Note: This Electronic Research Collection is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #58
THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1993, 12:44 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. I don't
have any statements or announcements, so I'd be glad to take your
questions.
Q Thank you. (Laughter)
MR. BOUCHER: It's all right by me.
Q Could you discuss the State Department role, if any, in the
invitation which was extended to President Tudjman of Croatia?
MR. BOUCHER: Sure. The United States Holocaust Memorial
Council developed its own criteria for issuing invitations to government
officials for the ceremonies surrounding the opening of the United
States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
The criteria, as we understand them, were that the government
had to be one that was recognized by the United States and one that was
democratically elected. We were requested by them to provide advice on
which countries met those criteria, and that's what we did. We provided
advice on which countries met those criteria. We did not prepare a
suggested list of invitees.
Q Richard, the Washington Post, on the front page, reports
today the doings of Croat gunmen in a village called Santici. It quotes
a British soldier as describing how 15 or 20 militiamen lobbed grenades
through the front windows of Muslim houses, waited for the people to
bolt out the doors and shot them. It describes how one victim was shot
in both knees and then they worked their way up the body through the
groin, the chest, and finally the head.
Now that the President of Croatia is present in our capital
and is taking part in the memorial service dedicating the museum, will
the United States raise these acts with this individual? He represents
a country with which we have diplomatic relations.
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, there are certainly many new reports of
atrocities coming out of the fighting that's occurring between the
Croatian forces -- Bosnian Croatian forces and the Bosnian Government
forces. And, as you know, we've strongly condemned all acts of
brutality, anything associated with ethnic cleansing. We've called
repeatedly on the parties to the hostilities to negotiate a solution, to
cease the killing, to cease these kinds of acts.
We had a meeting with President Tudjman during his visit here
to Washington. Senior officials from the United States side expressed
our concern about the present fighting, and they told him that we were
concerned that the primary cause of the present fighting was that
Bosnian Croat leader Boban had issued an ultimatum that Bosnian
Government forces in areas of Bosnia which would be under Croatian
majority rule under the Vance-Owen process, should be placed under the
command of his own headquarters -- Boban.
We have consistently called upon the outside parties to use
their influence to stop the killing, to stop the fighting, and to
encourage those involved in the fighting to reach a negotiated
settlement.
Q Richard, how does the United States regard the
relationship of the Bosnian Croats to Croatia? Is it similar to that
between the Serbian Government in Belgrade and the Bosnian Serbs?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure if I can say similar in exact
terms. I'm not sure there's a precise fit. I'd have to admit, I
probably don't know enough about it to do the comparison. But, clearly,
we feel that all the parties -- that the government in Serbia and the
government in Croatia have the ability to influence their friends inside
Bosnia, and we have asked them to exercise this influence to bring the
fighting to an end.
Q How did he respond to these entreaties?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know what his response was. I don't
have that here.
Q Do you have any indication that Croatia is providing
weapons to Bosnian Croats in Bosnia?
MR. BOUCHER: That's something I'd have to check on. I'll
have to see.
Q Will the United States weigh its diplomatic relations
with Croatia in the light of this atrocity? Will it provide evidence to
the war crimes tribunal about this atrocity?
I note here a quote by the commander of the British unit who
witnessed children held in the arms of their mothers and shot while the
U.N. was unable to intervene because it lacked the authority.
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, as you know, in a series of six or seven
reports to the United Nations, we have provided whatever credible and
substantiated evidence we could find on possible war crimes. We've
reported atrocities committed by all sides in this conflict. We have
reported any evidence that we have of possible war crimes; and I have to
assume that if we can get such evidence on the events that are reported
in the newspapers, that we would be reporting that as well.
Q And diplomatic relations?
MR. BOUCHER: I think the question really pertains to the
nature of our relationship. Obviously, the relationship will be
affected by the course of events out there and by the view of whether
the parties are using their influence or doing what they can to bring
the fighting to a stop.
I would point out that the Croatians and the Bosnian
Government, who are involved in this fighting, have also both agreed to
the Vance-Owen plan, whereas the Serbs have not.
Jacques.
Q Could you clarify for us to what extent U.N. Resolution
770 allows individual members of the Security Council to act on their
own to implement resolutions of the Security Council, which was asked to
the Secretary of State, but I think that in the meantime maybe some --
MR. BOUCHER: Well, the question was asked to the Secretary of
State and he did answer it. There's also reports today about the letter
that we sent to Senator Biden. I think that explains his precise point
and it leads to -- I'll go through that -- and it leads to the
conclusion of what the Secretary said yesterday.
We sent a letter on April 19, in response to an inquiry from
Senator Biden. The Senator had asked about the Department's view as to
the scope and authority provided by U.N. Security Council Resolution
770. This is the resolution that says you can use all measures
necessary to delivery humanitarian supplies to Bosnia.
The Senator specifically asked whether or not the resolution
authorized the use of force against military installations hindering the
relief effort. So we responded to that specific question. Our reply
said, "It's understood by all members of the Security Council that the
authorization to use 'all measures necessary' is an authorization for
member states to use necessary and appropriate force. In the Yugoslavia
context, Resolution 770 would provide legal authority to use force
against military installations hindering the relief effort, consistent
with the subsequent resolutions of the Council, including the resolution
implementing the "no-fly" zone over Bosnia and Herzegovina." That's all
from the letter.
Q Would --
MR. BOUCHER: Hold on. The resolution does not provide a
blanket authorization for the use of force. Rather, the force
contemplated is where necessary to facilitate the delivery of
humanitarian assistance.
As you know, we're actively considering all options regarding
our policy in Bosnia. And as the Secretary made clear yesterday, we
will work closely with our partners in the Security Council during this
process. One of the things we have to determine with them is whether or
not any particular steps would require a new Security Council
resolution.
Q Would a roadblock, for example, or a barrage -- would you
consider that as a military installation?
MR. BOUCHER: Jacques, I'm not sure I can give you the list of
every tree, rock, or barrier that might constitute a military
installation. The resolution authorizes the use of all measures
necessary, which means including the use of force, to ensure the
delivery of humanitarian supplies. So that if there are things being
done to stop them, if the roadblock was in front of a humanitarian
convoy, they would have the authority to remove it.
Q And you would agree that there have been literally
scores, if not hundreds of cases, of humanitarian supplies being
interfered with in just that way?
MR. BOUCHER: And you would agree that there have been scores,
if not hundreds of cases, where, through the UNPROFOR escorts and the
efforts of the United Nations, they've been able to get around, to get
past those obstacles and actually deliver food to people who need it.
Q Well, (inaudible) to your credit, a few weeks ago you
started airdrops precisely because these land convoys weren't getting
through with the necessary supplies.
MR. BOUCHER: They're not getting through in all
circumstances, and there are still shortfalls and we're still doing the
airdrops because they're important. But there are also many cases
where, by the use of UNPROFOR escorts and through the efforts of the
humanitarian workers and the troops that are out there, they've been
able to get through to places.
Q Can you confirm there are food shortages in Sarajevo now?
MR. BOUCHER: No. I saw a report about that, and I don't.
There have been recent U.N. appeals. There's also been recent shipments
that have got in and there is concern about shortfalls of food. But
precisely now, I can't do that. There have been security problems. I
don't think there are any convoys going out of the warehouses in central
Bosnia right now.
Q Does the State Department feel that the French Government
is in agreement with our interpretation of 770? There were some comments
yesterday by their Foreign Minister to the effect that a new resolution
would be required for air strikes. Perhaps those were in the context of
air strikes for a larger purpose than humanitarian --
MR. BOUCHER: Again, it's something that we'll have to discuss
with our allies. Any particular action that might be contemplated, we'd
have to discuss with them. The Secretary said very clearly, whatever we
do, we would do in a multilateral context. We don't want to do it
without the full concurrence of the U.N; we're not going to try to take
any shortcuts in the matter. Once the policy has been decided, I'm sure
that there will be full discussions with the U.N.
As far as the legal interpretation of 770 and what it
authorizes, we were asked a specific question about a specific case by
Senator Biden. We replied to a specific question in a specific
instance. It's not a general rule. It's a specific case, and other
specific cases are things that we would have to address in conjunction
with our allies.
Q Back on Tudjman: Are you saying that the only role of
the State Department was to provide a list of countries which have
democratically-elected governments and are recognized by the United
States?
MR. BOUCHER: You mean the only role in the whole event? No.
We have a lot larger role in the whole event --
Q The invitation list --
MR. BOUCHER: With respect to the invitations, they issued the
invitations. They decided the invitations. They asked us which
countries meet these criteria, and we told them which ones do. We
didn't suggest invitees.
Q Is Serbia on your list of --
MR. BOUCHER: Serbia is not a country that we recognize.
Q We don't have any --
MR. BOUCHER: We understand that the criteria were countries
that we recognize and where the governments are democratically elected.
Q There's no U.S. Embassy functioning in Belgrade?
MR. BOUCHER: There's an embassy functioning in Belgrade, but
we don't recognize Serbia-Montenegro as former republics -- whatever
they call themselves -- Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Q New subject?
MR. BOUCHER: Please.
Q Do you have something to say about the report that the
United States Government is going to hold political-level negotiations
with North Korea?
MR. BOUCHER: There is no meeting scheduled and, in fact, no
decisions have been made on any meetings. We have consistently said
that the issue is between North Korea and the international community.
Our task is to support the efforts of the appropriate international
bodies as they work to resolve the situation.
The U.N. Security Council President's statement on April 8
said that the members of the Council welcome all efforts aimed at
resolving this situation, and certainly we're prepared to do our part.
We would not rule out a meeting with North Korea, provided
that it could help resolve the current situation concerning North
Korea's non-compliance with its nuclear safeguards obligations and North
Korea's decision to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
But I do want to stress that there's no meeting scheduled and no
decisions have been made.
Q Do you have any reason to believe that a planned U.S.-
North Korea high-level meeting will bring about a positive result?
MR. BOUCHER: As I just said, there have been no decisions
made. Clearly we want to -- we, and the rest of the international
community, are intent on convincing North Korea that it should withdraw
its withdrawal from -- reverse its withdrawal from the NPT and should
accept the obligations of the IAEA, including safeguards and the
inspections that are necessary.
We have supported that process all along. We intend to
continue to support that process. We'll work with other governments
involved in this effort. As I said, we wouldn't rule out a meeting with
North Korea if it would contribute to that. But the important thing is
that we and other members of the international community remain intent
on seeing North Korea reverse its decision to withdraw and its refusal
to meet the obligations.
Q Have there been any more meetings in Beijing -- lower-
level meetings?
MR. BOUCHER: I forgot to check on that, Sid. I'll have to
check when the last one was. I think the last one I reported on was a
couple of weeks ago -- yes, in March.
Q What might be your first initial step to open that
political-level meeting? Are you going to offer the political-level
meeting to North Korea, or are you waiting for a certain request from
the North Korean side to hold that political-level meeting?
MR. BOUCHER: At this point, I really don't think I have
anything more to say on it. As I said, it's not something that we would
rule out, but no decisions have been made on it.
Q Do you have any recent negotiation or conversation with
the Chinese Government concerning that matter?
MR. BOUCHER: We're in constant, and in very frequent touch
with the Chinese, as we are with the Japanese, with the Russians, with
various other governments. It's clear to us and to the rest of the
international community that everybody wants to see North Korea reverse
its decision.
Q (Inaudible)
Q Just a moment. What was the Chinese recommendation? Did
they suggest that if you hold the political-level negotiation with North
Korea, they might return to NPT? (Inaudible) something like that?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to get into discussions with any
specific country on this. You'd have to ask them what their position
is, what their thoughts are on it.
Q Can you tell us more about the visit of Peter Tarnoff in
South Korea?
MR. BOUCHER: Do I have anything more on this visit? No, I
don't. Not at this point.
Q Richard, what's the Administration's attitude to the bill
that was introduced on the Hill today with regard to renewal of MFN with
China?
MR. BOUCHER: It's our attitude on MFN -- as the President and
the Secretary have expressed it before -- the President shares the
concerns of the Congress about China's record. In formulating the
Administration's policy toward China, including the issue of MFN, the
Administration will consult closely with the Congress to build a solid
bipartisan basis for relations with China.
Q Specifically, the language of that bill would be
acceptable?
MR. BOUCHER: As I said, we are looking at this issue as well,
and we will consult with the Congress as we go forward on this.
Q Back to U.S.-North Korea talks. Are you declining that
the talks would take place either at the end of this month or early May?
MR. BOUCHER: I can't tell you when the talks will take place.
Any specific timing or location would be speculation. No decisions have
been made.
Q Richard, are you aware of the unhappiness of the
Bulgarian Government? They apparently felt slighted yesterday because
they weren't included in a list of countries which contributed to the
saving of Jews. Did the State Department do anything to smooth over
hurt feelings?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if we did anything, George. My
understanding is that the Bulgarians are attending today and that there
was, indeed, some controversy or dispute. But you would have to ask the
Commission about that.
Q Richard, the Secretary, yesterday, alerted our attention
to a statement that he said was going to be forthcoming from Prime
Minister Rabin. And, sure enough, in a sweeping declaration of
political flexibility, Rabin said he had no plans to deport anybody else
at the present, but he didn't rule it out for the future. Do you have a
reaction to that?
MR. BOUCHER: I think the Prime Minister's statement was
somewhat longer than that, Alan, but I'll leave the Prime Minister to
his own words.
Q You don't have a reaction welcoming his statement or
criticizing it or anything?
MR. BOUCHER: Our welcome, Alan, is for the prospect of
renewed peace talks and for the commitment of the parties -- all the
parties -- to the negotiations. The Israelis have agreed to the date,
April 27, to resume negotiations. We look forward to that. We look
forward to talking to the parties. Probably, we'll continue talking to
them in advance.
Assistant Secretary Djerejian and the peace team will be
meeting tomorrow with representatives of the Israeli delegations. We'd
also expect to meet with some of the others before the talks begin, and
we look forward to the resumption of negotiations and we look forward to
substantive and serious progress being made.
Q Richard, I'd like to go back for one minute to Bosnia.
Is the U.S. Government considering the use of the airport of Tuzla for
delivery of relief or food to the refugees in this city?
MR. BOUCHER: As you know, Jacques, we've been looking at
options that have to do with humanitarian assistance, and we are
concerned about the situation in that part of Bosnia. We're exploring
options that could facilitate those efforts.
The humanitarian assessment team studied the Tuzla airport
situation. They came back with a recommendation or an option to open
that airport, to use that airport, for humanitarian deliveries. That's
one of the options that's being looked at. I think you have the
Executive Summary. You've seen it in there, and we've told you that all
the options there are being looked at.
Q Some of those recommendations are subject to a high-level
policy review. What's the status of that review and those
recommendations?
MR. BOUCHER: As the Secretary said yesterday, and the White
House has been saying, that there's an ongoing process of review.
Various options are being looked at at senior levels in the State
Department and various other agencies. It's a complex situation. It's
a difficult situation.
As the Secretary, again, said yesterday, careful consideration
is necessary to make the right choices. At this point, there's no
outcome to report.
Q Richard, how does this review compare to the review that
was undertaken at the very beginning of the Administration's tenure
which culminated in the February 10 declaration by the Secretary? I
mean, then all the options were being considered; then as now, there
were high-level meetings. Why is it necessary a mere two months later to
go through the whole process again?
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, I guess to why it's necessary is because
we've seen the events regress on the ground. We've seen the situation
deteriorate. It's obviously responsible to take another look at
everything, take another look at options. I think, certainly, as the
Secretary and the President have made clear in the last few days, that
there were options that were previously unacceptable that need to be
looked at again.
Q Richard, can you tell us whether there's any report from
Lord Owen's conversations in Belgrade, whether there's any hint of any
flexibility or concessions on the part of the Serbs?
MR. BOUCHER: As far as a detailed report, I'd have to leave
that to Lord Owen. We do know that yesterday in Belgrade he met with
President Cosic, with Milosevic, with Dr. Karadzic to discuss the peace
process. We understand he may return to Belgrade on Friday to continue
these discussions.
There's no date set at this point for the resumption of the
Vance-Owen process -- for the Vance-Owen talks. International efforts
are continuing to try to bring the Bosnian Serbs back into the
negotiating process in a constructive way. The new United Nations
sanctions resolution is an example of the pressure that's being brought
to bear on the Bosnian Serbs and their backers in Belgrade.
Q But do we have -- again, can you say whether there's any
hint of any flexibility?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, you'd have to look to Lord Owen for hints
and things like that. The fact is there's no date set for the
resumption of these talks, and we're continuing our pressure.
Q One other thing: I know one of the things you're
considering is the option of seeking the lifting of the arms embargo. I
thought -- correct me if I'm wrong -- but didn't we make a deal with the
Bosnian Muslims, the Bosnian Government that we would seek that if they
signed and the Serbs did not?
MR. BOUCHER: Saul, if you'll remember the exact language that
we used, we told them that if the situation continued, if the Serbs
continued to refuse to come to the table and to stop the fighting, that
we would raise this as an issue for consideration.
And, indeed, we have discussed it with other governments. All
the options are being looked at and are on the table at this point.
Q What I'm saying is this is not one of the options. We're
obligated to raise it now, aren't we?
MR. BOUCHER: We have indeed raised it. The question I think
becomes how do we pursue it, and things have to be looked at in that
regard.
Q But the fact is we are now in favor of lifting the
embargo and this is not one of the options.
MR. BOUCHER: Saul, whether this is the precise moment to make
new declarations on it or to pursue it in some particular way is
something that has to be looked at. I don't want to prejudge any
particular option.
Q But if there's a dramatic announcement, or whenever, on
our new stance and one is lifting the arms embargo, that's really part
of the deal, and it's therefore nothing specific --
MR. BOUCHER: Saul, it's something we said we'd consider.
We're considering it. We've discussed it with others.
Q Well, you didn't say you'd consider it. You said you
would raise it with the allies to lift the embargo.
MR. BOUCHER: First of all, Saul, go back and look at what
we've said. But if you want to judge this week whether anything we say
at some future date is new or not, it's really premature to try to do
that, and let's wait and see what we have to say for ourselves.
Q But you're still saying that the possibility of raising
with the allies the lifting of the embargo is but one of the
considerations -- one of the options under consideration. Is that more
accurate?
MR. BOUCHER: Saul, the arms embargo and a whole variety of
other things are being looked at again, and these are not just "yes" or
"no" decisions; these are decisions on how do we pursue things, what do
we do, and I'm not going to get ahead of them in that, and they're being
looked at.
Q Richard, is there any other conclusion to draw from this
policy review, other than the President and the Administration feels
that the initial decision on handling the conflict in Bosnia was a
failure, was a wrong policy?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think -- I certainly wouldn't say that,
Sid.
Q (Inaudible)
MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't say it because it's not true. The
steps that were announced by the Secretary on February 10 involved
getting us deeply involved, getting us involved in the negotiating
process, and we saw some progress achieved there.
There has to be a negotiating process. There has to be
something available to reach a political solution since only a peaceful
solution can bring peace to this area. So, the process -- the Vance-
Owen process, I guess I would say I wouldn't consider it dead. Owen is
still pursuing his efforts. It still remains available. It still
remains open.
But the Secretary also on February 10 announced a whole number
of other steps -- increased sanctions enforcement, and looking for
increased application of sanctions, and, in fact, you've seen that
happen. You've seen more happen effective April 26. We have a group
out in Europe right now to discuss with other governments the additional
support that we can all provide to make sure that those stick and those
stick tightly.
He also discussed more humanitarian efforts, and we have
humanitarian airdrops that have gone on that have helped people. So I
wouldn't -- I don't think you can commit February 10 to failure, nor can
you commit Vance-Owen to failure. There has to be a negotiating process
available. There's been considerable progress made with some of the
parties in the Vance-Owen process, and our efforts continue along with
those of others to try to achieve a negotiated settlement to this and to
try to achieve an end to the fighting.
Q Why does there have to be a negotiating process
available? In the last case of brutality of this scale, the decision
was made to confront the tyrants and the aggressors and to defeat them
and to get rid of them.
Q Zbigniew Brzezinski in the New York Times --
MR. BOUCHER: We'll let Saul answer it. Look --
Q Well, I didn't hear a question, so I thought I'd follow
up.
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, I know the parallels that you draw, you
can argue the historical analogies until the end of the day, if you want
to. But, frankly, the issue here is a situation that we have to deal
with, and we have to deal with it forthrightly and directly, and the
United States has been dealing with it.
We've taken a stand. We've pressured the parties. We've
become engaged, and we'll continue to do that, and we're looking at all
the possible options to achieve a settlement, to achieve an end to the
fighting.
Q So you still believe that you can reach an accommodation
with these murderers, these people who you, yourself, have labeled as
war criminals.
MR. BOUCHER: Once again, Alan, we still believe that it's
important to reach a settlement that's acceptable to all the parties,
that the Bosnian Muslims, the Bosnian Croats and the Bosnian Serbs can
accept, that can be implemented, and that can bring peace and an end to
the killing.
Q It seems to me -- just one last one, sorry, and then I
will be quiet. There's a slight disconnect here. On the one hand, you
label Mr. Karadzic a war criminal. On the other hand, just in a
statement a few minutes ago you honor him with his medical
qualification, "Dr. Karadzic." I mean, either he's a war criminal, in
which case he ought to be punished, or he's a negotiating partner, in
which case you can sit down at the table with him, sign an agreement,
shake hands and kiss him on both cheeks. Which is he?
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, we have not done -- we have not sat down
and kissed him on both cheeks. We've made very clear that people who
can stop the fighting should stop the fighting. We've delivered very
clear and I think forthright and candid messages to him. I don't think
that calling somebody a medical doctor is exactly an honorific title.
Q Richard, just on that subject of the availability of a
negotiation, you mentioned just now that no date is set for the
resumption of Vance-Owen. The Bosnian Serb parliament is going to meet
this weekend to consider whether to withdraw from that process due to
the sanctions resolution.
Is it the position of the U.S. Government or does the U.S.
Government believe that if the Bosnian Serbs say "no," they mean "no."
If they do vote to pull out of the talks, what negotiating venue is
left? Is part of what the strategic review is about is considering what
other negotiating avenues there are or how to move past Vance-Owen if it
collapses this weekend?
MR. BOUCHER: The review is about what is the situation now
and what's the best way to effect that situation to the better. And
with very few exceptions that have been noted by the President and
Secretary, they've said that there are a wide variety of options on the
table. They're considering things that might be previously
unacceptable.
So, obviously, the situation with regard to different parties
and their intentions and the situation with the talks factors into that,
but I really can't get into analyzing all the factors that they have to
look at in doing this.
Q But if the Bosnian Serb parliament votes to pull out of
the Vance-Owen talks, will the U.S. Government consider that negotiating
track at an end?
MR. BOUCHER: You know, at this point there are still being
efforts made by Lord Owen. The international community is bringing
additional pressures to try to get the parties to reach, particularly
the Serbs, to enter into a negotiated settlement and to cease their
hostilities -- to cease the fighting.
The sanctions go into effect on Monday. It will increase
pressure on the Serbs, the economic pressure on the Serbs. We've got
people out in Europe working with the Europeans to provide the resources
and the effort necessary to make sure that we make those sanctions stick
as hard and fast and severely as possible. So we're pursuing a course
to bring pressure on the parties to cease the fighting, to cease the
military hostilities and to enter into a negotiated solution.
I don't want to speculate on what happens. You know, if they
do this, do we do that; if they do this, do we do that. I mean, they are
also talking about their parliament meeting to -- about having
representatives of the ethnic Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia to meet, and
one of the purportedly items for discussion is the declaration of a
common state.
Now, the Vance-Owen process has been based on the concept of
the unitary Bosnian state, and indeed the Bosnian Serbs have accepted
that part -- the constitutional principles part of the Vance-Owen
process. Clearly, any declaration of that sort would contradict their
commitments, would contradict the Vance-Owen process, and would
undermine the search for peace. But exactly how we will treat a
development before it happens I think is something I can't speculate on.
Q Richard, the Security Council decided to send a new fact-
finding mission to the former Yugoslavia and Bosnia. Would the U.S.
Government advocate waiting until the conclusion of this new mission to
push for any new measures or to expand any new pressures against the
Serbs?
MR. BOUCHER: The team is one that was created by the U.N.
resolution to send a variety of people from the U.N. to go out and then
report back to the Council on the options -- I'm looking for a piece of
paper -- I don't think I know the date on which they're supposed to
return.
But certainly you're aware that where there is indeed -- let's
see -- they will depart today for Sarajevo, return on Tuesday. Now, on
Monday, the new measures go into effect unless the Serbs have entered
into and have joined in the search for a negotiated solution and ceased
their hostilities. So there will be new actions taken on Monday, and
that's to impose the new sanctions, the quite severe sanctions that were
voted on before.
Q Richard, when did the Administration officials meet with
Tudjman?
MR. BOUCHER: I think it was yesterday.
Q At what level was he received?
MR. BOUCHER: It was Ambassador Bartholomew and Assistant
Secretary Oxman.
Q Who was the second official?
MR. BOUCHER: Oxman. Assistant Secretary for European
Affairs.
Q Richard, last week this Administration put Srebrenica as
sort of a line in the sand; that if it it fell, serious things would
happen. Now as Muslim city after Muslim city falls in eastern Bosnia, a
lot of people, refugees, are on the road, and they end up in Tuzla, I
gather.
Is Tuzla a significant place in terms of the United States
Government policy? Is that something that the Serbs should stay away
from? Do you attach any significance to its staying --
MR. BOUCHER: Chris, I don't want -- I don't understand the
characterizations of your question. We have not written off a given
place and said, well, "You know, they can take that and they can kill
everybody there, but they can't go here."
The U.N. indeed did declare when the fighting was going on
around -- at Srebrenica, was to say that Srebrenica should be a safe
area and to send the U.N. UNPROFOR contingent of troops there, and
they've done that, and there is a cease-fire in the area that's
generally holding.
But there are indeed a lot of refugees that have made their
way to Tuzla. There are efforts being made by the U.N. and through our
airdrops and in other ways to make sure that those people get the food
and resources necessary to take care of them.
We have not said you have to stop fighting here or you have to
stop fighting there. We just said, "You have to stop fighting. You
have to stop your aggression." We've brought the measures into play to
bring more pressure on the Serbs to try to get them to do that.
Q After you've said that, they have ignored that and all
these people have ended up in Tuzla, and I'm just wondering where --
whether it will just keep going like that until there are no Muslim
enclaves in eastern Bosnia.
MR. BOUCHER: Chris, we have consistently taken steps to
increase the pressure on the Serbs, and we'll continue to do that.
Q Tuzla is nothing special.
MR. BOUCHER: No, I didn't say that. Tuzla, like any place
where there are refugees, where there are people, is a place of great
concern to us, and our efforts have been devoted to trying to get the
fighting to stop so that refugees and innocent people, whether in Tuzla
or any other area, are not subjected to this kind of fighting anymore.
Q Richard, does the Administration think that the Muslims
in Srebrenica should turn their weapons over to their Serbian aggressors
and leave themselves defenseless?
MR. BOUCHER: The situation in Srebrenica is that the
demilitarization of Srebrenica is complete, although apparently few
weapons have been turned over to the U.N. peacekeepers. This is an
UNPROFOR report. The demilitarization was completed within the period
specified in the demilitarization agreement plus a 24-hour extension.
Many of the government troops appear to have left the city. Local
authorities are still preventing the evacuation of civilians.
The UNPROFOR troops, the Canadian troops, in Srebrenica will
remain there. If attacked, they'll return fire. But the
demilitarization agreement between the Bosnian Serb commander and the
commander of government troops defending Srebrenica stipulates that the
Bosnian Serbs will not attack the city.
Q And we support -- two questions -- first, we support
demilitarization? And, secondly, what should the peacekeepers do to
protect the people -- the Muslims who live in Srebrenica, if anything?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I'm not a commander on the ground telling
them exactly where to deploy and how to do it --
Q But your understanding --
MR. BOUCHER: -- but our understanding is that if attacked,
they'll return fire. Our understanding is that the people --
Q No, no. I asked if the citizens were attacked.
MR. BOUCHER: Our understanding, as in the U.N. resolution, is
that people in Srebrenica should be safe, should not be attacked, and
our understanding is that the agreements that were reached on the ground
should be carried out.
Q And the peacekeepers should protect the Muslims in
Srebrenica?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, the U.N. has declared that Srebrenica
should be a safe area, it should not be subject to attack. There were
various agreements worked out on the ground to protect the people of
Srebrenica, to make sure that they are not attacked, and we think that
those agreements should be respected.
Q Given the track record of agreements that have been
worked out there, we ought to have some idea as to the role of the U.N.
troops who are on the ground in case the civilians are attacked.
MR. BOUCHER: Again, you know, if you're asking me to define
the rules of engagement for a particular contingent of U.N. forces, I
can't do that.
Q As a generality.
MR. BOUCHER: But as a generality, we've supported the U.N.
resolution, we've supported the deployment of the UNPROFOR troops, and
they are indeed there to make sure that it remains a safe area.
Q But I understood that they -- that the rules of
engagement are that they have to return fire in self-defense, not to
defend Muslims; that they don't have any authority to do that. Is that
true?
MR. BOUCHER: Saul, you know -- ask UNPROFOR. They're the
commanders in this situation. You have to ask the commanders in this
situation what their rules are.
Q No, but we took part in the passage of this resolution
and in the whole business of this, so we ought to know what the rules of
engagement are for people that -- who are acting under --
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know, Saul.
Q -- under something that we agreed to.
MR. BOUCHER: Saul, once again, the U.N. has forces throughout
the world authorized by U.N. resolutions that we've supported. That
does not mean that I think I should be responsible for explaining the
rules of engagement in any particular place, particularly given people
on the ground that are doing a very difficult job.
Now, we have supported the safe area resolution. The U.N.
soldiers are out there to try to see that that is respected. But
precisely where they're deployed and how they'll respond to different
circumstances is something for them to talk about if they wish to.
Q Well, I understand that they've talked, and what they've
said is that they're not authorized to fire on Serbs who are firing on
somebody else; that they can return fire. I mean that's what they're
limited to do. That's what they've been limited to do all along. They
could not protect a Prime Minister, although they could protect
themselves, and that's part of the problem. And I understood that
that's the same problem here. If it's different, then we ought to know
about that.
MR. BOUCHER: Does someone have a question?
Q I'm asking whether you know whether there's any
difference between what's been in the past?
MR. BOUCHER: I personally don't know if there's any
difference with the instructions and the orders for this UNPROFOR
contingent and the instructions and orders that have been for UNPROFOR
contingents in the past. I would refer you to the U.N. resolution,
which is available to all of us, and I would refer you to UNPROFOR to
ask detailed questions like that about their mission.
Q Is the safe area resolution a small step towards safe
havens?
MR. BOUCHER: Chris, the issue of safe havens is obviously one
of the options in the report -- humanitarian report. The issue of safe
havens is something that has come up before, that's been discussed.
We've said that we're looking at all the options. I really can't
predict where any individual U.N. resolution will lead to the next one.
The safe haven resolution was one, I think, as we've explained to you --
a safe area resolution to deal with a particular situation on the ground
and try to stop those people from being attacked.
Q Back to Korea --
Q If I may, let me just point out to you that in the safe
areas resolution, which the State Department distributed, it guarantees
-- the resolution guarantees the safety and full freedom of movement of
UNPROFOR and all other U.N. personnel. It doesn't say anything about the
people of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
MR. BOUCHER: Saul, I'd suggest you read the resolution from
the beginning to the end, and I think you'll find something in there
about the people of Srebrenica.
Q Is Under Secretary Tarnoff going to visit Beijing, too?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I don't have his precise
schedule. I'll try to check for you.
Q Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:25 p.m.)
(###)