930422 Daily Press Briefing  Return to: Index of 1993 Daily Briefings || Electronic Research Collections Index || ERC Homepage

Note: This Electronic Research Collection is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the US State Department Homepage.

                         DEPARTMENT OF STATE
                         DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

                                                      DPC #58

                 THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1993, 12:44 P.M.

         MR. BOUCHER:  Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.  I don't 
have any statements or announcements, so I'd be glad to take your 

           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 

          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.


          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 

          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 

          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 

          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 

          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 

          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 

          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 

          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, 

          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 

          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 

          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 

          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 

          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 

          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 

          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 

          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 

          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 

          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 

          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 

          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.)

To the top of this page