930524 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 #74

                  MONDAY, MAY 24, 1993, 12:56 P. M.
                (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)


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

         Q    Do you have anything about Saddam Husayn perhaps planning 
military action against the Kurds? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  The Secretary of State talked about that a little 
bit this morning.  He made very clear our intention to enforce the 
United Nations resolutions.  He said we'll be watching very carefully 
for any changes in the situation that might call for further action on 
the part of the United States. 

         I'd point out that as recently as March 26, the U.N. 
Ambassadors of the United States, the U.K., France and Russia warned 
Iraq that any provocative actions would receive a firm and united 
response, and that warning remains in effect. 

         Q    Richard, I have two questions.  First is a couple weeks 
ago there was a report that the U.N. was pulling out some of its people, 
and you put out a statement saying that the United States was going to 
ask its allies for the necessary funds to keep that force in being at 
full strength.  Have you been successful in getting those funds? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  The international community, I think, has been 
working on this.  Of course, the international community continues to 
encourage Iraq to accept Resolution 706 and 712, which would allow it to 
sell oil to buy food and medicine.  And Baghdad's failure to take that 
step really demonstrates a lack of concern on their part for the 
suffering of the Iraqi people. 

         We have been making a concerted effort, especially over the 
winter, to assist people that are suffering from Saddam Husayn's 
embargo.  At this point we've had some success in our work with other 
donors.  The United Nations has suspended any further rotation of the 
guard force, so the guard contingent remains stable at 186.  We're 
continuing to work with other donors to secure the adequate long-term 
financing for the U.N. guard force. 

         Q    What can you tell us, though, about the Iraqi build-up? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  At this point there's not much detail that I can 
go into on that, except to say that they have had considerable troops in 
the north for some time. 

         Q    Richard, how long do the allies -- in your case the United 
States -- intend to protect the safe havens and keep this opera-
tion -- this very expensive operation going? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Sid, we're there in furtherance of U.N. 
resolutions, including Resolution 687 and Resolution 688, especially on 
the repression of Iraqi people.  I think we've expressed our firm 
determination to continue these efforts as long as it takes to secure 
full Iraqi compliance with U.N. resolutions. 

         Q    Richard, to go back to George's question, are you saying 
that the United States is unable to say whether there was increased 
troop build-up by Iraq, or that you just don't want to say? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  It's a situation that I think, as the Secretary 
mentioned, we do follow very closely, but it's not a situation that I'm 
able to discuss. 

         Q    But in the past, people at this podium have discussed 
whether or not there was change in deployments. What's the difference 
now? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Other than to say that we know that they have had 
significant numbers of troops in those areas for some time, I don't 
think I can go into any further detail at this moment. 

         Q    Richard, the Times indicates this morning, quoting Western 
diplomats and intelligence sources, that Iraq is preparing to attack the 
Kurds.  Can you confirm that? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  No, I can't, John. 

         Q    Richard, the Kurds, part of them, live in this zone north 
of the 36th parallel, which is protected by U.S. and allied air sorties, 
but part of them live south of the 36th parallel.  Do your words now 
extend to protection of the Kurds south of the 36th parallel? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Alan, our "no-fly" zone north of the 36th is 
exactly that -- it's a "no-fly" zone intended to help implement the 
United Nations resolutions.  Resolution 688 that forbids Iraq from 
engaging in repression against the Iraqi people applies to all groups 
and all areas of the country. 

         Q    Richard, does that "no-fly" zone include helicopters? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  I don't remember the precise rules, but I think 
it does.  I think that's on the record somewhere. 

         Q    In other words -- 

         MR. BOUCHER:  I'd have to check that, Jim.  I don't remember 
exactly. 

         Q    In other words, the protection of the U.N. extended to 
Kurds would exist south of the 36th parallel as well? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  I think you're sort of drawing into different 
hypothetical scenarios, and I don't think I can really do that for you.  
I think I can just tell you that Resolution 688 does apply to all the 
country, and that as with other U.N. resolutions we have been determined 
to ensure that Iraq complies fully with all those resolutions. 

         Q    So what does that mean?  I mean, does it -- it sounds like 
that extends U.N. protection to the Kurds even if they live -- no matter 
where they live in the country, is that correct? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  The specific steps that we've taken, John, will 
remain in place.  The specific steps that we've taken include the "no-
fly" zones in the north and in the south. 

         Q    Richard, again, the Secretary's statement and your 
statement speak of U.N. resolutions.  The "no-fly" zone, of course, was 
tripartite action by three allies, and I think your position is it's 
inferred by the U.N. resolutions. 

         When he speaks of warning Saddam Husayn, the U.S. intends to 
resolutely enforce U.N. resolutions, he means the "no-fly" zone, or does 
he mean something else, or everything, or what?  Do you know? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Barry, there's a whole series of U.N. resolutions 
that require his compliance. 

         Q    I can't quote the -- 

         MR. BOUCHER:  The "no-fly" zone is a step that's taken in 
furtherance of the resolution.  The intention is, through the "no-fly" 
zones and various other measures that are in place, to secure Iraqi 
compliance with the resolutions. 

         Q    Are there other things they are doing that seem to be 
wavering where the U.S. wants to assert its, as you put it, 
resoluteness? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Well, you've had the continuing difficulties with 
Iraq in a whole number of areas, whether it's the situation in the 
north, the refusal to accept resolution 706/712 on oil for food and 
medicine.  I don't believe they've accepted the border demarcation, 
which has been completed. 

         The inspections have continued, but I don't think they've 
accepted the long-term monitoring plan that's called for under 687.  So 
I think you still have the same pattern of mixed compliance, at best, 
from the Iraqis with the U.N. resolutions. 

         Q    If you don't mind, those questions refer to the Kurds and 
your answer referred to Iraqis.  Does the State Department have a 
position on whether the Kurds are a recognizable people who are entitled 
to some measure of independence on Iraqi territory? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  We have continued to support the territorial 
integrity of Iraq and have continued to feel that all the people in Iraq 
deserve individual liberties, deserve their human rights, and the right 
to choose their own government. 

         Q    Can we move on to Yugoslavia?  I imagine there are some 
questions out there.  What did the Secretary mean when he said that -- 
he stated in his first appearance this morning, there were three aims, 
and he defined one of them as an aim of minimizing the killing insofar 
as we can.  How much killing do you think the United States would be 
able to -- under this plan -- would be able to tolerate? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Alan, I think you're drawing a truly mistaken 
inference from the Secretary's remarks.  He said, once again, I think at 
the event that we were just at, if our goal was to limit and to stop the 
killing; and we'll be taking a number of steps that we have outlined 
with our allies.  These steps are designed to do what we can to stop the 
killing, to do what we can to prevent the conflict from spreading, and 
to do what we can to increase the pressure on the Serbs.  And we will be 
carrying out those steps as we promised to do. 

         Q    Richard, how safe are these safe havens going to be?  
Would you suggest -- are they going to be as safe as a school playground 
in Maryland, or how safe are they going to be? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  I don't have any analogies for you, Alan.  They 
will be safe as UNPROFOR and the rest of us can make them. 

         Q    Richard, the Secretary also said that this plan, in the 
earlier photo op, was in the interests of the American people.  Could 
you explain that? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Once again, the Secretary has discussed this 
twice with you this morning.  I don't see it deserves any or needs any 
further explanation. 

         Q    That was a tough one.  "In the interests of the American 
people" could either mean that the American people are interested in 
doing just so much -- 

         MR. BOUCHER:  The Secretary, I think, meant -- 

         Q    -- or "in the interests of the American people" in the 
sense that we're not going to do anything bold, because the American 
people don't want anything done.  I don't know what he means. 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Once again, I think you'd be truly mistaken to 
jump to conclusions like that.  The Secretary has stated many times what 
our interests and concerns are about the situation.  He has expressed 
our humanitarian interests and our strategic interests in this situation 
in Bosnia. 

         He and the President have stated very clearly our interests in 
seeing a stop to the killing, containment of the conflict, and the 
increase of pressure on the Serbs to reach a negotiated solution. 

         The steps that we have outlined are steps that are designed to 
move us further forward in all those directions, and they are steps that 
we have announced that we are working on implementing. 

         Q    Why are the Serbs happy with this, and the Bosnian Muslims 
are despairing over it? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  First of all, I don't think it's fair to judge 
the steps by the initial reactions or by the reactions and statements 
that you see.  I think you have to judge it by what it does.  And what 
it effectively does is to take steps that will lessen or stop the 
killing, to contain the conflict, and to increase the pressure on the 
Serbs. 

         If the Serbs somehow are emboldened by this, I would say that 
would be a mistake in judgment on their part.  The sanctions are going 
to be rigorously enforced.  We've already seen some effect of that and 
these steps do continue the pressure, and they'll continue to feel the 
heat. 

         Q    The Karadzic statement, in which he said he accepts the 
joint statement, and he spoke of a Bosnian Serb republic.  Does the U.S. 
have an opinion on a Bosnian Serb republic? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Yes. 

         Q    What is the position -- 

         MR. BOUCHER:  We have not supported the carving up of Bosnia.  
We have supported the negotiations that were aimed at arriving at a 
settlement that would maintain the unity of Bosnia and the ability of 
these groups to live together. 

         Q    Richard, can we talk a bit about the Security Council 
resolutions which are envisaged for this week?  The main one on the 
question of safe havens:  Do you expect that the resolution will broaden 
the mandate of UNPROFOR so that they can actually, physically protect 
the safe havens?  Also, I'd just note that there's a report this morning 
that the Security Council has no money for this operation and no further 
volunteers for troops to make it work. 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Barrie, we are working with other governments to 
pass these resolutions and, of course, to make sure that they do work, 
and that the necessary resources are there.  The Security Council is 
meeting today on the War Crimes Resolution.  That is an informal 
session, but of course sometimes informal sessions proceed immediately 
to votes, so there's likely to be a vote this afternoon on the War 
Crimes Tribunal. 

         We're working with others up in New York on the other 
resolutions we would expect to see later this week, including the safe 
areas resolution, which essentially is a resolution that would implement 
the safe areas in Bosnia.  The Secretary on Saturday expressed our 
support for the early adoption of these measures.  In addition to that, 
we also expect in this time frame, near future, to get the resolution 
that would prepare the way for placing international monitors on the 
border.  So all those three things are being worked on up in New York. 

         Q    But is it the United States' determination to make sure 
that there are adequate troops and adequate resources to adequately 
protect the safe havens? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  These things I think, first of all, are in the 
hands of the U.N. and the UNPROFOR people, but we have been longtime 
contributors, especially to the humanitarian aspects of this, and the 
exact numbers and locations and things like that have to be worked out 
with UNPROFOR. 

         Q    But does the United States have a position on whether the 
mandate of the UNPROFOR troops should be expanded, so that, as the task 
force that went to Bosnia recommended, that there be an ability to make 
a more robust response on humanitarian -- to get humanitarian aid and 
also to protect the safe havens.  Does the United States favor an 
expanded rules of engagement -- more aggressive rules of engagement? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  As I said, the Secretary stated on Saturday that 
we favor the early adoption of these resolutions on safe areas.  These 
resolutions, without trying to describe them as more or less of 
something, they do, indeed, implement the safe areas and provide for the 
use of UNPROFOR forces to implement the safe areas. 

         Q    Did they change the rules of engagement and, if they do 
not, does the United States favor expanding or making more robust the 
rules of engagement? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Again, we favor the implementation of the 
decision.  Exactly what the rules of engagement or the terms and 
language that are to be in those resolutions is still under discussion 
up in New York.  We favor the adoption of these resolutions -- this 
resolution that will implement the safe areas concept.  And the exact 
terms of that are under discussion in New York. 

         Q    I don't understand the concept.  Let me explain how.  
You've got people living in Sarajevo, and the Serb artilleries are in 
the hills around them, and they can fire at will, and they do, and 
people get killed in the streets when they decide to fire shells into 
the streets. 

         Now, how is your plan going to change that, and in what sense 
can you describe that environment as safe? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Alan, again the U.N. has declared six safe areas 
in Bosnia at this point:  Sarajevo, Srebrenica, Tuzla, Bihac, Gorazde 
and Zepa.  The Security Council is considering a resolution that will 
implement that concept, and it will flesh out that concept in the terms 
that you're asking me now.  That is still under discussion up in New 
York.  It's something that we and other members of the Council are 
working on, but it will provide, as we've said in the statement, for the 
use of UNPROFOR forces to ensure that those areas are safe. 

         Q    Will it stop the Serbs -- I mean, just to declare 
something as safe doesn't make it so.  I mean, I could say -- 

         MR. BOUCHER:  That's why there's now a resolution to implement 
it. 

         Q    -- that you were a wombat, and it wouldn't make you a 
wombat. 

         MR. BOUCHER:  I know, but you could pass a resolution that 
would make me a wombat.  That's exactly the process that we're doing 
through.  The U.N. has declared these as safe areas, and there is now a 
safe areas resolution that's under discussion, the exact terms of which 
I can't lay out for you because it's still under discussion, but which 
will implement the safe areas. 

         Q    Well, what's going to happen if one of these naughty Serbs 
decides not to go along with your resolution and fires his artillery?  
What are you going to do then? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Well, again that sort of detail is to be defined 
in the process of defining the exact implementation of the safe areas 
resolution.  But the intention of the new resolution is to provide that 
sort of mandate and wherewithal to the people who will implement it. 

         Q    Will there be any new resolutions regarding the first 
point of the 13 points of Saturday and Saturday's agreement -- that is, 
that the nations will insist on getting the humanitarian aid through?  
Do you contemplate any further action to insist? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Well, there's no new resolution, nor is there a 
new resolution required.  It's a reaffirmation of the determination 
which UNPROFOR has used and which has resulted in them being successful 
in many cases and getting into places that were very difficult. 

         Q    And unsuccessful in many cases.  But let me ask you again, 
more -- as the State Department team that went out to investigate 
suggested, that the United Nations forces be given more robust rules of 
engagement in order to break through, to get the humanitarian aid 
through.  Are there any plans for the United States to support a 
resolution in the Security Council to enable them to get this aid 
through? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Saul, you know that there's already a resolution 
which authorizes them to use all necessary measures, whatever they 
consider the best way to get through.  So I'm not sure that there's any 
new requirement for a new resolution on that score. 

         Q    UNPROFOR forces on the ground, as you're well aware, have 
complained that they do not have enough leeway to break through 
roadblocks or to dislodge roadblocks or to defend themselves -- to 
defend convoys that may be stopped in order to get aid through.  They 
have said this.  People on the ground who have watched it have said 
this.  I'm asking whether there are going to be any more rules of 
engagement so as to implement that resolution that says "all means 
necessary," better than it's been implemented in the past? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not aware of any new resolutions under 
consideration at this point, Saul. 

         Q    There are indications from Belgrade that Mr. Milosevic may 
be having second thoughts about allowing monitors on his border.  Are 
you getting -- I suppose one way to ask this is, what will the U.S. 
recommend if the government in Belgrade says, well, no, I guess we won't 
allow the monitors? The U.N. can pass resolutions until it's blue in the 
face.  If they don't want them there, they're not going to be there. 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Well, I think there are a couple of things to say 
about that.  First of all, we do have ways of monitoring, of 
surveilling, of watching what's going on out there with regard to the 
borders.  One of the purposes of this resolution is to test Mr. 
Milosevic on his word, as to whether he's willing to make good on this 
promise. 

         We have ways of watching that, but it would seem to us that the 
deployment of border monitors would be one way of him showing that he is 
clearly willing to make good on his word. And the rejection of that, I 
think, would be met with an equal judgment that he was not willing to do 
that. 

         Finally, I think the information that we have is that he has 
not yet taken a clear position on the issue of border monitors; that 
there are other Serbian officials and so-called FRY officials who have 
rejected the idea.  Vitaly Churkin is expected to be in Belgrade today.  
We would expect him to raise the issue out there, and that, of course, 
may clarify their views somewhat. 

         Q    Since you have those other means of monitoring the border, 
perhaps you can give us something that is more descriptive than mixed 
results, which is -- what? -- for the last three weeks the State 
Department has been able to say about the border.  Is anything being 
stopped?  Are you seeing a continual flow of some percentage of trucks 
and convoys across the border?  What's the status? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not able to break it down into percentages 
for you.  There is a flow in some areas and sometimes.  There are things 
that are being stopped in other areas at other times. 

         I think you've seen the press reporting on this, you get 
similar reports to what we've seen.  There are reports of border posts 
that are idle at points, at times, and other reports that indicate 
border posts where there's continuing traffic. 

         Q    We had a senior official come by Saturday late in the day 
-- for those who were still in the news room -- and he said their 
performance is unsatisfactory so far. 

         You have these other means, and these other means have lead to 
the conclusion that Milosevic is not fulfilling his promise.  I can't 
quite understand where all this is going.  It seems to me in a circle.  
Now you're going to place monitors if he says they're okay and, egad, 
they may find out that he doesn't intend to live up to his pledge.  What 
is that -- and you will judge him to be untrustworthy.  I don't 
understand what this all is producing except delay. 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Barry, it's producing, first of all, I think more 
pressure on the Serbs to make good on their promise. Second of all, it's 
producing the possibility of monitoring this traffic and ascertaining in 
more detail the level to which it is being respected.  And third of all, 
the presence of monitors should have some deterrent effect over crossing 
the border, and we think that deployment would be useful and ensuring 
that the Bosnian Serbs are cut off from supplies. 

         Q    Will they get to look into the trucks, as the U.S. 
envisages it? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  We envisage that the force should be able to be 
effective.  These details will be planned out.  We're discussing things 
like that with other governments at the U.N. I guess it envisaged that 
the resolution would authorize them. The Secretary General will quickly 
prepare a plan for the implementation of that that would be approved by 
the Council. So many of those details are under discussion and it will 
be set as we move forward. 

         Q    (Inaudible) 

         MR. BOUCHER:  In terms of what? 

         Q    Making the monitoring effective and working out the 
"modalities?" 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Well, the first thing -- those discussions have 
been underway.  We've had some discussions with other governments in the 
U.N.  As I said, we're working on the resolution to do the resolution on 
border monitors and then probably a more complete plan prepared by the 
Secretary General that would be approved by the Council.  So we'll be 
working together with the U.N.  The discussions are underway. 

         Q    Does the United States think that Russians should be able 
to operate as peacekeepers in the safe havens? Apparently, the Muslims 
are concerned that the Russians should not do that unless other Islamic 
countries are able to also act as peacekeepers? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  I think if you look back at the joint statement 
as regards to safe areas, the joint statement which we supported said 
that the -- 

         Q    Encourage other countries to -- 

         MR. BOUCHER:  -- Russian Federation is considering making 
forces available in Bosnia in addition to its forces presently in 
Croatia, and that's a statement that we support. 

         Q    What about the participation of Islamic countries, though?  
Do you think that there should be equal time there? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  I don't think that's the way that UNPROFOR has 
planned the participation of the troops that are involved.  But in the 
end, it's a U.N. and UNPROFOR decision on the composition of that force. 

         Q    You don't think they'll let the Bosnian Muslims have an 
issue or a point? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not familiar with that issue. 

         Q    Richard, can I try just one more time -- and cut it off if 
there's nothing here -- but in Saturday's statements, particularly by 
the President, there was an inference that the safe havens that have 
been agreed to here, or safe areas, are somewhat distinctively different 
from the safe haven idea of just a few weeks ago.  Now, if that's a 
misinterpretation, I'll drop the question. 

         You say the U.N. will work on implementing. "Implementing," to 
me, means enforcing.  But is the idea of what a safe haven is, has that 
changed since Christopher criticized it before Congress as promoting 
"ghettoization?"  Is there a different kind of a haven that you have 
mind? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  I don't know what you had in mind, to begin with, 
I guess is my problem. 

         The Secretary has frequently discussed this, and, as he said to 
you again on Saturday, he's discussed the pros and cons, the pluses and 
minuses. 

         Q    But he left out that he found more minuses than pluses, 
though, a few weeks ago.  When he reviewed his remarks Saturday, he 
happened to leave out that he had come down on the negative side.  But 
be that as it may, there's an inference that the concept has changed.  
Has it changed in any way that we don't perceive yet to make it 
palatable? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Again, I think I'm not quite sure what you're 
referring to as an original concept that might have changed.  The U.N. 
declared safe areas in U.N. resolutions, I think, about the beginning of 
May.  So those declarations are clear.  What the present resolution 
would do is to provide the implementing authority, to provide the rules 
for the implementation of those safe areas and to define them perhaps 
further in the direction of what you're discussing. 

         As far as the concept of safe areas, we've seen the pluses and 
minuses of this.  This is something that the other governments are 
prepared to do, that does have the immediate value of helping stop some 
of the killing.  We're pledged to support, to protect, and, if 
necessary, rescue their forces that might be involved in that. 

         Q    Let's bring it down to an individual level.  Let's take 
the example of a family, let's say, who have been driven out of their 
homes.  Maybe the father has been killed or locked up in one of these 
dreadful camps and tortured; they've lost their house, they've lost all 
their positions, and now they find themselves in a place like Gorazde, 
or one of the others, as refugees with no possessions, no home.  What 
does this plan do for them? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  It provides them with an area where they can be 
safe from further attack and from further deprivations. 

         Q    If it happens that the Serbs decide to disagree with your 
definition of "safe," and loose another salvo of artilleries and mortars 
at them, what does it do for them then? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  The presence, as defined by an upcoming 
resolution -- and therefore I can't tell you exactly its parameters or 
its capabilities -- of the UNPROFOR forces in the area, is designed to 
ensure that that doesn't happen and that the areas maintain safety. 

         Q    To ensure that it doesn't happen.  But let's be straight 
here, that the United States and its allies have decided not to take out 
that artillery and not to lift the embargo against the Muslims so that 
they can better defend themselves. 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Exactly how it would be implemented, as I think I 
told you, is the subject of a discussion that's ongoing right now and 
you will see in a resolution to come.  But I can't define for you its 
precise parameters today, but in a resolution to come you will see the 
Security Council defining how it should implement the declarations to 
make these areas safe. 

         Q    So if that family was sitting before you right now in my 
place, your message to them would be, "Have faith, you will be safe.  Go 
back to your safe haven and relax because it's going to be all right." 

         MR. BOUCHER:  My message would be, Alan, that the United 
Nations Security Council -- we and the other governments there -- first 
of all, several of us, on Saturday declared our intention in different 
ways to support this conference of safe areas and to make it real; that 
we are working right now for the U.N. resolution that will implement 
that concept of safe areas; that this work is actively underway in New 
York; that we expect to see this resolution passed very shortly; that, 
then, we expect to see it implemented; and, that we are going to do the 
things that we declared we would do on Saturday. 

         Q    When you say protect and rescue the U.N. peacekeepers, is 
it still like Saturday, on their request? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Yes, it's still as it was on Saturday. 

         Q    And would an air strike -- would you go to the source to 
protect them, or would you protect them where they're attacked, or do 
you know yet? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Once again, I can't go through all the 
hypothetical scenarios and military options. 

         Q    Well, that was the original notion of -- the President, 
who was running for office, spoke of using military strikes against the 
artillery. 

         I'm wondering if the concept of protecting them is broad enough 
to encompass the military measures that the allies didn't go for? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Barry, I think the statement that we've issued is 
quite clear, but it's as clear as we can be for the moment in terms of 
planning for different military scenarios that might arise. 

         Q    Richard, I was going to ask, can you tell us anything 
about what the United States would like to see in this resolution of 
implementation so as to make it clearer to the Muslims -- who right now 
think that this is a sell-out -- to make it clearer to the Muslims that 
the United States really has their best interest at heart, as the 
Secretary -- what is the United States for?  And what would the United 
States like to see in this implementation resolution? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  We would like to see, as we stated on Saturday, 
along with the other governments involved -- who were the ones who, 
indeed, pledged troops on the ground and who were involved in the 
UNPROFOR forces that will be implementing this -- we would like to see a 
resolution along the lines of what has been proposed by the French and 
others to implement the safe areas concept and to make these areas safe 
and free from further attack. 

         Q    I've asked you what you want to see in order to implement 
it, and you replied that you want to see a resolution to implement it.  
What does that mean, that "implementation?" What are the elements of 
this implementation? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Those specific discussions are still underway, 
Saul, and I can't give you a list of elements at this point. 

         Q    You can't tell us what the United States favors in such a 
resolution? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Once again, those discussions are still underway. 

         Q    Richard, you've got the Foreign Ministers of a third of 
the Security Council agreeing on something. Presumably, those 
discussions are not going very deeply into changes in their agreement, 
are they? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  No, and I said I believe that the statement that 
we issued on Saturday is, indeed, quite clear. But as far as going 
further into different scenarios, it's not something I can do for you at 
this moment. 

         Q    Richard, can I ask -- back on the borders -- these other 
ways that the world community has of monitoring the borders, are you 
saying that those are as good or better than putting monitors on the 
border crossings? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  No, I'm not.  I think the preferred course is the 
one that we've supported, and that's to put monitors on the border with 
the ability to be effective in monitoring what is crossing and, 
hopefully, what is not crossing the border. 

         Q    Can we ask about something else? 

         Q    On an issue that hasn't been visited in some time, can you 
tell us the latest on whether concentration camps still exist in Bosnia 
-- Serbian concentration camps still exist?  How many people are in 
them, and whether they've opened them up as they were directed to by 
U.N. resolutions? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  I don't have new numbers.  There was a release 
about two weeks ago, I think, after some people were detained in the 
fighting around Mostar.  There was a release of some thousand people 
that had been detained in that fighting. 

         The International Red Cross, I think, has continued to try to 
visit various camps around Bosnia.  I'm not aware that they've succeeded 
in any wholesale releases, but they've continued to do that work.  I 
just don't have an update for you. 

         I'll see if we have anything new, Carol. 

         Q    Over the weekend, the Russia and the Cuban governments 
signed a new trade agreement in Havana, and even some of the Russian 
officers hinted to the possibility of making special help plan for Cuba.  
Have you anything on this? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  I wasn't aware of that.  I'll have to check for 
you. 

         Q    What do you know about the protest in Lhasa and the 
crackdown by Chinese authorities in Tibet? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  I hadn't seen anything new on that, Carol.  I'm 
afraid that's something I'll have to check on as well. 

         Q    What about an announcement -- are you going to announce 
two Middle East types going to the Middle East to work on that 
Palestinian-Israeli statement? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  I don't have anything at this point on travel. 

         Q    Mr. Kurtzer and Mr. Miller are not being detailed there? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  I'll have to check on that. 

         Q    Please?  Thanks. 

         Q    Richard, what is the reading that you get from the 
Cambodian voting?  Anything? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Yes.  Over 40 percent of the eligible voters in 
Cambodia cast their votes on May 23, the first day of the election.  The 
turnout on the second day, May 24, was also reported to be heavy.  The 
voting continues through May 28. 

         According to our reports from Cambodia, the mood of the people 
was enthusiastic and purposeful.  Many had walked for miles and lined up 
for hours to cast their ballots in Cambodia's first democratic election 
in decades.  In Phnom Pehn and other populous areas, the turnout was 
around 50 percent or greater. 

         The only major security incident was the detention of two U.N. 
Transitional Authority in Cambodia military personnel by the Khmer Rouge 
in one district in Kampot Province.  The staffers were then later 
released unharmed. 

         The U.N. Transition Authority reports that there are between 
1,400 and 1,500 polling stations.  We applaud the hard work of the U.N. 
personnel in making this election possible despite great difficulties, 
and we also want to express our admiration for the courage and 
determination of the Cambodian people to decide their own political 
future. 

         Q    Besides the detention of the two U.N. people, there have 
been no concerted attempts by the Khmer Rouge or anybody to disrupt the 
process? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  That's the only significant security incident 
that we've heard of. 

         Q    It may be too early to tell, Richard, but so far are we 
satisfied with the conduct of this election? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  I would stick with the readout that I gave you.  
Certainly, any incidents involving the U.N. personnel are of concern to 
us, but I think we're very encouraged by the turnout, by the enthusiasm 
with which the voting is being conducted, and we're very appreciative of 
the U.N. for having made it possible under very difficult circumstances. 

         Q    Are you considering any foreign aid program to Cambodia in 
the process to democratization after the vote, after the general vote? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  After the vote? 

         Q    Or do you have any foreign aid program -- 

         MR. BOUCHER:  We've had humanitarian assistance programs there 
already.  I'm not sure -- there must be more in the Paris Accords, etc., 
about further assistance.  I'm not sure of any specific plans.  I don't 
know about any further details at this point. 

         Q    And one more, please, on North Korea.  You had a second 
preparatory talk with North Korea last Friday.  What are you going to 
solve in the preparatory talk?  In the past, you said that the working-
level talk in Peking was enough to communicate between the United States 
and North Korea with general matters? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  I don't think I have indeed said that much about 
our discussions in Beijing because we've not said very much at all about 
them. 

         We had a second working-level preparatory meeting that took 
place in New York on May 21, on Friday.  Like the first meeting, it was 
at the Office Director level.  Preparations for a higher-level meeting 
in New York are now underway but nothing has been scheduled yet. 

         The goal of such a meeting would be to seek the resolution of 
the nuclear issue as part of the international community's efforts.  I'd 
point out to you that in the last higher-level meeting that we had in 
January 1992, when Under Secretary Kantor met with the Secretary for 
International Affairs of the Korea Worker's Party, that there were 
several preparatory working-level meetings also held for that. 

         Q    So how soon do you expect to have the high level talks? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  At this point, I don't have anything for you on 
arrangements. 

         Q    Richard, some time ago an American citizen, who is, I 
gather, a retired military officer, stated his intention to go to 
Estonia and take up head of the Estonian armed forces.  The State 
Department at that point said, if you do that, we will revoke your 
citizenship.  His name is Colonel Einseln.  He has gone ahead and taken 
up the head of the Estonian armed forces despite the best efforts of the 
State Department, and I'm curious of what is your intention with regard 
to his citizenship to the United States? 

         MR. BOUCHER:  Everything you say is true except for the quote 
of what you say we said at the time.  I think you'd have to look back at 
the record.  It was while we were in Europe, and Mr. Snyder ably 
discussed the issue back here.  So I'd invite you to look at that 
record. 

         Q    So there is no action intended against this American 
citizen because he is -- 

         MR. BOUCHER:  I'll check and see if there has been any further 
determinations on that score, but not that I'm aware of. 

         Q    Thank you. 

         (Press briefing concluded at 1:35 p.m.)
(###)

To the top of this page