if the arms embargo is lifted, the humanitarian
effort will be sacrificed.
MR. BOUCHER: As far as I know, Mary --
Q What I'm saying is, is that a price you're willing to pay?
MR. BOUCHER: -- neither Ambassador Bartholomew nor I have said
anything new on this. We have not said that the time has come to
sacrifice the humanitarian efforts, nor have we said that we have
mounted some new campaign to lift the arms embargo. It's something, as
I said, that we would intend to raise if the situation continues, but we
are actively working on getting new sanctions resolutions and other
things right now.
Q Do you have any response to Lady Thatcher's remarks
yesterday on this issue?
MR. BOUCHER: No particular response. You know our position on
this.
Q Richard, do you have any indication that Ambassador
Bartholomew is making any progress in trying to get the Serbs to sign
the Vance-Owen plan?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't really have anything new at this point on
it. He has continued his meetings. Let me see exactly where he is now
because -- I think he's meeting with the Serbs today.
Ambassador Bartholomew, General McCaffrey, and Deputy Assistant
Secretary Johnson are in Belgrade today for meetings with the Serbian
President Milosevic, with Bosnian Serb leader Karadzic, with Russian
Special Envoy Churkin, with General Panic, with President Cosic, and
with representatives of Serbia's democratic opposition, independent
media, and humanitarian organizations. They're planning on meeting with
Bosnian President Izetbegovic in Zagreb this evening.
Yesterday, they met with Croat leader Boban in Mostar, and with
Croatian President Tudjman and Bosnian Presidency member Ganic in
Zagreb.
They proceed on Friday to London and then onward to Paris. So
at this point, we don't have a final result. They're just having their
meetings in Serbia today.
I think I would point out that, obviously, the focus of the
trip is to bring further pressure on the Serbs to try to bring them into
a settlement, a negotiated settlement. We're telling people that we
remain supportive of the Vance-Owen process and that we're urging a
resumption of the talks.
Q But what additional pressure can be put on the Serbs that
has not been tried before?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, the principal pressure that we're working
on right now is -- well, there's two aspects. The first is the
diplomatic one that is coming down on them from a lot of different
places. But second of all is the prospect of the much tighter sanctions
in the new U.N. resolution.
We've said to you for a while now that we wanted a resolution
to toughen and tighten the sanctions and, indeed, now we have
understandings to go ahead with such a resolution.
Q Richard, I'd like to give you an opportunity to address a
little more some of the remarks that Lady Thatcher said --
MR. BOUCHER: I appreciate it, Barrie. I'm not sure I need it.
Q Well, among other things, she accused the Western world,
generally, of pusilanimity in its handling of this issue. She does
propose lifting the embargo and she does propose using air support and
she does propose pulling out the troops involved in the humanitarian
effort.
Is there anything within the recommendations of this -- after
all, one of the leading lights of the Western world for many time --
worthy of consideration by the United States?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm sure there are things that she says that are
worthy of consideration. I haven't done the same kind of analysis as
you have of her remarks. I think our positions on these issues are well
known, and I think you'll see that we are doing what we said we'd do.
Q A Congressional delegation is just back from travelling
some of the same country that Bartholomew is in and came back and said
-- and with the conclusion that the Bosnian Serbs figure that since
Secretary Baker warned they would become a pariah state -- they've
captured more of Bosnia and that the threat of -- they're willing to
forego the threat of sanctions and even if the effect of sanctions if,
in the meantime, they could capture the rest of Bosnia that they want.
Can you tell me why sanctions will work now and the threat of
becoming a pariah state will work now when that threat was laid down a
year ago and has not worked since?
MR. BOUCHER: Saul, I don't think we've even claimed that there
was a magic solution to this problem. It's a complex one, it's a
difficult one. It's one that has to be worked multilaterally. The
United States doesn't have the power in and of itself to solve, and
which the international community has tried various things and,
obviously, we're not there yet.
We've made some progress in different areas. The sanctions,
indeed, have caused hardship to the Serbian economy. I guess the main
argument I would make in their favor is that there is something that
obviously is of concern and is raised which the Serbian leadership would
like out of. So they're having some effect there. You've seen the
effect in inflation in the banking system and things like that.
I guess the alternative to the argument you're making is to
say, "Oh, well, let's not do anymore sanctions." I think it's important
to continue to tighten and toughen those sanctions. The Secretary has
explained that many times and, indeed, we are going forward with
increasingly tightened and increasingly tougher sanctions so that
eventually we hope they will have the desired effect.
Q But, again, Lady Thatcher is suggesting that the
humanitarian efforts are simply prolonging the agony and, indeed,
keeping people there so that they can be massacred, as she put it.
Aren't you therefore rethinking a policy that has not succeeded in
stopping the killing or closing any of the camps in a year?
MR. BOUCHER: Saul, I don't want to get into a debate with Mrs.
Thatcher either directly or indirectly. The efforts, I think, that
we've made are clear. The fact is, we kept people alive. We've saved
children. We've saved innocent people. We fed them. We've taken care
of them with medical supplies; in some cases, we've evacuated them to
places of safety.
The international community and the workers who are out there,
I think, deserve our every support. Just consider what you're saying in
the alternative. So we're not supposed to feed people? I'm not going
to get into a long debate with Mrs. Thatcher through you guys, but let's
consider the alternatives in some cases.
Q Let me ask you something else. Lord David Owen, in an
interview in Foreign Affairs, is suggesting that you might hold out one
further threat, which you haven't done, and that is the use of force.
In the past, Presidents have always withheld that option, and held it
out as a possible option in order to advance diplomatic objectives.
Would the United States consider, as a possibility, the use of
force to get the Serbs to sign on to the Vance-Owen plan?
MR. BOUCHER: Saul, this President, indeed, I think has
addressed those questions before. I really don't have anything new to
say on those subjects. We have laid out clearly what we're doing, what
we're trying to do, and what we will continue to do, and that's what
we're doing.
Q Is the use of force an option?
MR. BOUCHER: Let somebody else -- let's let somebody ask a
question.
Q May I ask if the use of force is an option?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any new answer on that today.
Q Is it the case that the United States, unimpeded -- if you
were acting on your own -- would lift the arms embargo for the Muslims?
Is it the Europeans that are stopping you from
doing that?
MR. BOUCHER: That's such a hypothetical thing. We're aware of
the concerns of the Europeans. We've said that if the situation
continues, if the Serbs don't enter into negotiations, that we would
intend to raise it. But it is a multilateral embargo; it's a U.N.
Security Council embargo. It just has to be multilateral.
Johanna.
Q Just to follow this up a teeny bit. The U.N. workers on
the ground in Bosnia -- because of the severity of the massacre, I
suppose, at Srebrenica -- are now questioning their own effort, the U.N.
effort to get humanitarian food to people when, perhaps, the U.N. should
have been doing something else like stopping the bloodshed or getting
them out, or something. Is there a similar review or second-guessing
going on in this building about U.S. posture on the question of
humanitarian aid?
MR. BOUCHER: The question of humanitarian aid has been
important to us. I think we've said that the team that went out there
came back, had some ideas and recommendations which are indeed being
looked at. Those run the gamut from easy things that we were able to do
right away to things with much broader implications that we're looking
at in a separate review.
I think the only answer I can give you is that we've clearly
laid out a policy. We're carrying forth with that policy. Obviously,
we always keep other options in mind. We always keep other options
under review.
Q Richard, if I could just ask you to clarify the position
on lifting the embargo. You're saying, "we're going to consult." Are
you going to consult -- in what form? Are you going to say, "Hey, we
think we should lift the embargo?" Or are you going to say, "Fellows,
what do you think about lifting the embargo?" Is there something you
will do actively, as a policy of your choice?
MR. BOUCHER: Barrie, I can't tell you at this point. I
haven't seen talking points that aren't written yet.
Q One more stab: Senator Dole joined the bandwagon, I
suppose, and put out a statement today, again, criticizing the Clinton
-- as he referred to it -- reversal of policy. He, too, called for the
lifting of the arms embargo and said he thinks it's well worth the
trade-off of our allies pulling out their troops. Would you support
that?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, it's a difficult question. It's a complex
question. The Secretary, the President have addressed the issues many
times. We have given our position on that, and when we have something
new, we'll tell you.
Q Richard, on another aspect of this humanitarian aid
question, as you know, UNHCR says that they're running out of aid to
give people, regardless of whether it's a good idea or not to give them
aid. Is the U.S. prepared to do anything about that? What's it doing?
MR. BOUCHER: Mary, yesterday, I think I ran down some of the
shipments that we had gotten in recently and some of the additional
items in the pipeline -- the new stuff.
The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, Mrs. Ogata, said
yesterday that financial contributions to the relief effort in the
former Yugoslavia have waned considerably and that no substantial
pledges have been made since the consolidated appeal last month for the
period April to December 1993.
I'd point out that in Fiscal Year 1993, the United States has
contributed more than a $140 million in cash, food, and other relief
materials to the humanitarian effort in the former Yugoslavia. Most of
this assistance has gone into Bosnia and Croatia.
We're providing an additional contribution of $3 million to the
U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees for its food program in Bosnia given
the urgent needs that they're talking about now. I discussed yesterday
some of the shipments that had gotten in. I think we got one in Friday,
and we have more on its way.
We're also in active communication with the European Community
to urge a substantial fulfillment of its pledges on humanitarian
assistance in the former Yugoslavia.
Q What do you think seems to be the problem here?
MR. BOUCHER: The problem is that they've had not enough food
in the pipeline. As far as we understand it, they haven't had to
actually cut distributions or rations at this point. But they've cited
the fact they're not getting enough food into the pipeline, and we're
redoubling our efforts and talking to other donor countries to get them
to redouble their efforts to make sure that these people continue to get
the food that they need to care for people.
Q Excuse me, Richard, I should have phrased that question
more carefully. I mean, do you think the reason that contributions are
waning, have gone down, is that other governments are rethinking the
wisdom of humanitarian aid, or that they're sick of the whole mess in
Bosnia, or what's the problem?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know.
Q You say you're in active communication with the European
countries. What sort of response are you getting as to whether they're
adding more things to the pipeline?
MR. BOUCHER: I haven't -- I don't have any responses at this
point.
Q New topic?
MR. BOUCHER: Change topics?
Q On the Middle East. Do you --
Q Just one more: Have there been any violations of the "no-
fly" zone in the last --
MR. BOUCHER: I think NATO and the Pentagon have been briefing
on that, so I don't have that information for you.
Q The last one on that subject: Mrs. Thatcher said the West
is an accomplice to massacre. Isn't that strictly correct when we're
stopping weapons reaching the Muslims and totally ineffective in
stopping heavy weapons reaching the Serbs?
MR. BOUCHER: Once again, I'm not going to get into a debate
with Mrs. Thatcher and everything that she said.
Q (Inaudible)
MR. BOUCHER: I do not agree with that. We have pursued avidly
a policy to stop the killing, to try to get a negotiated solution --
Q But the weapons are getting through to one side only.
MR. BOUCHER: The weapons are -- by and large, the army has
been a manufacturer and in fact an exporter of weapons in the past, and
they've had a lot of weapons there.
Q Coming down the Danube.
MR. BOUCHER: No, that's not quite true. The information I
have on the Russian situation -- I know you're probably referring to a
report this morning -- we've heard versions of that story for several
months. We have no reason to believe it's true.
We've also received reports of Russian firms providing goods
other than arms to the Serbs. We have approached -- when we come across
such information, we approach the Russian Government, and the Russian
Government has been very responsive when we've raised specific cases.
In general, I would say that Russian companies have been no more prone
to sanctions busting than companies in other states neighboring Serbia.
We have no reason to believe that the Russian Government has been
involved in any sanctions violations.
Q Did you know, though, that Belgrade is shipping arms over
the Drina --
MR. BOUCHER: We've said for a long --
Q -- in plain sight of airplanes, incidentally, and
reporters, to the Bosnian Serbs.
MR. BOUCHER: We've said for a long time -- we've pointed out
to you many times in the past that the Bosnian Serbs derive their
support from Belgrade and that is one of the reasons why we continue to
put pressure on Belgrade, and why we continue to seek things such as
tougher sanctions on Belgrade.
Q And you think that sanctions would prevent Belgrade from
shipping the arms to the Bosnian Serbs.
MR. BOUCHER: We think that sanctions will make the Government
in Belgrade more willing to use their influence to bring about a
negotiated settlement and an end to the fighting.
Q Do you have any evidence that the sanctions that we've had
so far -- and as I understand it from this podium, you've said that the
American sanctions were already pretty tight -- do you have any evidence
so far that any of the sanctions so far has slowed the movement of arms,
tanks, from Belgrade to the Bosnian Serbs?
MR. BOUCHER: Saul, I don't have any update on the precise
movements across the border, but the key point is whether we can make
the parties willing to stop the fighting and to reach a negotiated
settlement.
Q And have you succeeded in the last year?
MR. BOUCHER: We've succeeded through our efforts and through
our engagement to bring about some progress in the talks between the
Bosnian Muslims and the Croatian side. We are continuing our efforts to
try to get the Serbs in.
Q I've asked this before, but has ethnic cleansing ceased?
MR. BOUCHER: Saul, we've told you many times -- I would invite
you to read the report we put out yesterday. We've documented the
continuation of practices associated with ethnic cleansing. We've been
very clear about that. We've been very clear about the need for
punishment for those who perpetrate such crimes.
Q That report shows, Richard, that the ethnic cleansing and
the atrocities have actually increased since the policy of sanctions and
pressure on Belgrade itself.
MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't draw that conclusion from that report.
The reports in there are provided for the purpose of pursuing the
possible war crimes prosecutions. It's not a comprehensive report on
everything that goes on. It's a good solid report of information that
we can acquire through direct sources or eyewitness reports of crimes
that may have occurred that could be followed up on for the purposes of
the war crimes
tribunal.
Q Is there any --
MR. BOUCHER: There's a lady in the back that has a question.
Q This is a question on South Africa. Would you tell us
again what the official position is on recent events in South Africa,
and has the government been in contact with officials in South Africa?
Secondly, some critics are saying that if the U.S. Government had put
more pressure on the South African Government to hold timely elections,
then possibly some of the violence that's occurring now wouldn't have.
What is
your --
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know who these critics are. I think our
position in support of a negotiated solution and in working with all the
sides out there and urging them to come to the table and to negotiate
their differences has been very, very clear; and, indeed, I think we
have a process there that has resumed in that regard.
We have been firmly in support of the movement and the
transition to a non-racial democracy in South Africa, and we have
expended considerable efforts to see that happen.
As far as what's going on down there, we've been in touch with
our Foreign Service posts in South Africa. They report that there's a
work "stay-away," they call it, that's been called by the ANC and the
other parties in commemoration of the Chris Hani assassination, and that
that has largely been successful. Traffic is lighter than usual in most
areas.
Commemorative services for Chris Hani in Johannesburg have been
peaceful and disciplined. We've just learned, however, that there were
four people who have been shot and killed, apparently by police at a
Soweto police station where demonstrators marched following a memorial
service in Soweto Stadium.
A number of people were also critically wounded. Our Embassy
is seeking further detailed information regarding the circumstances of
that incident.
In Cape Town, there were small groups that broke off from the
peaceful main body of 20-30,000 demonstrators and engaged in random acts
of vandalism and looting. We understand that there's been some looting
in Port Elizabeth and some problems in Pietermaritzburg. We don't have
details on that at this time.
Our position is that we have urged all the South Africans who
mourn the death of Chris Hani to conduct themselves in a disciplined and
a non-violent manner. To do otherwise, we think, would abet those who
are seeking to undermine and disrupt the ongoing negotiations on South
Africa's future, and I think we've welcomed the renewed commitment by
the parties to those negotiations to keep that process moving forward.
Q Do you think the process is moving too slowly, which
allows the right wing to become more strong, and thus these violent
situations to appear?
MR. BOUCHER: I really wouldn't speculate on that.
Q Can I move over to the Middle East? Do you have any
comment on the recent violence in the Middle East, the death of the
three Israeli soldiers, and can you give us any readout on how the talks
are going here?
MR. BOUCHER: As for a readout, I think we'll wait until we've
had a good round with everybody. We're seeing two others today. I
think it's the Lebanese at 11:00 and the Palestinians at 3:00. So I'll
see if I can get you some kind of readout on these last two days of
consultations after that. Either after that or maybe tomorrow.
As far as the violence in southern Lebanon, we understand that
three Israeli soldiers were killed and others were wounded by a roadside
bomb on April 13 in the so-called Israeli "security zone." The Iranian-
backed Hizballah are believed to be responsible. Israeli defense forces
retaliated with artillery and helicopter attacks which injured at least
four Lebanese civilians.
The United States regrets the killing and wounding of Israeli
soldiers and the wounding of innocent Lebanese civilians. We condemn
those who provoke violence in southern Lebanon. We support the full
implementation of the Taif Accord which calls for the disarming of all
militias, including Hizballah.
Assistant Secretary Djerejian has been in touch with the
Israelis, the Syrians and Lebanese concerning these incidents, and we
continue to call on all sides to exercise maximum restraint and to use
their influence to end the violence in southern Lebanon.
Q Does the State Department think that having the talks
continue in one flow without interruptions will alleviate the violence
in any way?
MR. BOUCHER: Certainly we think it's important to have the
talks and to have the talks as frequently and continuous as the parties
themselves can do. We have made very clear that we don't think that
those who want to resort to violence should be allowed to disrupt the
talks.
Q Richard, do you have any reading of the current situation
in Haiti and reports that President Aristide has made a major concession
regarding amnesty?
MR. BOUCHER: We've been leaving it to Dante Caputo to talk
about his efforts. He is indeed down there again. We are in close
touch with him through Ambassador Pezzullo and Ambassador Redman, but
we've been leaving it to him to talk about the status of his efforts.
Amnesty, of course, has been a long-standing issue in the
negotiations and discussions. I think you'll remember the Secretary
talked a week or two ago about the need for some kind of assurances of
security for all Haitians as part of a broader political settlement of
Haiti's crisis. But just what those assurances should be, we really
leave to the Haitians themselves to work out.
Q Well, Richard, have you seen a transcript of his Creole
language -- has the Administration seen a transcript of his Creole
language statement on the radio yesterday?
MR. BOUCHER: I would expect we have. I personally haven't
seen it, though.
Q Could you see if we have a -- can confirm that he is
agreeing to the amnesty based on our translation of that?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll see if we have a transcript that we can
provide.
Q Richard, on another area, what do you have to say about
the rapidly deteriorating situation in Cambodia and the move by the
Khmer Rouge now to pull out of Phnom Penh and the alarm being expressed
by the United Nations as a result of that move? Do you think that
things are collapsing?
MR. BOUCHER: The usual tendency to the undramatic portrayal of
events, huh? Let me try to make clear what we understand is going on,
and what we understand is not going on.
We understand that Khmer Rouge officials have temporarily
withdrawn from their offices in Phnom Penh. We also understand that
they have withdrawn their representatives from a number of mixed
military working groups in key provinces. We do not have any reports
that they have withdrawn from the Supreme National Council or from the
peace process as a whole.
In response to the Khmer Rouge withdrawal from Phnom Penh, the
U.N. Transitional Authority in Cambodia has indicated to the Khmer Rouge
that it is prepared to work with the Khmer Rouge to address their
security concerns, which was the reason they stated for pulling out of
Phnom Penh.
For our part, we continue to be committed to the peace process.
We've urged the U.N. Transitional Authority to proceed with preparations
for the upcoming elections in order to give the Cambodian people an
opportunity to determine their own political future.
Q But, Richard, I mean, how do you feel about the Khmer
Rouge claiming they have security concerns when they appear to have
killed seven U.N. civilian workers recently?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, we've --
Q I mean, do you feel that there's any basis for those
concerns?
MR. BOUCHER: We've said and we believe that they're
responsible for more than that. Some of the attacks against the
Vietnamese are reported and presumably have been carried out by the
Khmer Rouge. We've made very clear all along that we believe the Khmer
Rouge should be part of this process. The U.N. has expressed itself on
that repeatedly and has brought some sanctions against the Khmer Rouge
for that reason.
At the same time, we've also made very clear that if they
didn't want to be part of this process, we felt that should not prevent
it from going forward, that it was important, and the U.N. indeed has
been going forward with the resettlement of refugees, with the
registration of voters. Some 95 percent of the eligible voters, I
think, are registered. So they continue to go forward with what is a
very important process in Cambodia.
Q Richard, do you think the Khmer Rouge is succeeding in
driving the U.N. -- can they succeed in completely sabotaging this
mission of the U.N.? As you know, some U.N. civilian observers have
talked about leaving, because their security situation has deteriorated
so severely. And do you still feel it's important to have the Khmer
Rouge involved when they're killing U.N. officials?
MR. BOUCHER: We still feel that it's important to move, as we
say, from the battlefield to the ballot box. Yes, we feel it's
important for people to stop killing officials and stop killing others
and to join in the political process. That's what all this is about.
Q Richard, do you have anything on an incident involving
Americans, perhaps an attack, in Cancun?
MR. BOUCHER: No. I hadn't heard of it. I'll check and see if
we do.
Q Richard, a senior Liberian official this morning accused
Libya of arming Charles Taylor's troops, the people who brought us the
killing of the four American -- five American nuns. Does the
Administration concur with that assessment?
MR. BOUCHER: That's something I'd have to get an update on,
Sid. I'll check.
Q Richard, do you have any reports of unrest in Baghdad?
MR. BOUCHER: No. Should I?
Q Yes. Well, actually, there are --
MR. BOUCHER: O.K. I'll check on that one, too.
Q It's not just unrest, Richard. There are reports of
senior Ba'ath officials being executed right and left and thrown on
people's doorsteps. It's a little more than unrest.
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, I'll check and see if we have anything on
it.
Chris.
Q Richard, can I try one more run on lifting the arms
embargo. You have said and the Secretary has said that the primary
problem with that is our allies have objected because they have
peacekeeping forces on the ground, and these people would be put at risk
if more arms are put into the region.
So I can understand why those are our allies' objections to
doing it, if (a), then (b), we would have to -- they have to take their
people out. But now today you seem to be raising that as a reason that
you don't want to lift the arms embargo, because you said we've been
keeping people alive; we've been getting medicine, and so on.
So I can understand why the people who have troops on the
ground -- that is something that they realize they would have to remove
them if the arms embargo was lifted, but now it seems to be an argument
you are raising.
Q Chris, that's certainly not what I said. I said very
clearly that the humanitarian stuff is important, and it is important,
and we'll proceed with it. It's also clear that it has to be
considered. I don't think anybody doubts the importance of that. But
we also think that if the situation continues and the Serbs don't
participate in reaching a settlement that we should raise and we would
intend to raise, the issue of lifting the arms embargo. And at that
time we'll have to consider the implications for the humanitarian aid
programs.
Q Have the Serbs been given any kind of deadline?
MR. BOUCHER: The Serbs have been pressed to join the process
immediately. That pressure is existing, it's underway, it's continuing,
and it will grow, and we've said that that pressure will continue to
grow as time goes on.
Q Can you say whether the lifting of the arms embargo is one
of the recommendations on the paper that you've probably read by now,
that was submitted, that we talked about earlier?
MR. BOUCHER: It's not among the humanitarian ideas, that the
humanitarian team came back with, no.
Q Did they discuss the possible lifting or the implications
in lifting the arms embargo?
MR. BOUCHER: Not in what I've read, Saul.
Q The Vietnam POW document -- anything further on that in
terms of its evaluation or any response/reaction from the Vietnamese
that's come through channels?
MR. BOUCHER: There's nothing further at this point in terms of
the analysis and evaluation. I think the Pentagon's talked about that.
It's ongoing. We'll also, as we've said, raise it as the first order of
business during General Vessey's trip. We did provide copies of the
document to the Vietnamese Government. We conveyed to them the
seriousness of the questions that were raised by the document, and we
asked the Vietnamese to investigate as quickly as possible.
They, as you know, have questioned the document's accuracy, but
they've pledged to fully investigate the matter. It will indeed be
raised as the first order of business when General Vessey gets there
April 18. We've also told the Vietnamese that General Vessey would like
to discuss the matter directly with General Quang. The Vietnamese have
also reiterated their government's statements to us that it did not hold
U.S. prisoners after 1973.
Q Richard, have we asked to see the original of that memo in
Vietnamese?
MR. BOUCHER: General Vessey will have to discuss this out
there, and, you know, at this point we've asked them. We've given it to
them and asked them to investigate, and I have to assume that that would
be part of any serious search for information relating to this document,
would be to look for a Vietnamese original.
Q (Inaudible) undertaken a serious search?
MR. BOUCHER: They've pledged -- as I said, they've questioned
its accuracy, but they've pledged full investigation.
Q Richard, just one more question on the Middle East: As
the closing of the occupied territories goes on, seemingly without end
now, according to the Israeli Government, does the United States have
any growing concerns about the economic or other conditions in the
territories that might be brought about by this open-ended closing of
the territories? Is there a legal problem there? Is there a
humanitarian problem? Do you have any problems with it?
MR. BOUCHER: At this point, Mary, I think I'm going to decline
to get into specifics about specific measures. We've expressed our
general views on the situation out there, but I'll leave it at that.
Q Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:18 p.m.)
(###)