Note: This Electronic Research Collection is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #60
MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1993, 12:38 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. One short
announcement, off the top:
Secretary Christopher will be appearing before the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary of the Senate
Appropriations Committee tomorrow morning at 10:00. His testimony
concerns the 1994 budget. The room is 253 Russell Senate Office
Building. Given this appearance, we will not have a regular press
briefing tomorrow.
Q I want to get the Mideast peace talks underway with some
expression of what the U.S. means by "full partner." Are you folks going
to be in the room at some point?
MR. BOUCHER: Barry, at this point I think we've explained the
term "full partner" a number of times. As the Secretary said last week,
we are prepared to do our part as a full partner to help the parties
achieve what they can in these talks. You've seen a number of
discussions that we've had with the parties over the course of the last
several months, both to get them to the table and to ensure that
progress can be achieved at this round. This act of involvement by the
United States, working hard with the parties, reflects the commitment
that the President and the Secretary have placed on the Middle East
process, trying to make 1993 the year of progress in these talks and
trying to take advantage of the opportunity that presents itself now.
Q Well, but physically where will the U.S. -- well, at
least let's get to tomorrow. You know, maybe in the next couple of
days, will the U.S. be available if called upon in a side room? Or
might you just enter the room and say "Look, guys, here's what we think
a settlement ought to look like."
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I don't think it's necessarily one or the
other, Barry. As you know, the question of entering the room is
something that would only be done at the request or the approval of both
parties at any given negotiation.
Our role is an active one. Our role is one that you've seen
played out over the last several months in the Secretary's trips, the
conversations that we've had with the parties, and the continuing
context that the Secretary has had with the parties. So we have been
active and willing to offer suggestions and work with the parties to
help them achieve what kind of progress they think they can.
Q Is there any difference in the way the people involved,
the American officials involved, are going to be deployed? Is anybody
going to be given specific responsibility for one track or another of
the talks? Or is there some sort of schedule -- informal or otherwise
-- for meeting with the participants or keeping an eye on what's going
on inside the room?
MR. BOUCHER: Saul, I think we've had those things in the
past. We've had liaison for particular tracks. Obviously Ed Djerejian
and his peace team are the people in charge and the people that will be
handling the talks on a day-to-day basis from our side. They've been
meeting with the delegations. They met with a number of delegations
last week. They met with the representatives of the Israeli delegation
on Sunday. We would expect to see the other delegations perhaps today;
but we haven't set the meetings, at least as of the time that I came
down.
So we'll continue to follow all the tracks, all the talks,
closely; and we'll continue to meet with the delegations during the
course of the talks.
Q There's no difference, though, in the way you're
deploying in these talks as opposed to the ones in the past couple of
years?
MR. BOUCHER: I haven't examined the arrangements at the level
of detail that might point out any specific difference. But, basically,
we have been -- in the past rounds, we've met with all the parties.
We'll continue to meet with the parties.
Q Can you explain a little bit more fully what the
Secretary meant when he ad libbed in his speech the other night, that he
intended -- that the United States would be even-handed, not only
looking like it's even-handed?
MR. BOUCHER: He intended to convey our strongest desire to be
a full partner, to be an honest broker, in the next phase of the peace
negotiations; to consider fully the views of all the parties. We don't
think anybody should read anything more than that into the comment.
Q Does the statement imply that the U.S. hasn't been even-
handed until now?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, Howard, I don't think anybody should read
more than that into the comment.
Q Does he know what it means, do you think? You don't want
us to read anything into it, but you've managed to touch all the grace
notes -- or the Secretary has in the last few days -- all the things, or
at least many of the things the Arabs have been wanting to hear: even-
handed; you've called the Palestinians courageous; you've done the full
partner number; you've called conditions on the West Bank harsh.
But to stick to even-handedness, which the Arabs have asked
the U.S. to at least assert publicly, as the Secretary now has, for
years. One, I think, easy inference of even-handedness is the two sides
arguments of equal weight, and the U.S. is equi-distant between the two
of them. Is Israel no longer the U.S.'s most reliable ally in the
Middle East? Do you see two powers competing that have equal causes and
you're just in between the two of them?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, Barry, having cautioned you twice not to
read anything more into this, I don't think --
Q Well, why do you say these things if we're not supposed
to read into them? They are said to give a message. Now, I'm trying to
figure out what the message is. Words don't just float around the
Middle East like they pop out of people's mouths. These things are
thought out before they're said, and we're trying to figure out what
message you're sending. It's not like we're being quarrelsome or
snooping. We want to know what's your message -- the State Department,
of course?
MR. BOUCHER: My turn?
Q Yes.
MR. BOUCHER: Barry, having cautioned you twice against
reading anything more into these remarks than what I just told you, let
me tell you once again what the remarks were intended to convey and what
they do convey. They convey our strong desire to become a full partner
and an honest broker in the next phrase of peace negotiations and to
consider fully the views of all parties.
Q Richard, anything new on the multilateral talks?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't have anything new today on it. Is
there supposed to be something new today? I don't remember precisely
the schedule, Sid. That's why I ask, but I think they're a little bit
down the road.
Okay. John?
Q Can you explain, on Bosnia, how the international embargo
and the various things that the President has signed into law, how they
are any different than what the U.S. has already done -- freezing
Yugoslavian assets? We already froze Yugoslavian assets. Didn't the
United States do that already?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, John. But these new sanctions will do much
more than that in terms of what they do against Serbia.
The new Resolution provides a much more comprehensive embargo
on the transshipments of goods to and through Serbia and Montenegro and
a freeze on the financial assets that are owned or controlled by Serbian
and Montenegrin companies.
The Resolution authorizes the establishment of an exclusion
zone in the waters of the so-called Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in
the Adriatic, and this zone will be patrolled by NATO and West European
Union forces. Maritime traffic through the zone is prohibited except if
specifically approved by the United Nations.
The Resolution introduces a much tighter control regime for
transshipments through land access points and on the Danube. Such
transshipments will require approval by the Sanctions Committee on a
case-by-case basis. The control regime will provide for close
monitoring.
Q That's not what I asked. Did the U.S. Government,
haven't they already frozen their assets?
MR. BOUCHER: John, if I can finish, I'll tell you. You asked
that specific question; I answered it off the top. You asked "What more
does this do that we haven't done already?" I've given you a list
already of half a dozen things that it does that we haven't done
already.
In the aim of increasing our assistance for local customs
officers responsible for enforcing the Resolution, we promised 17
additional sanctions assistance monitors for the region, bringing the
U.S. total to 27. Eleven of the new monitors arrived in Romania and
Bulgaria yesterday. We have pressed the Europeans to do likewise.
So in other words, in terms of "what does it do," it does all
these things that are in the Resolution. It provides for the exclusion
zone. It cuts down on the traffic and the transshipment, and that's
what it does.
Q That's not my question. My question is, what -- as the
U.S. Government haven't we already frozen their assets --
MR. BOUCHER: Yes.
Q -- so the President has signed an Executive Order, at
midnight last night, supposedly freezing their assets; but the U.S. had
already done that. What does this Executive Order do in terms of United
States' participation that is different? I understand what the sanctions
do, but what does the U.S. Government do that is different today than
yesterday?
MR. BOUCHER: The United States participates in an enhanced
international sanctions regime on Serbia and Montenegro. What do we do
that's different than yesterday in terms of the specific Executive
Order? I believe -- and you'll have to get the detailed explanation
from Treasury -- that the Order provides for the freezing of additional
assets that weren't frozen beforehand.
Q What additional assets.
MR. BOUCHER: I do not have the exact details of that, and the
Treasury Department are the ones that have the jurisdiction over the
Order. What does the United States do that's different? We participate
through additional monitors, our ships in the Adriatic, and other ways
in an enhanced sanctions regime that will significantly bring new
sanctions to bear against Serbia and Montenegro.
Q Does that mean you could be reaching, you know, to
Europe; you could be dealing with secondarily held assets? Treasury will
explain this?
MR. BOUCHER: John only wants me to talk about the United
States.
Q No, the United States. There was an escalation with
Iran, too, with first initial assets, then there were secondary assets.
MR. BOUCHER: The Resolution, as I just told you, Barry, calls
on all the governments to freeze Serbian and Montenegrin assets,
wherever they are. That includes in Europe; that includes in other
places. It provides a U.N. obligation on countries to freeze these
financial assets and, I think, in addition to freeze any financial flows
which result from the sale of property. There's specific language on
that in the Resolution.
So, as John points out, we in the United States had previously
frozen a lot of assets under previous resolutions. This Resolution
clearly provides the authority that Serbian and Montenegrin assets,
wherever they should be, should be frozen and must be frozen.
Q Do you happen to know, Richard, how it would affect a
company, the California pharmaceutical giant that has a large -- that it
has its Eastern European operation in Yugoslavia and is run by the
former Prime Minister, the American-born or the California resident --
MR. BOUCHER: Do you mean Panic?
Q Run by Panic and the former Ambassador -- U.S. Ambassador
to Yugoslavia. Do you know how that is affected?
MR. BOUCHER: I do not know what --
Q Does the California firm have to stop to doing business
with them and --
MR. BOUCHER: Saul, the sanctions apply to all firms, whether
they're in California or elsewhere. I don't know what the business of
that firm is and what assets they may have there, so I can't really
comment on a specific firm.
Q What is the reaction by the U.S. Government to what the
European Foreign Ministers did yesterday in terms of deciding that they
really didn't want to support an escalation of pressure on the Serbs?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I'm not sure I would agree with you on the
characterization. The Europeans met and have looked at a number of
options and decisions. They're essentially wrestling with the same
policy options that we are considering. As far as we know at this
stage, they've neither ruled out or settled on any of the options beyond
the sanctions enforcement. But we have been talking to the Europeans
about sanctions enforcement.
We had a delegation out there late last week to talk to them,
and they took some decisions over the weekend for their part to increase
the number of sanctions monitors. We believe that they will help ensure
that the new sanctions resolution is strictly and swiftly enforced, and
we've been cooperating closely with them in doing that.
Q You don't regard this as a rejection of the air strikes
option.
MR. BOUCHER: As far as we know, they've neither ruled out nor
settled on any of the options beyond the sanctions enforcement, but
that's something that obviously goes into effect today and that we want
to work very closely with them on.
Q The President said last week that anything done should be
done with the allies. I mean, he was very strong about that. Is the
necessary corollary of what you just said that the U.S. hasn't decided
on other options as well?
MR. BOUCHER: I think the President said yesterday that he was
not ready to announce anything; he was not ready to announce a policy
that hadn't been decided yet. But he did say that we'd do everything we
can, stand up against and stop the practice of ethnic cleansing, and
that we'd find some way for people in Bosnia-Herzegovina to live in
peace.
Q Do you want to wait -- do you have to wait a period to
see how these tightened sanctions play out before doing something else,
or is the Administration not precluding another imminent action?
MR. BOUCHER: Barry, I think we believe that the sanctions are
important, they're tight enough, and that they will have an immediate
effect on the Serbian economy, first of all. But, second of all, the
timetable -- as far as I know, there is no specific timetable for the
further review of options that's underway.
Q What is the status of the policy review that's going on
right now?
MR. BOUCHER: The options are still being looked at. They're
still being looked at, and the President said yesterday he had nothing
to announce. There's nothing new this morning.
Q There's some speculation that the Secretary will be
traveling to Europe to consult with European allies. Can you tell us
anything about that?
MR. BOUCHER: A lot of speculation. As you know, we're in the
process of considering options on policy. Any decisions on travel or
other plans have not been made.
Q Richard, what has Ambassador Bartholomew been doing in
recent days?
MR. BOUCHER: Sid, I'll have to get you something on that. I
don't have any specific list of the actions he's been taking. Obviously
he has been heavily involved in the policy review. He's been providing
his advice. He's been around here. I don't think he's had any
particular meetings to speak of, but I'll check and see if he has.
Q You said that the sanctions -- you expect the sanctions
to have an immediate impact on the Serbian economy -- they're tight, and
they're important. An impact on the economy -- but do you also
anticipate they will have an impact on what you're really after, which
is a change in behavior on the part of the Bosnian Serbs and the Serbs?
MR. BOUCHER: John, as you know from previous instances, it's
always very difficult to predict a specific effect of sanctions other
than the economic ones. These sanctions significantly tighten the
loopholes that have existed in the past. They give us a way of bringing
additional pressure to bear. They give us a way of ensuring that Serbia
pays its price for support for the aggression that has been going on
with the continued pressure and fighting that's perpetrated by the
Bosnian Serbs. So in those terms they will have their effect.
Obviously the overall effect that we're looking for is to
bring an end to the fighting, to stop the killing and to encourage them
to reach a negotiated settlement. We'll just have to see if they can do
that.
Q Sir, Germany is responsible, too, for that crisis in the
Balkans. As the leading force of the EC and Europe, I'm wondering if
you discussed with the German Government the problem of refugees in
order to find ways to help them, due to the fact that a tension also
exists at this particular moment in Kosovo and Skopje? Otherwise, is
Germany ready according to your discussion to receive the refugees from
the former Yugoslavia?
MR. BOUCHER: I really think that's a question you have to ask
the Germans. We've been talking to other governments and working with
other governments on the problem of refugees in the area. As you know,
the Germans have taken quite a lot of people from the former Yugoslavia;
but exactly whether they're ready to take more right now or not, you'll
have to check with them.
Q Did you discuss the situation with the German
authorities? This is the point.
MR. BOUCHER: Certainly, we've discussed it many times with
the German authorities; but what their position is right now, I'd have
to leave you to them.
Q To what extent was the discussion?
MR. BOUCHER: To what extent?
Q Yes.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have a full run-down, but obviously
there have been a lot of countries that have worked over many months in
terms of the refugees coming out of Yugoslavia -- out of the former
Yugoslavia. Germany has been one country that has taken very many, and
we've talked about it a lot of times with them.
Q Did they tell you exactly how many they have received so
far in order to help the situation?
MR. BOUCHER: I assume they did. I don't have those numbers
handy, but I really have to leave you to the Germans to get those
numbers.
Q Richard, do we have an assessment of the Russian vote?
MR. BOUCHER: We don't have a final assessment now. The
Russian Central Electoral Commission is scheduled to announce
preliminary national results tomorrow morning. The official final
results will be announced several days later.
Based on the preliminary results we've seen so far, the
referendum is encouraging for the future of democracy and reform in
Russia. The United States Government welcomes the successful conduct of
the referendum as a further step in Russia's movement towards full
democracy.
The success of reform in Russia is important for the world and
for the Russian people themselves, and we look forward to continuing to
work with President Yeltsin and all the other reformers in Russia to
help build a new relationship based on trust and partnership.
Q On another subject, Taiwan and mainland China are going
to be holding the (inaudible) talks in Singapore. What is the U.S.
point of view on this development between the two sides of the Taiwan
Strait?
MR. BOUCHER: Let me see if I can get you something on that.
I don't have anything particularly new to say on it right now.
Q Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 12:56 p.m.) (###)