Note: This Electronic Research Collection is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #59
FRIDAY, APRIL 23, 1993, 1:52 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I have one
statement to start with. I'll give you the longer version on paper, but
for your weekend reading the State Department is today releasing
additional materials concerning U.S. efforts to account for Vietnam-era
prisoners of war and missing in action. Today's release consists of
over 13,000 pages of documents from the files of Mr. Frank Sieverts, who
served as the Department's Special Assistant for POW and MIA Affairs
from 1966-78.
We're now in the process of preparing for public release
additional documents. We've declassified over 100,000 pages of POW and
MIA relevant material. These actions represent the most extensive
declassification project ever undertaken by the Department of State.
As before, we will put boxes of these documents -- a single
copy -- in the Correspondents' Room for anyone who wants to read them.
There will be a sign-up sheet next to the documents, that will come down
at 5:00 p.m. this evening, for anyone who would like their own copy.
And those who want copies, by signing this sheet you commit yourself to
carting them away when we give you a set.
And with that, I'd be glad to take your questions.
Q Well, there are reports that there are people at the
State Department who are unhappy with the U.S. policy in Bosnia; that
it's not working. Could you shed any light on that?
MR. BOUCHER: Barry, last Saturday a group of 12 Foreign
Service Officers who work on Balkan issues sent the Secretary a letter
on U.S. policy towards Bosnia. The Secretary read the letter
immediately, and he agreed to meet with the officers as soon as
possible.
The Secretary met with them on Monday. They had a very useful
discussion. The Secretary appreciated the perspective of these serious
and concerned officers. This sort of discussion is a healthy, normal
part of the policy process. As the Secretary said to the group, this is
what the Foreign Service is all about.
This discussion was particularly timely in light of the
current review of U.S. policy towards Bosnia, and of course the
President just told you that that review is still underway, and he has
taken no decision.
Q Richard, in the interests of keeping the American people
informed, the people who will be funding this potential effort and who
may be having relatives participating in this, could you make that
document public?
MR. BOUCHER: Sid, the letter was a private correspondence
between members of the Foreign Service and the Secretary of State. Both
the authors and the Secretary regard it in that fashion, as an internal
document. The authors don't wish the letter to be made public, and
copies will not be made available.
Q The letter is no longer a private document, portions of
it having appeared in The New York Times today. Is any effort being
made to find the leaker of the letter?
MR. BOUCHER: There may be cases where leak investigations are
appropriate when you have, I don't know, intelligence information or
such things. But I think the view here is and the view of the Secretary
is that leak investigations in this kind of case don't get you anything.
Q Richard, there was also a communication leak from the
U.N. Ambassador to the President, and in light of the fact that a
Cabinet member doesn't seem to be able to communicate with the President
of the United States without it appearing in The New York Times, are you
concerned that there are rogue elements in the Administration who seem
to want to divulge the contents of highly personal and important
communications of this kind?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know who might have divulged the alleged
highly personal communication of this kind. But in any case, I think
it's important for the ability of Cabinet members to provide their
private advice to the President, and their candid advice to the
President, that we not discuss those documents.
Q Richard, about the Secretary's meeting with these 12 or
so dissidents, has he had meetings in his -- what? Four months now --
with other officers on other issues? I mean, this is being described,
you know, as an open exchange with people of different views. There
must be difference of views on China and the Middle East, etc. Has he
done this before?
MR. BOUCHER: He's had meetings with others on various policy
issues. He's had -- I'm not sure quite the same circumstances, but he's
talked to a wide variety of people in the building with a wide variety
of views. He's had seminars with working level people from throughout
the Department on Russia. He meets regularly with a variety of people
in the building on different subjects.
He's met previously with people who disagreed with policy and,
you know, has been open. And, as I said, in this case he was talking to
a group of people who wanted to provide their ideas directly to him as
part of the policy formulation process. He sees it in that way. The
authors, themselves, saw it in that way, and he welcomed their views.
Obviously, there's as wide a range of views inside this
building as there is outside this building, and the Secretary found this
discussion particularly timely, given that he and the President are
deciding, along with the other senior levels of the Administration,
where we go from here.
Q Did he say to them, "This is a private discussion, and
I'd just as soon you keep it in the room, and, you know, maybe not
spread the word." Was there a feeling that these kinds of discussions
ought to be private and not made public in newspapers?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, as I said, as far as their document and
their request for a meeting -- and I take that to extend to the meeting
itself -- that the authors did not intend for this to be a public event,
or to be discussed or sent around in public, and that's the way it was
understood.
Q Richard, you keep discussing this as if this were a
letter about allowing smoking or not having smoking in the cafeteria.
This, in fact, was a letter about a fundamental policy of the United
States, what the President just called the most gripping foreign policy
issue before the United States today.
How does the fact that 12 senior career diplomats who have to
deal with this issue disagree with the policy -- how does that affect
the ability of this government to carry out policy and to make policy?
MR. BOUCHER: First of all, John, I don't think you should
question, nor do I necessarily question, whether these people can carry
out policy honestly. I think all of us in the Foreign Service have the
obligation -- and, indeed, when I took the exam I was asked
specifically, "Can you carry out a policy whatever your personal views?"
I think all of us in the Foreign Service understand that
obligation. We contribute to the policy process. We contribute our
ideas and our recommendations. And, indeed, as I said, there's a wide
range of views in this building. There always is on any given subject.
It's the President and the Secretary that have the
responsibility to decide these issues, and, as I said, this was a
discussion with people involved in the process -- working level people
who wanted to present their views on policy directly to the Secretary.
The Secretary welcomed that. He read their letter immediately and
agreed to see them the next working day, and they had a good discussion.
Q Have any of these 12 people resigned?
MR. BOUCHER: Not that I know of, no.
Q Richard, this is a somewhat unusual procedure to write a
letter to the Secretary, and my understanding is that if a Desk Officer
writes a memo, it would go to a Deputy Assistant and it might go to an
Assistant, then it might go to the Counselor or somebody upstairs on the
7th floor, and eventually it would wind its way through to the
Secretary.
They are, in effect, bypassing the usual paper flow of the
Department by banding together, for one thing, and sending a personal
appeal to the Secretary. And now you're saying that this is a healthy
and normal thing. Is that a kind of open invitation to everyone at
deputy desk level throughout the building to send personal letters to
the Secretary?
MR. BOUCHER: To write letters to the Secretary? I don't
think to the detriment of their normal work, but I wouldn't say that
this was done in any case to the detriment of their normal work. The
Secretary has talked to you before about his views of the need to
consider all these options very carefully. He has made clear that we
are considering options; that he wants to have options considered that
were previously found unacceptable.
The Secretary has been looking at many options. Some of these
people have been working on some of the papers for us, but these are
people who work every day on Balkan policy. They're people who are
dealing with one of the most serious issues -- or the most serious
foreign policy issue that this Administration has to face; indeed, that
is being faced by the Europeans and others in the international
community right now.
It's a very serious issue that requires careful thought. It
requires full discussion. It requires an airing, as the Secretary has
asked, of many, many options that were previously found unacceptable;
and, therefore, that's a healthy process. It's something the Secretary
sees as important to the formulation of good policy, whatever he and the
President decide to do.
Q But, Richard, this policy is in dispute. These people
wrote to him because they obviously felt that the policy was wrong. It
was not that they were simply discussing policy options with him. This
was, as I understand it, a strongly worded and indeed anguished letter.
MR. BOUCHER: John, I don't want to characterize the letter
which they have understood to be private, and I think it's not for me to
try to characterize their letter and what they said to the Secretary.
I think it's clear that the events of the past week or two in
Bosnia -- the deterioration of the situation, the situation around
Srebrenica -- have demanded further action, and indeed the
Administration has taken further action in moving up the passage of the
sanctions resolution and ensuring -- working in various means to make
sure that these new tough sanctions are applied tightly, and that they
have an effect on the situation to the maximum possible extent.
The Administration has also made clear, the Secretary has made
clear, that these circumstances require consideration of further courses
of action, and that's what's going on now.
Q The letter purportedly said that diplomacy has failed, in
not so many words. Is that the Secretary's view? Is that the
Administration's view now?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, at this point the Administration is
considering various policy options on where we go from here. The
President just answered a number of questions on options. I'm not going
to go beyond him.
Q Richard, I'm just trying to get an idea of what
proportion the 12 disturbed State Department officials represent. I
don't know how many people work on the Balkans. I know there can be 12
people working on the press guidance. (Laughter) Would you say 12 is --
I mean, I don't suppose you have numbers in your head -- but would you
say this represented a majority sentiment of -- or did they represent
themselves as representing others as well? Can you give any proportion
to the dozen -- the "Dirty Dozen," if they are that?
MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't call them that, Barry.
Q No.
MR. BOUCHER: I can't, really. If you -- depending on how you
count it, you could count many, many more people than that that work on
Bosnian policy, but I don't think it's fair to give a percentage. These
are -- many of these people are closely involved with the policy and at
the working level. But there are many others that are closely involved
with the policy at more senior levels as well who discuss and debate and
exchange views on these ideas all the time.
Q Is there any disciplinary action contemplated?
MR. BOUCHER: No. Q Richard, can I ask you about
-- if you could clarify this question of unilateral action in Bosnia?
At the White House briefing this morning, it seemed as though unilateral
action was on the table. The President just said he'd rather not, or he
didn't think it would be necessary, but that left the impression that
unilateral action by the United States is under consideration.
MR. BOUCHER: I think the President said as much as he wanted
to on that subject. I can't go any farther.
Q Richard, the U.N. commander in Yugoslavia has suggested
that Srebrenica could serve as an example for other potential safe
areas. The Security Council has discussed the idea informally, I
understand. I'm just wondering, is there any formal diplomacy underway
at the U.N. regarding the idea of extending safe areas? Or is that sort
of diplomacy awaiting the outcome of this policy review?
MR. BOUCHER: You mean, does anybody have another resolution
on the table that --
Q Have they moved beyond the point of just getting feedback
from each other about what the pros and cons might be?
MR. BOUCHER: On that specific point, I'll have to check, Tim.
I would say, in general, that there's been a lot of diplomacy underway,
including the decision by the United Nations Security Council to impose
sanctions on Monday that's aimed at bringing pressure on the Serbs to
stop the fighting, more generally, and to make every part of Bosnia
safe.
Q Can you define what the U.S. position on Srebrenica is in
terms of a safe area? What does that mean to the U.S. Government? Does
that mean something -- we have 140 Canadians sitting there. Does that
mean the U.S. Government is prepared to help them in any way, or are
they just there and the Serbs can't enter? What's your definition of
what Srebrenica is now?
MR. BOUCHER: It's the definition from the Security Council
resolution, John, that Srebrenica is a safe area. The U.N. is out there
on the ground making arrangements to make sure it continues to be safe.
Q And the U.S. will back that up; right?
MR. BOUCHER: We supported the Security Council resolution.
Q Do those sanctions go into effect Monday regardless of
anything else that happens?
MR. BOUCHER: The language in this Security Council
resolution, I think, says that they go into effect unless the Serbs join
in the peace process and cease their military actions.
Q So if Sunday, at midnight, Karadzic stands up and says,
"Hey, we're ready to meet," the sanctions won't go into effect?
MR. BOUCHER: I think the language is even more specific than
that.
Q Is it a case that you need at least a Security Council
order to stop the process? Otherwise, it will automatically go?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, I don't have the resolution with me. I
think it has -- if the Secretary General reports to the Council that, or
some phrase in there where there could be an action that would -- they
would report that that had happened, but at this point I would say we
haven't seen any signs of that occurring.
Q Because, Richard, it just moved on the wire shortly
before this, the Bosnian Serb parliament has, in fact, now voted to
resume the talks -- the Vance-Owen talks.
MR. BOUCHER: I had not seen that. Again, we'll have to see
what they do. We'll have to see whether they enter into negotiations in
good faith.
Q Is the United States in favor of opening the airfield at
Tuzla? Is that something which --
MR. BOUCHER: John, I think we discussed that a little bit
yesterday. I don't have anything new. That airport, as you know, was
one that was looked at by the humanitarian assessment team, and that's
one of the recommendations in their report. It's one of the things being
looked at.
Q But there's no decision yet, in terms of what our
position is on that?
MR. BOUCHER: No.
Q I notice when the phrase "ethnic cleansing" is used --
the President called it abhorrent today -- he doesn't say "Serbian
ethnic cleansing." In fact, I heard a British -- a U.N. officer the
other day on public radio speaking of -- of seeing, actually seeing
Muslims force Serbs out of their homes. It's been a long time since we
had any finger-pointing from the State Department.
Is ethnic cleansing entirely a Serbian action against Muslims,
or is there enough inhumanity to spread around in that hapless place?
MR. BOUCHER: Barry, I think we've made clear that there are
enough atrocities on all sides but that the overwhelming burden, the
overwhelming blame, for these kinds of activities lies in the hands of
the Serbs. We have reported, in our series of reports to the United
Nations, on incidents that we were able to get eyewitness reports or
documented evidence of -- and you'll see in those reports as well that
the overwhelming burden of those reports falls on the Serbian side.
Q Do you see some difference, then, in a couple of
responses? You said, if they return -- if the Serbs return to the table
and negotiate in good faith --
Q Muslims.
Q Serbs.
MR. BOUCHER: Serbs.
Q You're saying it's the Administration's position on
sanctions, and whatever else they intend to pursue, that they not only
have to rejoin the Vance-Owen process, but in our estimation they have
to do that in good faith? (Inaudible)
MR. BOUCHER: Sid, the Administration's position is the one in
the Security Council resolution that we supported, and I'm sorry I don't
have the exact language in front of me, but that's the exact language --
the only way that sanctions could be prevented. The Secretary has noted
a number of times that the Serbian side, he didn't think, had negotiated
in the past in good faith. And, of course, if you're going to get a
settlement, that's necessary.
Warren.
Q On the question of who's to blame, do you see some
difference between what's going on in central Bosnia between the Muslims
and the Croats and the ethnic cleansing in Serbia? I thought the
President addressed that, but I didn't hear the full -- of what he said.
Do you see some qualitative difference between those two situations?
MR. BOUCHER: The President addressed that and said that the
fighting between the Croatians and the Muslims in Vietz and that central
area had subsided quite a bit, and that's the information that we have.
No, clearly, there's no difference between atrocities on one
side and atrocities on the other. We're dealing with a war in which
there have been all too many horrors committed.
Q Richard, there's still something I don't understand very
well on this new regime of sanctions. They start on the 26th, on
Monday. Now, how long are those new sanctions given before the U.S.
Government decides to move forward with new pressures, new initiatives
in Bosnia? Is there a clock ticking there?
MR. BOUCHER: Jacques, we've never set a timetable precisely
on that. We think that various forms of pressure are necessary. We
have said there are other issues that we would raise. And, of course,
the President made clear that he's considering a whole variety of
options.
Q Richard, do you have any idea when this policy review is
going to be over? He said soon.
MR. BOUCHER: I think he said he expects to decide in a couple
of days, but I'll leave it to him to explain that. It's in his hands.
Q Do you know what form the results of it are going to be
unveiled to the waiting world?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't, Alan. That, too, is something I think
the President addressed.
Q Is there any interest on the part of the U.S. in trying
to pass a resolution in the Security Council that would impose secondary
sanctions? In other words, to penalize those who are sanctions-busters,
as the world imposed on those who busted the sanctions for Iraq?
Also, in Iraq, there was a fund set up to help those countries
who suffered financial damage because they helped with the sanctions.
Is there any intention to set up that kind of fund?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know where this second might stand. Of
course, we've been assisting a number of countries in imposing and
carrying out the sanctions. I know there has been discussion of a kind
of hardship that enforcement of sanctions can cause. We believe, of
course, that it's absolutely necessary to impose these, that failure to
do so could lead to even greater losses for countries in the region.
But at the same time, I don't know exactly where we might stand on ideas
like that.
As far as secondary sanctions, again, I don't know of any
particular movement in the U.N. Security Council towards that. Indeed,
we have been cooperating very closely with the states in the area, with
other governments to ensure when there are sanctions violations reported
that we've been able to crack down on it; and I'd say, generally, we've
had very good cooperation from other governments.
Q But is it the intention of the U.S. Government to impose
its own unilateral secondary sanctions, as was the case in Iraq, if
countries are proven to be sanctions-busters?
MR. BOUCHER: John, it's the intention of the U.S. Government
to work with other governments to make the sanctions stick, and we've
had quite a bit of success in doing that so far; not enough to stop all
the leakage. We think that the new sanctions will toughen that quite a
bit and make it easier to stop all the leakage, and that these will be
tough and tight sanctions on Serbia that will go into effect on Monday.
Ted.
Q A quick one. The President was asked about POW/MIA
issues. He said that he wanted to be assured that the Vietnamese were
cooperating fully and "we're not there yet." Does that mean there are no
further steps on the roadmap that are being contemplated in the near
future? And can the IMF meeting come and go without the United States
taking any further actions on the roadmap?
MR. BOUCHER: Ted, I'll leave that where the President put it.
Q One quick one. Do you have a readout on the meetings
with the Israelis this morning? And who met with them?
MR. BOUCHER: The peace team people from our side met with the
representatives of the Israeli delegations this morning, will meet with
them again this afternoon. We don't have any firm schedule for meetings
with the other delegations at this time, but we hope to confer with all
of the parties before the talks resume on April 27.
Q And the peace team is Djerejian, Ross and Indyk.
MR. BOUCHER: Djerejian, I think, had personal reasons why he
couldn't be here today, but it was the others.
Q Richard, Yasser Arafat said, in an interview with a Swiss
newspaper, that the American government made promises to the
Palestinians. What kind of promises did the U.S. Government make to the
Palestinians?
MR. BOUCHER: We have, as you know, said that we discussed a
variety of things with the Palestinians and the Israelis during the
course of this movement to get back to the talks. You've seen some of
them already. You may see other things happen. But at this point, I
think that's about as far as we're going to go.
Q You wouldn't characterize what we told the Palestinians
as promises?
MR. BOUCHER: I'd characterize the way we've characterized
them in the past.
Q Anything more on North Korea in terms of meetings or
discussions at the U.N.?
MR. BOUCHER: In terms of meetings, it's basically the same
situation as yesterday. No decisions have been made. There's nothing
scheduled. In terms of the United Nations, there was the statement on
April 8 expressing the concern of the Council of the situation with
regards to North Korea's NPT obligations. There are informal
discussions underway at the Security Council now in regard to a possible
resolution.
Q So you're saying there are no meetings now proposed or
planned?
MR. BOUCHER: No meeting is scheduled. In fact, no decisions
have been made on any meetings. The same thing I said yesterday.
Q And no decisions are made on attending a meeting without
specifying the date?
MR. BOUCHER: No decisions. Punto.
Q Well, Richard, to be fair, Mr. Tarnoff had a meeting with
the President of South Korea whose spokesman, on the record, said Mr.
Tarnoff had told the President of South Korea that he would be having a
meeting with a North Korea official, and you tell us no decisions have
been made. Now either there's a problem of translation in Seoul, or Mr.
Tarnoff is lying or misleading us, or you're misleading us. Now which
is it?
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, I love the choices that you offer to me.
(Laughter). I'm telling you the truth and the facts as they were
yesterday and as they are again today.
Q Thank you.
(Press briefing concluded 2:17 p.m.) (###)