Note: This Electronic Research Collection is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #57
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1993, 12:53 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I have two
administrative announcements, and then we can get on to your questions.
Secretary Christopher will be appearing before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee tomorrow morning at 10:20, I'm told,
regarding the 1994 budget. Room number is 419 Dirksen Senate Office
Building. Given that appearance, we won't be doing a briefing from here
tomorrow.
The second event to tell you about is that Secretary of State
Warren Christopher and Postmaster General Marvin Runyon dedicate a new
postage stamp honoring former Secretary of State Dean Acheson on
Wednesday, April 21. The ceremony will be held in the State
Department's Dean Acheson Auditorium, beginning at 11:30 a.m.
The Secretary will be making remarks and the event is open to
the press, and we also expect it to be piped into the briefing room.
Anyone interested in covering the event should contact Eileen McCormick
Place on 647-1710. She's in the Office of Public Liaison. You should
contact her by Tuesday. The event is Wednesday at 11:30 a.m.
Q Richard, do you know more about the stamp? What
designation is it? Is it 29 cents or first class mail or --
MR. BOUCHER: I think that's a bit of news that we'll hold
until the unveiling. I don't know, frankly.
Q And is there no briefing on account of this momentous
event?
MR. BOUCHER: That's a good suggestion. I hadn't thought of
it, but I thought we'd wait until after the stamp to do a briefing.
Q Will the Secretary take any questions at that event, or
is that a remarks only?
MR. BOUCHER: I think that's remarks only.
Q And what was the change -- what caused the change from
the Loy Henderson Auditorium to the Dean Acheson Auditorium?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think it's more appropriate.
Q Richard, are there perhaps other past Secretaries of
State with stamps at this stage --
MR. BOUCHER: That's something you'll have to check with the
Postal Service on. They set the schedule.
Q Was there a committee? I mean, did they vote?
MR. BOUCHER: These things are usually decided far, far in
advance, several years in advance actually, of significant
anniversaries.
Q Jan asked whether it was the young or old Dean Acheson
who would be --
MR. BOUCHER: Again, that's a bit of excitement that you can
save for the unveiling, when they actually pull the cloth off the stamp.
O.K. That does it for announcements. I'd be glad to take
your questions.
Q Do you have anything to say about the developments over
the weekend concerning Bosnia?
MR. BOUCHER: The Secretary this morning, of course, addressed
some of the policy issues involved. I think -- let me tell you what we
know about the situation out in eastern Bosnia and Srebrenica.
A Canadian UNPROFOR unit arrived in Srebrenica Sunday
afternoon. Sarajevo Radio has reported Bosnian Serb shelling of
Srebrenica over the weekend, but UNPROFOR was not able to confirm those
reports. We've not had any reports of fighting in or around the city
this morning.
Helicopter evacuations of the wounded began on Sunday.
Approximately 100 patients were taken by helicopter from Srebrenica to
Tuzla. Helicopter evacuations are expected to continue today, weather
permitting.
The local authorities in Srebrenica and Tuzla have announced
that there will be no evacuation of civilians from Srebrenica at this
stage.
On Saturday, the Bosnian Government and Bosnian Serb
representatives reached agreement on plans for the demilitarization of
Srebrenica. As part of that agreement, the Bosnian Government defenders
of Srebrenica are to turn over their arms to UNPROFOR. As far as we
know, this process has not yet begun.
The Bosnian Government military Chief of Staff, General
Halilovic, Bosnian Serb General Mladic, and U.N. representatives were
scheduled to meet in Sarajevo again today.
As far as convoys go, there were two convoys that are being
sent from Belgrade to eastern Bosnian today. One is nine trucks of food
for Srebrenica and one is ten trucks of food for Tuzla.
Over the weekend, the United Nations adopted two resolutions.
I'll review those for you.
First of all, they adopted Resolution 819 Friday evening,
demanding the establishment of a safe area around the city of
Srebrenica. The resolution was introduced by the nations of the Non-
Aligned Movement. The United States supported the resolution as an
attempt by the Security Council to restrain Bosnian Serb behavior and to
prevent the taking of the city by force.
In reaction to events on the ground in eastern Bosnia, the
Council on Saturday adopted the Omnibus Sanctions Resolution by a vote
of 13, including the United States, to zero against, to two abstentions,
with Russia and China being the abstaining countries.
Tougher economic sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro, the
Bosnian Serbs' main source of support, will take effect April 26 as a
result of Saturday's vote on this resolution.
The events in Srebrenica on Friday and Saturday were an
outrage to the world community, and the United States supported the call
for immediate action on the Sanctions Resolution.
We urged the Russians not to veto the resolution, and they
did not do so. In light of the flagrant disregard for world opinion
that was demonstrated by the Bosnian Serbs, we feel the Council had no
choice but to adopt the resolution at this time.
The resolution was adopted to include a nine-day waiting
period before the tougher sanctions take effect. We thought that this
resolution offered the best prospects for adoption by the Council. As
you know, that was the date that was in the original resolution, and
it's always been in play. It was adopted. Now the sanctions will take
effect on April 26, and we felt that given the prospects of that
adoption, we should support it.
The resolution will lead to a significant reduction in the
number of land border crossings for all goods into Serbia and
Montenegro. All transshipments will be controlled and monitored.
Certain assets of companies will be frozen. Trade with Serb-controlled
areas and the U.N.-protected areas in Croatia would be subject to the
same control that the other trade is subject to and would be subject to
the control of governments in Zagreb and Sarajevo.
Commercial vessels will be prohibited from entering the
territorial waters of Serbia-Montenegro. Vessels, trucks and aircraft
used to violate sanctions would be impounded, and most financial and
other services to Serbian and Montenegrin firms would be prohibited.
So, basically, the new resolution goes into effect April 26,
with tighter sanctions, tougher sanctions, effectively the U.N.-
supervised economic isolation of Serbia.
Q Richard, could I ask a follow-up question on that? You
told us Friday that the sanctions would go into effect immediately upon
adoption. What caused the United States to reverse itself on the timing
when the sanctions would go into effect?
MR. BOUCHER: The date of April 26, as you know, has always
been in the U.N. resolutions in one form or the other. In the original
resolution is the delay for implementation. In more recent discussions,
it was the date on which the vote would take place. While we might have
felt that the resolution -- the immediate imposition of sanctions was
appropriate given the events of last week, it was clear that in the
minds of others as well that the continued use of that April 26 date was
an important factor in getting adoption of the resolution by the
Council, and therefore we supported the resolution with that in it.
Q Was there a Russian or a Chinese veto threat on a
resolution that would take effect immediately?
MR. BOUCHER: You'll have to ask them about their actions.
Q Richard, excuse me, you told us Friday that they were --
it was understood here that they would go into effect immediately.
There was some triggering action that caused the United States to back
off that position. Why can't you tell us what it was?
MR. BOUCHER: I told you that the triggering action, if you
will, was our desire to see a resolution passed; to see the certainty of
sanctions imposed; to see the Serbs faced with the certain prospect of
these sanctions that will inevitably take effect on April 26, if they
don't play ball with the peace process and stop the killing. So our
desire to see that resolution passed was what led us to accept a
resolution that had the April 26 date.
Johanna.
Q Do you have any numbers on the assets that Serbians have
abroad? I mean, does this amount to anything?
MR. BOUCHER: We got the numbers on the assets that Treasury
is taking care of or seized or frozen in the United States already. I
don't have numbers on worldwide assets. I think the key element here is
the prohibition -- in terms of assets and financial services -- is that
the measures that are decided will prevent the Serbs from using their
assets, using financial services, in order to violate the embargoes.
Q Richard, is there anything the Serbs can do at this point
to prevent the taking effect of the sanctions resolution?
MR. BOUCHER: I'd have to look at precisely how it's worded in
the resolution. I don't have it with me. But basically the desire --
well, the resolution is constructed in order to provide them with an
incentive to reach a peace agreement first -- well, first of all, to
stop the fighting, to use their influence to make sure the fighting and
the killing stops, and second of all, to enter into a peace agreement.
Q What does that mean? Signing the Vance-Owen agreement?
MR. BOUCHER: I'd have to look at the exact wording of the
resolution, and of course the Council would have to consider whatever
they did.
Q But there's been no other peace agreement negotiated,
correct?
MR. BOUCHER: That's right. That's the agreement on the
table.
Q Following up on that, a minute ago you said, "If they
don't play ball and stop the killings, the sanctions would go into
effect." Is there anything that prevents them from going into effect --
they will go into effect on April 26, will they not, regardless of --
wouldn't the Security Council have to do something else to prevent them
from going into effect?
MR. BOUCHER: That's my understanding, Ralph. I didn't bring
the resolution with me, but something else would have to be determined
to prevent them.
Q Richard, you referred to the demilitarization of
Srebrenica. Isn't that a euphemism, for basically the surrender of all
arms by the Bosnian defenders? The Serbs aren't being demilitarized.
MR. BOUCHER: No. And I described for you in the next
sentence what it meant. It meant that the U.N. would engage in a
process of disarming the government forces there. As part of that
agreement, the Bosnian Government defenders of Srebrenica are to turn
over their arms to UNPROFOR.
Q So, Richard, do you consider Srebrenica to have fallen
essentially?
MR. BOUCHER: At this point I think it's immaterial to argue
over the status of Srebrenica.
Q Richard, can you tell me what plans the Western allies
have and the United Nations has to amass the force to seal the borders
of Yugoslavia and thus make the sanctions work or really implement these
sanctions?
MR. BOUCHER: The effect of implementation of these sanctions
will require additional resources on the Danube, on the land borders
with Serbia and Montenegro, and expanded maritime interception of the
Adriatic. We're working closely with other EC and CSCE countries to
enhance our ability to control and enforce the movement of goods into
Serbia and to enforce these sanctions.
So immediate things I can tell you about, but basically we're
in discussions with other governments about other things. The Western
European Union intends to place and interdiction force on the Danube to
control the barge traffic. This is in addition to the support that
we've provided -- the six boats and Coast Guard training that we've made
available to Bulgaria and Romania.
The United States will furnish to the United Nations Sanctions
Committee a list of companies and ships which are under Serbian and
Montenegrin control. That will be given to member states so that they
can proceed with the elements of the resolution that are involved with
seizing those kinds of assets.
The measures that we're undertaking will enable the world
community to better implement the measures that are contained in the new
resolution, and I'm sure there will be other steps that you'll see to
further tighten the enforcement.
Q Are you ready to offer military personnel or other kind
of personnel to police the borders and the Danube, or are we simply
leaving it to the neighboring states to do that?
MR. BOUCHER: It's neither the one or the other. We have
provided customs personnel and other personnel to assist the neighboring
states to enforce the sanctions, and we'll continue to do that.
Q I know you said the other day that in spite of this help,
the sanctions have been pretty leaky, and now they're being tightened.
I'm trying to find out what kind of steps we're taking in tightening --
MR. BOUCHER: Saul, I just read you a long list of steps that
we're taking, and I think I described those Friday as the tools that are
necessary for the people who are enforcing sanctions to take the --
Q Well, are we moving any more ships in the area? Are we
doing something else with our forces, rather than simply giving people
Boston Whalers?
MR. BOUCHER: Saul, that's the exact same question you asked
Friday, and I will answer the question the same way I answered it on
Friday. I think the first important thing that this resolution does is
it takes effective measures so that there's no -- it's not questions of
paperwork, it's not questions of false documentation, so that there are
very clear steps that can be taken by the people who are already out
there to make sure that there's no commercial traffic in the maritime
waters, so that they can intercept traffic there; to make sure that
barges just plain don't cross certain stages, to make sure that any
vessels or rolling stock or other assets -- transportation assets --
that are being used to violate the sanctions or owned by Serbia-
Montenegro can be seized.
I think the first thing that it provides the sanctions
enforcers, if you will, with is the clear authority to stop the traffic,
and that authority is something that will itself constitute the tighter
enforcement of the sanctions. But, second of all, we have also
cooperated with the other governments in the region. We have provided
personnel. We've provided equipment, much beyond just a couple Boston
Whalers, as you describe it, and we will continue to do that, and we'll
continue to work with other governments to provide further stuff.
Q Can you tell me what we supplied besides DEA agents or
drug enforcement agents -- customs agents, rather, and Boston Whalers?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, it's the same list of things that I
described for you on Friday. We described -- we supply ships in the
maritime enforcement that NATO and WEU have in the Adriatic. We've
provided personnel. We've provided coordination. We've provided
communications. We've provided assets like the boats, and we have
worked with others in the international community to provide more. I'm
probably not thinking of half the things that we've done in this case.
Q Richard, can you give a U.S. assessment of how -- what
effect these sanctions are likely to have on Serb behavior and when?
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, with any sanctions, that is the most
difficult part. The new sanctions will be tighter. They will be
tougher. They can have a -- will have an effect on the Serbian economy.
As to what changes that might result in Serbian behavior, certainly I
can tell you their intention. Their intention is to make Serbia pay a
price for its support for the Bosnian Serbs and the fighting that's
going on in Bosnia, and to make them change their calculations of their
interests so that they find that their interests are such that they
should get back to the table, stop the fighting and engage in peace, and
they're directed to that end.
Q Have you done an analysis of previous cases of sanctions?
The ones that spring to my mind, of course, are the Iraqi sanctions and
the Libyan sanctions. There were the sanctions that Britain imposed on
Rhodesia which went on for about 15 or 16 years. There's the Cuba
embargo. There's the Haiti embargo. In any of those cases, has that
produced a change in the behavior on the part of the party that is being
punished?
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, I don't think the point here is to try to
debate or analyze previous cases. You could probably debate that all
night long. The point is whether the Serbs are going to be allowed to
support this kind of aggression and not engage in peace talks without
paying a price, and without our attempting in some way to pressure them
to change their behavior.
Q Well, with all respect, if you take certain action --
you, yourself, say it's difficult to gauge what effect that action will
take -- and surely our only guide to the possible effect that such
action takes is to analyze past examples of such action and to realize
that in no case has it had any effect whatsoever.
MR. BOUCHER: Well, perhaps that's not our only guide, Alan.
Perhaps the additional guides are the facts that they seem to care
enough about sanctions to want to get out of them. That may be a good
enough argument for imposing and tightening.
Howard.
Q Can we go back to Srebrenica, and I'm not clear on
whether or what kind of role the U.N. has undertaken to play in this
demilitarization. Does that mean that the protection of the civilians
is in the hands of 120-odd Canadians?
MR. BOUCHER: I think for further clarification of exactly
that role on the ground, you'll have to get it from the U.N.
Q Is it something that the U.S. supports?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, we have supported the U.N. resolution that
calls for an end to the fighting there, that calls for an end to
military attacks there, that calls for an end to Serb support for the
Bosnian Serb army. The declaration by the U.N. that Srebrenica should
be a safe area is something that we supported, and the United Nations,
the UNPROFOR, has sent the Canadian soldiers there, and they are engaged
on the ground.
Q Does the U.S. believe that a small number of lightly-
armed Canadian soldiers could fulfill that daunting task?
MR. BOUCHER: Howard, I just can't tell you. It depends on
what happens. So far the fighting has quieted, and they are there.
We'll just have to see how things develop.
Mary.
Q On the Russian role in all of this, there's been two
statements today now from Russian officials. Vitaly Churkin was very
critical of the Security Council's action and described its "hastiness."
And Kozyrev called for a meeting of the Security Council on either
Sarajevo or Srebrenica to discuss the situation in Bosnia.
And I wanted to ask you if there's been any formal request as
far as you know, and is the United States interested in a U.N. Security
Council meeting on either Sarajevo or Srebrenica? And also do you feel
that a price has been paid by the United States in its relations with
Russia in pushing this resolution in what seems to have been against
Russian wishes?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure I can answer any of those
questions, Mary. Certainly, we felt it was time for this resolution.
As you know, we agreed to keep a resolution that had the 26th in it as
the effective implementation date, which was what had already been
discussed by the Council.
We did want to avoid any blocking of the resolution by the
Russians, and we urged them to allow the resolution to go through, and
indeed in the end they abstained.
So we felt the resolution was the right thing to do. We felt
it was important to do it now, and we went forward, along with other
members of the Council on it.
Q And what about the meeting of the Security Council on
Sarajevo --
MR. BOUCHER: I have not heard of that idea. I'd have to
check on that and see if there's anything before the Council.
Let me check with some of the others -- in the back.
Q If we could move to another part of the world.
Q (Chorus of no's) (Laughter)
MR. BOUCHER: O.K. We'll get there.
Q Richard, back on the safe-havens measure which you said
the U.S. supports. In supporting it, is the concept that this is a
stop-gap measure intended to basically preserve life for the moment, or
is this an open-ended and serious commitment to protect the Muslim
population in that community so that they will not be forced to leave?
MR. BOUCHER: Terry, I think I just have to stick to the
resolution as adopted. The resolution was adopted in order to prevent
the further fighting and the further killing that could go on there in
the absence of an end to the fighting. So it was passed in order to
declare it a safe area where people could live without being attacked,
and I'll just have to stick with the language of the resolution.
Q So essentially it is considered a stop-gap measure. Both
you and -- the U.S. has not made a decision about whether this should be
an ongoing effort to protect that particular population at this point?
They're dealing with the immediate problem, not a more extended question
of what happens next? Is that right?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, I don't think I can answer. I'd have to
look back at the U.N. resolution to try to get you --
Q -- but in voting for -- whenever you vote for a
Security Council resolution, you've normally analyzed it, looked at the
implications, looked at what commitments are being undertaken, what it
implies in terms of what the U.S. will do, what it implies in terms of
U.N. credibility. That's sort of standard for going -- with any of
these things. So you must have had some sense as to what it is you
voted for, or do you not know what you voted for?
MR. BOUCHER: Terry, we know what we voted for. What we voted
for is the language of the resolution. I'm afraid I'm personally just
not in a position right now to try to interpret the resolution for you
to the extent that you want me to.
Q Could you take the question --
MR. BOUCHER: I described the resolution as one that was
intended to restrain Bosnian Serb behavior and to prevent the taking of
the city by force.
Q Could you take a question which attempts to get at what
is the goal of this bringing in Canadian troops? Do you expect the
Muslims to continue to live there for the years ahead, or do you expect
them to get on a truck and get out of there before the shelling starts
again? What's the goal?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure that was the question I was just
being asked. But in any case, I will try to get you clarification as to
the extent to which the resolution was to stop the immediate fighting or
whether the -- for time to come the U.N. had committed itself to protect
the population of that town.
Obviously, there are U.N. people on the ground that are trying
to work a satisfactory solution with the parties that are out there, and
to a great extent those final decisions get made by people out there.
Q Richard, perhaps it was help -- just to follow up on
this -- the President has called for safe-havens. One report, the
executive summary --
MR. BOUCHER: Excuse me?
Q The President did in earlier statements during his
campaign suggest the possibility of safe-havens --
MR. BOUCHER: That's a little different than what you said the
first time.
Q He was specifically talking about Sarajevo. We have the
executive summary of some findings of the team that was sent out there
which suggested the creation of safe-havens. It may be that this is the
first of several safe-havens, and I'm trying to find out -- also, I
would like to find out, if we can -- whether this Security Council
resolution is part of what is foreseen as safe-havens in a temporary or
a semi-permanent fashion in order to hold these populations in these
areas, pending some sort of peace agreement?
MR. BOUCHER: Saul, the language of this resolution was the
establishment of a safe area around the city of Srebrenica, not exactly
the same term that you've used and that's been used before. As far as
sort of other options and calls that have been made and things
recommended in the humanitarian report, those are things that we've told
you are under review, and the Secretary has told you again this morning
that there is fairly urgent work ongoing to review a whole variety of
options.
Sid.
Q Richard, can you offer an --
Q (Inaudible)
MR. BOUCHER: O.K. Sorry, Jan.
Q Thank you. In response to Mary's question about whether
or not you'd considered Srebrenica had fallen, you said that its status
was immaterial. But for weeks we've been hearing how important
strategically Srebrenica is. Why is its status immaterial?
MR. BOUCHER: I didn't mean to imply anything strategic about
that. I was just meaning to say that with the issue having been decided
by the Security Council, that the events in Srebrenica on Friday were of
such grave concern that we should immediately move and vote this
sanctions resolution; that in terms of the implementation of these
sanctions and the ongoing process, that the exact nature -- I think on
Friday we were dealing with questions of fallen, or forced to surrender,
decided to surrender and questions like that. Those exact questions are
not the operative ones now.
Obviously, the welfare of the population in Srebrenica, the
importance of maintaining their welfare, have been dealt with by the
United Nations in voting these resolutions. And, clearly, what the
Council is seeking is an end to the fighting, and that's something that
we've supported.
Q Richard, I want -- The New York Times --
MR. BOUCHER: Let's work our way over this way.
Q The New York Times reported yesterday that -- citing U.S.
intelligence reports -- that artillery from Serbia was involved in the
last week's attack against Srebrenica. And I wanted to ask you, (a) if
you could confirm that, and (b) whether that's the first indication that
the White House has had that Belgrade is actively participating, or
whether that's old news?
MR. BOUCHER: There have been various press reports about the
kind of support that the Serbs have offered to the Bosnian Serbs both
over time and in this particular situation in eastern Bosnia. I'm
afraid I'm not in a position to share with you what we know about that
support -- the nature and extent of that support -- because of the way
we get our information on this.
I would say that we have long recognized that the Serbs are in
a position to influence events. They have provided significant support
in the past to Bosnian Serbs, and we feel that they're able to bring the
fighting to a halt, should they wish to do so, and that's one reason why
we keep passing and toughening and tightening the sanctions against them
to make them willing to do that.
Q Just to be clear, you wouldn't view this as an
escalation? Before we knew that Belgrade was providing arms and
materiel. If there were evidence now that they were also participating
actively in the shelling of a town, would that be an escalation from
what we knew before?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm afraid I just can't get into that, Johanna,
because of what we know and how we know it.
Q Richard, can you offer an explanation as to why U.S.
jets, attached to the "no-fly" zone enforcement activity, are flying at
altitudes of less than 200 feet over Serbian-held areas in Bosnia?
MR. BOUCHER: That sounds like a very military question that
I'll leave for the Pentagon.
Q It could also be a diplomatic message, Richard.
MR. BOUCHER: If they say it's a diplomatic message, then I'll
interpret it further for you, but I will leave the jets to them for the
moment.
Mark.
Q In view of the record with the past cease-fires, is there
an American or a NATO commitment that you're aware of to ensure the
safety of the Canadian U.N. troops now in Srebrenica?
MR. BOUCHER: Mark, NATO has made very clear -- and I'm trying
to think -- it was, I think, in a December NATO Communique, and I'm sure
in subsequent statements by NATO, that there should be no interference
or attacks on the U.N. peacekeepers who are out there. Not only have we
said that interference with humanitarian relief shipments and the U.N.'s
role out there, in our mind, constitutes a war crime, but we have also
very directly stated that we would brook no interference with the forces
out there.
Q Is there concern that the Canadians could be potential
hostages to the Serb forces --
MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't want to generalize in that way.
Q Richard, in a column in the New York Times today, it was alleged
that American planes flying over the "no-fly" zone -- patrolling the
"no-fly" zone, are, in fact, on photographic missions -- some of them.
Can you speak to that, please?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't, John. Again, the missions of the
aircraft are something the Pentagon might address.
Q And a second question: You used the phrase, that the
Serbian Government in Belgrade was in a position to "influence events"
taking place inside Bosnia. In the past, I believe you have used the
phrase "control events." Has your opinion of their ability to have an
effect there changed?
MR. BOUCHER: John, frankly, I don't remember if we've used
the word "control" or "influence" or "determine" or whatever. No, our
opinion has not changed. We consider it within their power to make the
fighting stop, if they wish to do so.
Q Is it the intention of the U.S. Government to make public
the recommendations, however edited, of the group that went over and
took a look on the ground? The U.S. --
MR. BOUCHER: We've provided you with the executive summary
last week.
Q For those of us in Hong Kong or Tokyo --
MR. BOUCHER: You can get another copy; certainly.
Q Can we break for another subject?
Q Yes, good idea, please.
Q The Pakistani President --
Q (Inaudible)
Q Just a moment, please. That's not the way it works here.
MR. BOUCHER: Okay. One last one.
Q There apparently is some confusion as to what will happen
to the Bosnian Government defenders of Srebrenica. Does the U.S. have a
view as to whether they should be taken by the Serbs as potential war
criminals, as apparently the Serbs have said? Should they be allowed to
leave the town and go elsewhere, to other government-held areas? What
should become of the disarmed (inaudible) defenders in the town?
MR. BOUCHER: Terry, I'm not sure we do have a view on that,
but I'll check and see if we have anything to say on that.
Q The Government of Pakistan was dismissed by the President
there. Do you have any comments on the situation there, please?
MR. BOUCHER: For those that aren't up to speed on what's
happened out there, I'll start off by reviewing what has happened.
On April 18, President Ghulam Ishaq Khan dismissed Prime
Minister Nawaz Sharif and dissolved the National Assembly, citing the
government for corruption and mismanagement. The President appointed a
caretaker Prime Minister, Sher Mazari, and an interim government is now
being formed. The President has called for national elections on July
14.
We understand the situation is calm and there is no threat to
Americans. We are following developments there closely. As the
situation evolves, we hope that all the parties will act according to
the laws of Pakistan and work to strengthen the democratic process.
Q Copy, please?
MR. BOUCHER: Sure, we'll get you a copy later.
Q Any change in the U.S. diplomatic presence in Pakistan as
a result of these announcements?
MR. BOUCHER: No.
Q Can I try on the Middle East, please.
Q In that, a similar action in Peru. How come we're not
condemning this?
MR. BOUCHER: Excuse me?
Q When the President of Peru took a similar step, we
condemned it. Why are we --
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure the situations are at all
comparable, Sid. I'm told that under the constitution, the President of
Pakistan does have the authority to dismiss the government and the
National Assembly. As I've told you, they've called for new elections
on July 14.
There are reports that indicate that the former Prime Minister
is going to challenge the legality of his dismissal in Pakistani courts
and the Speaker of the National Assembly has also announced an intention
to challenge this, but, obviously, those questions are to be decided in
Pakistan.
Q Richard, on the Middle East, do you have anything further
to what the Secretary said on the postponement of the talks? And is the
U.S. changing its position on the deportations at all?
MR. BOUCHER: The situation is really the one the Secretary
described this morning and that we described to those who might have
called us on Saturday.
Secretary Christopher called Syrian Foreign Minister Shara on
Saturday to emphasize the importance we attach to resuming the Middle
East peace talks as scheduled and to express our view that too much time
has already been lost.
Foreign Minister Shara expressed Syrian continued commitment
to the peace process. He indicated that the decision on resumption
would not be made until the Arab Coordinating Committee reconvenes.
The Secretary also talked to Egyptian Foreign Minister Moussa
on Sunday.
The Arab Foreign Ministers and Palestinian representatives
have continued to meet in Syria. I think they're meeting today again.
They, in our discussions with them, have expressed a continued
consistent commitment to the process, and they're in the process of
reaching a decision on resumption.
Clearly, they have not accepted for tomorrow, and there may be
a delay of something like a week.
Our view remains that we believe it's important for them to
decide. We believe that the needs and the concerns of all the parties,
and especially the Palestinians, can best be addressed by a return to
the negotiating table without any further delay.
Q On the Palestinians, I asked, is there any change on the
deportee situation beyond what President Clinton said last week?
MR. BOUCHER: There is no change. I think we've made clear
that there are things that would happen if they accept to come back to
the talks.
Q You had a specific invitation for April 20. Do you have
another specific invitation in place of April 20, or are you going to
play it by ear and let everyone kind of straggle in to Washington on
different planes and, you know, when everyone is here and sometime in
August, we'll get going, or what?
MR. BOUCHER: First of all, we don't assume that it will be
some time in August, Alan. We said that they are considering this.
They have obviously not accepted to come for tomorrow. We would expect
them to come without undue delay. There may be a delay of a week.
That's what we're hearing, but we're waiting for their final formal
answer on resumption of the talks and when they're prepared to resume
before we can go ahead and tell you firmly what the date is.
Mary.
Q Richard, there was a very critical announcement made
today that Saudi Arabia is going to start funding the PLO again and has
urged the Gulf states to start funding the PLO, funding that was cut off
as a result of the PLO support for Iraq.
The Saudis specifically said that was an attempt to get the
Palestinians back to the negotiating table. Did the United States ask
Saudi Arabia to start funding the PLO again? Or, alternatively, does
the United States welcome this move by Saudi Arabia as a step toward
bringing the parties back to the table?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure I want to accept your two
alternatives, Mary. At the moment, I don't have anything on that. I'll
check to see if there's any --
Q Can you take the question, Richard?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll see if there's anything we want to say on
it. I don't promise that there is.
Q Richard, Vietnam?
Q We've got one more question on the talks, please.
MR. BOUCHER: We'll finish with the Middle East.
Q Throughout this whole, long process, the Secretary has
expressed confidence that the Palestinians would return. And every time
we ask him why he expressed that confidence, he smiled serenely and
wisely and said he just thought that was going to happen.
Does the Secretary now feel that the Palestinians have pulled
the rug out from under him?
MR. BOUCHER: No, John. He feels that -- he continues to have
confidence that they will return, and that confidence is based on our
extensive discussions with the parties and that confidence is based, I
think, on the understanding of the importance to the parties of moving
forward on the peace process.
Q Richard, going back to an earlier question, is there an
invitation now pending to the parties to resume the talks on a certain
date, or is there --
MR. BOUCHER: There is an invitation pending to resume the
talks tomorrow.
Q Okay. And so we should wait until after tomorrow when
they don't show up to ask whether there's an invitation; is that what
you're saying?
MR. BOUCHER: No, you should wait until you hear what their
response is to that invitation before we can tell you what date they're
going to be able to resume.
Q You said you had their response to that invitation
earlier. You said they had not accepted for tomorrow, you said.
MR. BOUCHER: No. I said --
Q Those were your words -- "they have not accepted for
tomorrow."
MR. BOUCHER: I said they're in the process of reaching a
decision. They clearly -- I mean, they've not accepted it yet. They've
not accepted for tomorrow, or any other date for that matter, and
they're talking -- in our contacts with them -- they're talking about
seeking a delay of perhaps of a week.
Q When these talks first began, as part of the way the
United States put pressure on people to show up, was to simply to say
that the doors would be open at such-and-such a date and anybody who
wants to show up, they're welcome. Is that what's going to happen, or
are you going to wait for everybody to respond to the invitation?
MR. BOUCHER: Saul, we're ready to resume the talks whenever
the parties tell us that they're ready to resume. It's not anticipated
that the Israeli delegation will now show up until later this week. So
when the parties are ready to have talks, we're ready to help host them.
Q You don't intend to say, we're going to open it up --
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think, in the past, when there have been
delays, that we've made a big show of opening the doors and that sort of
thing. We're ready to help the parties have talks whenever they're
ready.
Q Richard, (inaudible) was a situation before when, at
least one of the -- there was always one party present when delays
occurred. At this point, you've essentially -- it seems to me, anyway
-- you've essentially caved and said to all the parties, just let us
know when you want to come back. That is a different attitude and a
different approach than the one the U.S. has taken up to now, which has
been to set a date --
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think it's any different, Ralph -- I'm
trying to remember the precise circumstances -- there was the
circumstance before where the parties were not --
Q Well, the announcement was simply made that the door was
open if anybody wants to show up --
MR. BOUCHER: Saul, we remain in the same position, that we're
prepared to facilitate the talks on any day the parties want to come and
get together for talks. It's our view that they should do that without
delay. It's our view that the parties that are still considering this
should reach a decision without delay and should decide to come back to
the talks; that those talks remain important for them and for us.
Q Is the U.S. taking any steps to encourage that decision?
You already mentioned that the Secretary has spoken Shara and Moussa.
Is the U.S. using its Ambassador in Damascus to talk with others? Are
there ongoing communications with other Foreign Ministers, with the
Palestinians?
MR. BOUCHER: There are ongoing contacts with a whole mix of
people, with a whole variety of people. Ed Djerejian is in close
contact with the parties from here. We have contacts through the
Ambassadors and elsewhere.
Q Richard, can I ask you just one more question on this --
over here? Does the United States believe that Israel should do
something more to get these talks started?
MR. BOUCHER: We believe that the parties who are still
considering the invitation should decide to come back to the talks.
Q That doesn't answer the question, Richard. It's a "yes
or no" question.
MR. BOUCHER: Mary, you have my answer.
Q Forgive me if you've answer this: Have you confirmed on
the record, as reported, that the United States is seeking continuous
talks rather than separate rounds, where you would have to go through
this every few weeks?
MR. BOUCHER: Have I confirmed that on the record? No, I
haven't.
Q Could you?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I'm not prepared to go into details at this
point.
Connie.
Q South Africa -- the latest violence: Do you have any
statements on that?
MR. BOUCHER: The situation: There was an overflow crowd
numbering in the hundreds of thousands that attended a memorial service
for the slain ANC and South African Communist Party leader Chris Hani in
a Johannesburg stadium today. Ambassador Lyman and other members of the
mission staff attended.
The crowd inside the stadium was orderly. However, there have
been reports of some violence outside the stadium. We don't have any
specific information beyond press reports as of now.
In most cases, this weekend's nationwide memorial services
were peaceful. I think that's a credit to the ANC marshals and to the
others that were determined to keep the peace. The most serious of
several incidents was the killing of two black demonstrators in
Johannesburg by a white South African. The assailant, reportedly a
member of an extreme right wing organization, has been arrested.
Q The killings of the 18 blacks, do you have any statement
on that?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't.
Q Can we do Vietnam?
Q Richard, on Vietnam? Any report from Mr. Vessey?
MR. BOUCHER: I think there was a joint statement that Vessey
and his counterparts issued before leaving Vietnam. In addition to
that, I really don't have anything more to say. He's on his way back to
Washington from Hanoi. We don't expect to be able to provide details of
his discussions nor further details beyond the joint statement until
he's had an opportunity to come back and report to the President.
Q Did he meet with Quang? Did he meet with --
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, he did.
Q Has he issued any statements at all?
MR. BOUCHER: He's talked out there about it. I've seen some
quotations in the press, and there's been, as I said, a joint statement
that was issued out there. But that's all I have.
Q I believe he indicated that he thought that the document,
which surfaced last week from a Russian archive, was authentic, which
was further than you were willing to go last week.
MR. BOUCHER: At this point, George, we're going to have to
come back and hear his -- let him come back and hear his assessment. We
told you how important it was to us that he go out and examine the
situation personally and be discussing the situation and getting some
answers out there. So I really think it's important, first, that he be
able to come back and report before we can say more.
Jan.
Q Richard, do you have anything further to say on the
situation in Haiti, other than what the Secretary said the end of last
week?
MR. BOUCHER: The Secretary put out a statement on Saturday
after his meeting with Dante Caputo. He met with Caputo on Saturday to
review the situation of the Haiti talks.
As you see in the statement after the meeting, Mr. Caputo's
talks with the Haitian military last week were disappointing. Their
reaction to the latest proposal is a matter of serious concern to us and
it's time for the military leadership of Haiti to indicate its
seriousness in pursuing a settlement of Haiti's crisis.
We continue to support Mr. Caputo's effort, and we remain in
close touch with him, the United Nations, and the OAS.
Q What happens now?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, we hope that by careful reflection, the
military leadership in Port-au-Prince will decide it's time to make
decisions and that that will result in sufficient progress to permit the
negotiations to move forward.
Q Do you have anything on Cambodia? You know, another
peacekeeper was killed there.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything new on that, Mary. I
wasn't aware of that specific report.
Q Richard, on Japan, it seemed pretty clear, after the
President's meeting with Miyazawa last week, that the U.S. and Japan are
very far apart on what the President described as the need for measures
of success of agreements. How will the Administration seek to persuade
Japan to compromise on this point? And if the Japanese continue to
stonewall, what will the response be? Will you consider a retaliation?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think also, you saw from the President's
discussion with Miyazawa, a commitment to try to work together on these
issues. So I'll reject the second half of your question as
hypothetical, but the first half, I'll try to find for you how we intend
to follow up.
Q Richard, can I just ask another one or two on Bosnia,
please? The Russians -- Secretary Christopher said last week that the
Russians had promised the United States to cooperate in passage of the
resolution. One might draw the conclusion --
MR. BOUCHER: On the 26th.
Q That's right. One might draw the conclusion that by
abstaining, they have, in fact, cooperated toward the passage of the
resolution. My question is, have the Russians pledged to the U.S., or
the other Permanent Members of the Security Council, to cooperate in
implementing the resolution beginning on April 26?
MR. BOUCHER: You mean if they've offered some sort of
assistance like we and the WEU and others have? I'm not sure, frankly,
on that. They have repeatedly, I think, emphasized their desire and
their willingness and their intention to adhere to U.N. resolutions.
I think we've told you in the past where we had evidence of
possible violations by Russian firms, that we've approached the Russian
Government, as we do other governments where we have evidence or
information that their firms might be violating, and in fact the Russian
Government's cooperation in those cases has been very good. So I would
expect, we would all expect them to implement the sanctions and, as they
have in the past, to respect the U.N. resolutions.
Q And on a technical matter, with regard to the seizure of
vessels and trucks and so on, and impoundment of them, is it the U.S.
understanding that any of those assets would be impounded when there is
no evidence that they are being used to violate the sanctions? Or is it
only when an asset actually comes into play, as in violation of the
sanction, that it is subject to impoundment?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, I'll refer you specifically to the
language of the resolution.
Q Well, I don't know if that's necessary --
MR. BOUCHER: Vessels, trucks and aircraft that are used to
violate the sanctions will be impounded and subject to forfeiture. But
I think for more information, we both ought to look at the resolution.
Q So the list -- the reason I ask is, you said earlier that
the U.S. would be providing a list of assets that it is aware of to the
Security Council for enforcement. That is not for the purpose of
seizing those assets prior to any evidence of their involvement in
sanctions violation?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, Ralph, exactly what has to happen to
certain different classes of assets that are discussed in the
resolution, I think we ought to look at the resolution to be clear.
But, certainly, our information is to assist people in enforcing the
resolution.
Q Will the United States be making public that list that
you're going to be turning over to the United Nations on a list of
companies doing business with Yugoslavia?
MR. BOUCHER: I think Treasury pretty regularly provides
information on front companies, or Serbian-held companies, and I would
expect them to continue to do that and that would be essentially the
nature of the information that we're providing to others.
Q Do you have any comment on David Owen's public call for
military action? Specifically, air strikes against -- against supply
routes from the Serbs to Bosnia?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't, Ralph. I think the Secretary and
the President have made clear that there are a great number of options
that are under consideration on an urgent basis; and at this point, I'm
not going to get into any specifics.
Q Apropos of that, you, by now, probably have had a chance
to read the words the Secretary used this morning. At the very end of
his comments, he talked about "look forward to considering those
options." It's not clear what "those" refers to there. Is he referring
to the broad panoply of options that include military options, or is he
referring to the ones that he seemed to be talking about earlier in his
remarks, namely, non-military ones?
MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, I think I'll leave it to the Secretary.
But it seems to me clear that they're considering a wide variety of
options; that this has a very high urgency within our government, as he
said, and he'll be moving forward to consider, along with his
colleagues, other options that are available.
Q Can you tell us what the status of Reginald Bartholomew
is? What is he engaged in right now? He's finished with his trip,
obviously, and has come back, and so on.
MR. BOUCHER: Sure. He returned to the United States on
Saturday. He's in Washington for meetings and consultations.
I can review for you his trip, if you'd like me to.
Q No.
Q (Inaudible) noteworthy in it that wasn't -- I realize you
don't trust press reports, but --
MR. BOUCHER: Well, let's see. He visited Zagreb, Sarajevo,
and other areas of Bosnia-Herzegovina; Belgrade, London, and Paris. He
met with Croatian President Tudjman, Bosnian President Izetbegovic and
Vice President Ganic, and the leader of the Bosnian Croats, Mate Boban.
In Belgrade, he met with Milosevic, with President Cosic, Chief of Staff
Zivota Panic, the leader of the Bosnian Serbs, Karadzic, and members of
the democratic opposition and independent media.
He also met with U.N. and relief officials during his visit.
He delivered a tough message to the Bosnian Serbs and the Serbian
authorities, warning them that there would be increased international
pressure on them if they did not stop the fighting and rapidly come to
an agreement on a peace settlement in Bosnia-Herzegovina within the
Vance-Owen process.
He urged the Bosnian Government and the Bosnian Croats to
stick to the peace process and to work together to prevent the fighting
between their forces that has recently broken out and to ensure the free
movement of supplies to those who need them.
He also visited France and the United Kingdom where he
reviewed his visit to the former Yugoslavia and explored with the French
and British officials possible next steps on the crisis.
Q Based on all those conversations, what conclusions is he
drawing about, say, the viability of Vance-Owen at this point?
MR. BOUCHER: Terry, I think -- not necessarily putting
conclusions in his head after his visit, but our goal remains to see a
peace agreement concluded, and our goal remains to pressure the Serbs to
enter into good faith negotiations towards such an agreement.
You know the Vance-Owen process is the one on the table. It's
the one that two of the parties have agreed to, and it's the one that we
think the Bosnian Serbs should enter into and reach agreement with.
Q Wasn't one of the purposes of his trip to assess whether
Vance-Owen was a realistic and timely possibility at this point, or
whether the situation has deteriorated to the point where it really
isn't a particularly viable option?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we ever described his trip that
way, Terry.
Q Was he involved in the meetings with the President over
the weekend?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know.
Q Thank you.
(Press briefing concluded at 1:45 p.m.) (###)