Note: This Electronic Research Collection is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #75
TUESDAY, MAY 25, 1993, 12:51 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The first
thing I'd like to do, I think, is to call your attention to some of the
statements that we got out yesterday, one of which was late in the
evening; but there had been so many questions about it, we decided it
was worth doing anyway.
We put out a statement yesterday about $30 million that we
provided to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees to continue their
programs for people in Bosnia who need their assistance very badly.
Second of all, we put out a statement yesterday evening, which
I think we faxed out to most of you, on the meetings that we're going to
have with the North Koreans in New York next Wednesday. That's also
available for you.
Third, let me do some administrative things, and one statement
on Guatemala. The Secretary's speech in Minneapolis on Thursday, the
event will now be held in the Ted Mann Concert Hall, Ferguson Hall,
University of Minnesota Campus. It was previously scheduled for the
Hubert H. Humphrey Institute atrium. So the location of that has been
changed. The telephone contact numbers are the same, and we'll put them
in the piece of paper that we put out on this.
Second, as you may have seen the Department notice, but on
Wednesday, Vice President Gore will visit the State Department. Vice
President Gore and Secretary Christopher will host a Town Hall Meeting
on the Reinventing Government Initiative, National Performance Review on
Wednesday, May 26, from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. in the Dean Acheson
Auditorium.
All Department employees are invited to attend the Town Hall
Meeting. The Secretary and Vice President will discuss steps the
Department of State can take to improve its operation as part of
President Clinton's Reinventing Government Initiative.
Vice President Gore and Secretary Christopher will also be
asking employees to provide examples of problems and to propose
solutions.
Members of the press are welcome to cover the Town Hall Meeting
with Department employees. Seating for all attending will be on a
first-come, first-served basis. Everyone should be seated no later than
9:45 a.m. Cameras can begin setting up about 7:30 a.m. in the Dean
Acheson Auditorium. Cameras and photographers must be escorted when
moving around in the Dean Acheson.
Q Will there be closed-circuit television?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes. It'll be on the B-Net system, the internal
system.
Q Will that be Q & A -- from whom? Or will there be
presentations?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, from both. The Vice President and the
Secretary will be asking employees for their ideas and asking them to
comment on things, and there also will be questions and proposals from
the floor.
Q And the floor is open to only government workers?
MR. BOUCHER: To State Department employees. It's a meeting
with State Department employees. You can be witnesses. But at this
point, we're not asking for your ideas on reinventing the State
Department.
Q It's not really a Town Hall Meeting. It's not open to the
American people, in general; it's open to government workers in this
agency, is really what it is, right?
MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, it's a Town Hall-style meeting with people
from this town, which happens to be the State Department.
Johanna.
Q Richard, on next Wednesday's trip to New York, is that a
day trip? Do you anticipate adding other bilaterals?
MR. BOUCHER: Excuse me?
Q Didn't you say earlier that the Secretary would be meeting
with the North Koreans in New York next Wednesday?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I didn't. I said we've put up a statement
about the meeting with the North Koreans, which is going to be Bob
Gallucci, on June 2. We've agreed with the Democratic -- I'll read the
whole thing just to give you the facts.
The U.S. and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
officials have agreed that the U.S.-North Korean talks would begin on
Wednesday, June 2. The U.S. delegation will be led by Robert L.
Gallucci, Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs.
The DPRK delegation will be led by First Vice Foreign Minister Kang Sok
Chu. The talks will be held in New York at the United States Mission to
the United Nations.
Q Out of curiosity, when was that posted?
MR. BOUCHER: It was about 7:15, or something like that.
Q What's the purpose of the meeting?
MR. BOUCHER: The purpose of the meeting is to discuss,
specifically, the nuclear issue. Our goals in the meeting will be to
seek a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula by obtaining the DPRK's commitment
to remain in the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, to carry out its
obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and to fully
implement the North-South de-nuclearization declaration.
Q Who requested it?
MR. BOUCHER: It was a meeting arranged by mutual convenience
over the course of discussions that we've held in the last few weeks.
Q Your announcement said -- you're talking about it now as a
meeting, but your announcement says its talks are to begin on June 2.
So you're talking about a process of some sort, are you not?
MR. BOUCHER: The discussions will begin on June 2. I'm not
sure at this point whether we know whether they'll be one day or two.
I'll check on that and see if that's the implication.
Q And on a related matter, do you have any comment to make
on the reported North Korean overture for a summit meeting between the
leaders of North and South Korea?
MR. BOUCHER: I hadn't seen that.
Q There was a meeting last year at the Under Secretary
level, so this is not the highest level meeting?
MR. BOUCHER: That's right. There was a meeting on January 22,
1992, with then Under Secretary for Political Affairs Arnold Kantor,
with -- I don't remember the North Korean gentleman's title; Kim Young
Sun was the name -- but an equivalent rank from the North Korean side.
Guatemala: First of all, for your own purposes, I'd tell you
that the White House is also doing a statement on this subject, but
we're watching the events down there closely and I wanted to tell you
what's going on.
The United States is disappointed over the events this morning
in Guatemala. It's a clear interruption of the democratic process that
demands the immediate attention of the Inter-American Community. There
is no justification for resorting to non-democratic means to resolve
Guatemala's problems.
We understand that Guatemalan President Serrano has announced
that he was acting under Transitional Article 21 of the Guatemalan
Constitution to suspend the Guatemalan Congress, Supreme Court, and
Constitutional Court and to ask the Electoral Tribunal to call elections
within two months for a constituent assembly.
Some military elements have deployed in Guatemala City and have
surrounded the houses of the President of Congress and the Human Rights
Ombudsman.
Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs Bernard Aronson
has telephoned President Serrano this morning to make clear our strong
opposition and urged him to reverse these steps. We are in touch with
the Organization of American States, the United Nations, and the
governments in the region to urge them to help persuade President
Serrano not to proceed along the lines that he has announced.
If these steps are not reversed, the United States will press
for an emergency meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the OAS under the
Santiago Declaration. OAS Secretary General Baena Soares informed
Assistant Secretary Aronson he would call for a meeting of the Permanent
Council of the OAS immediately. That's the first step in the Santiago
process.
And with that, I'd be glad to take your questions.
Q Where does the Santiago process take them?
MR. BOUCHER: Where does it take us?
Q Yeah. What does that mean?
MR. BOUCHER: It's the process -- I think Santiago is where the
OAS made a declaration on the importance of democracy to the region and
the steps that we can take to ensure that it was maintained. And so
they have established a procedure that they can follow to try to resolve
issues of democracy.
Q If they don't reverse it, then the OAS is going to hold a
meeting and wring their hands; is that --
MR. BOUCHER: John, I think there's a whole variety of things
that the OAS could decide to do, the first step of which is having a
meeting.
Q Does the U.S. think that the response, the hemisphere's
response to the situation in Peru -- I think it was last year, but I
could be wrong about when that was -- set a tone or an example, or
whatever, that allowed President Serrano to make the move he made this
morning?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I could undertake that kind of
analysis. I think you would have to say that the hemisphere has acted
in all these cases to try to work towards the restoration of democracy.
In whatever case you cite, I think the hemisphere has been united in
that, and that continues to be the case.
Q Richard, what's the aid situation between the United
States and Guatemala? I seem to remember some suspension recently.
MR. BOUCHER: The aid situation is, I'm sorry, but once again I
forgot to ask, and I'll get that for you later.
Q There already is an OAS Foreign Ministers meeting
scheduled for Managua on June 6.
MR. BOUCHER: The 6th, something like that.
Q Is it possible that that will be the venue at which the
Guatemala situation will be taken up?
MR. BOUCHER: This may be something that they want to deal with
more rapidly. I think I told you that Baena Soares had told us that he
was willing to call for a meeting of the Permanent Council immediately.
That would be the first step in the process.
Q Will that take place here, do you know?
MR. BOUCHER: The Permanent Council would take place here, yes.
Q Is the Secretary planning to attend in Managua?
MR. BOUCHER: No.
Q Is the United States -- this is switching the subject. Is
the United States running into some difficulty on the safe haven
resolution up at the U.N.? It sounds as though not only are there
disputes between the French and the United States in exactly how heavy
the troops would go in but also some discrepancies as to whether or not
various folks on the Security Council will even vote for it.
MR. BOUCHER: John, we're working three things currently up at
the United Nations. We're working a War Crimes Tribunal resolution,
we're working the safe areas resolution, we're working the border
monitors resolution. It appears that the safe areas and the border
monitors resolutions will come after the War Crimes Resolution -- just
the way things are working up there. And at this point, actually, some
of the governments have asked for a little more time to think about the
War Crimes Resolution.
But we are continuing to work these things up in New York. The
joint action plan that was approved by the five Foreign Ministers on
Saturday said we would work together at the United Nations to secure the
early adoption of a Security Council resolution on safe areas.
On Monday, representatives of the five nations met informally
at the U.N. to discuss a draft French resolution on the subject of safe
areas. Of course, the exact text of that resolution is under discussion
at the United Nations and the specific terms are to be defined, working
especially with those who have troops in the area.
In general, I think we've expressed our support in the
statement on Saturday for the concept of safe areas. In general, we are
supportive of an expanded UNPROFOR role, and we'll have to see how the
text works out.
Q Richard, yesterday you said that it was unclear what
Milosevic's attitude to monitors was. Has that cleared up in any way
today, because I have the impression that he's not really enthusiastic
about it.
MR. BOUCHER: I'm sure he hasn't expressed any enthusiasm
because that would be clear position. But at this point, he has not
taken a clear position on the issue of border monitors. As you know,
there have been others who have said they reject it. We don't yet have
an official readout of the trip by the Russian envoy, Vitaly Churkin,
who was to discuss these things in Belgrade, I think yesterday.
Q You're saying you remain hopeful that, in fact, those
border monitors will be able to go in?
MR. BOUCHER: We continue to work at the United Nations on the
border monitors resolution. We think that's important to authorize it
and to express the desire and the will of the Security Council on that
matter.
We would hope that Milosevic would cooperate. We continue to
look for him to effectively make the statement that he is true to his
word and he's willing to have it tested.
Johanna.
Q For several days now you've been predicting the passage
today or soon of the War Crimes resolution, and I'm just wondering if
you can say a little bit more about whose got cold feet or what the
objections are?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm afraid if we would look back at my batting
average for predicting the passage of U.N. resolutions, it's probably
pretty low. So I'd say I'm being consistent in that respect.
At the informal session yesterday, the non-aligned members made
it clear that they wish to discuss further the War Crimes Tribunal
resolution. It's not clear exactly how long those consultations will
continue.
My understanding is that no one has a particular problem with
the text. They just want to discuss the -- I don't know. They want to
consider it further before they go to a vote.
Q Do I take it from your earlier answer on safe havens or
safe areas that you don't want to discuss the differences that the U.S.
has with some of its other partners, in terms of how heavy the force on
the ground should be and precisely what role the U.S. air cover ought to
play?
MR. BOUCHER: Our discussions with the other countries up there
-- and obviously especially with the other governments who have troops
in the area, who will be in these safe haven areas -- are proceeding.
We said that we would work for the early adoption of the resolution;
and, indeed, on Monday we had a meeting with them to discuss it. There
is a draft in play. It's being discussed. It will be worked, it will
define the specific terms; and as this process works out, I don't think
it would be helpful for me to discuss it here.
As for the U.S. role, we made a commitment on Saturday, as the
Secretary said and as it says in the Joint Action Plan, we made a
commitment to help protect or rescue the UNPROFOR forces in the events
they're attacked and request such an action. We'll use our air power to
fulfill this role when requested.
Our military planning will have to be done in coordination with
our allies. And, clearly, those plans can't be made final until the
Security Council has defined the posture for the UNPROFOR forces in and
around the safe areas.
Q What if the U.S. troops -- or what if the French troops,
for example, on the ground -- or Canadian or whomever -- come under
attack and they don't want to be rescued; they want air cover to
suppress the fire which is coming down upon them? That's a difference in
the way the U.S. has expressed its desired role and the way the French
are expressing what they desire of the U.S.
MR. BOUCHER: John, the specific arrangements for the UNPROFOR
forces are going to be worked out in this resolution, what their role
will be. It's premature, really, to speculate on one scenario or the
other. But I would point out that our commitment is to help protect or
rescue these forces in the event that they should be attacked and
request such action.
Q Is there any consideration being given by the U.S. to
protecting or rescuing anyone else, other than the UNPROFOR forces, in
the safe zones, such as those who need protection, the residents of the
area?
MR. BOUCHER: The commitment that we made is to the UNPROFOR
forces, and in turn their role in helping protect these safe areas is
what will be more specifically defined in the U.N. resolution.
Q So the answer is the U.S. is not considering any of the --
protecting anyone else? The U.S. is only considering the commitment it
made on Saturday.
MR. BOUCHER: The commitment we made on Saturday is the
commitment we've made.
Q Richard, could we talk about China Most-Favored-Nation
status and also the rioting in Tibet? I mean, before -- this is going
to go on for about another hour on Bosnia. Is it possible to switch
topics and then come back to Bosnia?
MR. BOUCHER: It depends on your colleagues. It's fine with
me.
Q Go for it.
Q All right. He said, "Go for it," Ralph said. Thank you,
Ralph.
MR. BOUCHER: O.K. Ralph said, "Go for it."
Q Thank you, Ralph.
Q Well?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, O.K. Thank you.
Q The Most-Favored-Nation status in Bosnia -- I'm sorry --
China and rioting in Tibet. Thank you.
MR. BOUCHER: O.K. On MFN for China. We've not reached a
final decision on this issue. As the Secretary has made quite clear,
we'll consult closely with the Congress before we do so. President
Clinton has made his position on China clear. He recognizes the
importance of China. However, the President has also said he believes
that China must adhere to international obligations and standards in the
areas of human rights, non-proliferation and trade.
We are consulting with Congress on China's MFN status. Today,
Assistant Secretary Lord is briefing the House Foreign Affairs and Ways
and Means Committees in closed session on the results of his trip to
Asia, including the issue of China's MFN status.
We'll be talking with other committees and individual members
in the coming days.
Q Could you give us some insight as to how the
Administration plans to make its announcement on this subject? There's a
concrete deadline that applies. Will the Administration wait up to the
last minute to make its announcement, or do you have any feel for how
its going to do this?
MR. BOUCHER: Just to say that I think always in the past those
announcements were made out of the White House, and you can check with
them.
Q If conditional status is granted, can it be revoked before
the year's up if human rights violations continue?
MR. BOUCHER: Let's wait and see what it says in whatever
announcement we might eventually make.
Q Do you have anything on the rioting in Tibet?
MR. BOUCHER: We are following the situation with our Embassy
in Beijing and our Consulate in Chengdu. What we understand is as
follows: On May 24, Tibetans marched through Lhasa to protest the
recent price increases in basic staple goods.
These protests were initially peaceful and police did not
interfere. By the end of the day, however, the crowd had swelled to
more than 1,000 and a confrontation with the police ensued, with the
police reportedly using tear gas.
There have been reports of gun fire by police and of arrests of
protesters. At this point, we have no confirmation of serious injuries
to either police or protesters or of extensive detentions.
At least five or six foreign tourists were detained for several
hours in conjunction with the protest and later confined to their hotel
rooms. We believe that one of these tourists was an American, and we
have formally asked the government authorities in Tibet for information
about this American, including current whereabouts.
Our Deputy Chief of Mission in Beijing today met with a Foreign
Ministry official to express our concerns about the developments in
Tibet.
Q And one third one on the area: Does the State Department
have any evidence that Chinese or Taiwanese or Hong Kong gangs are
behind these groups of Chinese who have been brought over to the United
States and dumped?
MR. BOUCHER: I think we have talked in previous times about
groups that were intercepted on the high seas or which we had knowledge
of ourselves. I think for this latest thing in San Francisco the INS
might be a better source of information on that.
Q Richard, on the meeting that took place at which the
Deputy Chief of Mission expressed U.S. concern about the events in
Tibet, did the Deputy Chief of Mission mention or did he need to mention
the impending decision here in Washington on MFN, or were the two events
not related?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know whether it was mentioned in any
specific terms. Obviously, the Chinese are well aware of the impending
decisions we have to make on MFN.
Q I guess I should ask, does the Administration -- will the
Administration take into account that aspect of Chinese human rights
practices as it comes down to the wire here on the MFN issue?
MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, I think -- I don't want to get too far,
too specific in terms of the elements that have to be considered,
because those will be expressed in whatever statement or announcement we
might do. But I think we made clear that human rights, trade and non-
proliferation are the key concerns we have as regards China. We would
hope that we can work with China. We would hope that China would meet
the international standards in these regards, and that obviously we've
been concerned about Tibet as a human rights situation for some time.
Q Haiti -- has there been a development there, a rebuff to
the patient diplomacy of the United States?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, the first thing to say, I think, is
naturally we would have hoped that we could have accomplished more on
this most recent trip. The United Nations and OAS Special Envoy Dante
Caputo and our Special Adviser on Haiti, Ambassador Lawrence Pezzullo,
were just down there.
Our goal remains a negotiated settlement of the crisis and the
return of President Aristide to his legitimate authority. We in the
international community have worked hard to come up with a plan to
address the security concerns that have been raised by parties in Haiti.
We're disappointed that the parties in Haiti have not been
willing to take the responsibility for accepting such a plan. We'll be
consulting with the United Nations, the OAS and the international
community on what our next steps should be. These consultations will
include the possibility of toughened sanctions against Haiti.
Q Does that mean it's the end of the road for this process?
You're talking about tougher sanctions.
MR. BOUCHER: We'll be consulting with other members of the
community on what our next steps should be. Clearly, we continue to
support the efforts that Dante Caputo is making, and I'll leave it for
him to describe the exact status of his efforts. But I think after
we've had some discussions with some of the other members, we can tell
you more about next steps.
Q Richard, can we go to the Middle East? Can you confirm --
Q One more question on Haiti.
MR. BOUCHER: One more on Haiti.
Q You said you're disappointed that the parties didn't go
along with this proposal. Who are the parties that you're referring to?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, the people that are in various positions of
authority down in Haiti at this point.
Q So why didn't you say the government? I mean, isn't it
their call?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, the Government of Haiti is the government
of President Aristide. I think we usually refer to them as the de facto
authorities down there, frankly.
Q Richard, can you confirm reports from the Middle East that
the United States invited Palestinian representatives to Washington to
discuss next steps in the peace process, including the joint statement?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't at this point. We've been keeping in
touch with the parties. Nothing specific for you.
Q O.K. Different part of the Middle East. Yesterday the
Secretary warned Iraq not to attack the Kurds in the north, and yet on
the same day the Iraqis were in essence reviving their claims to Kuwait.
There were articles in the Iraqi press written by officials, threatening
Kuwait and in fact reviving the claim to Kuwait as part of Iraq. Any
reaction to that?
MR. BOUCHER: I think yesterday I was asked, apart from what
was going on in the north, were there any other areas of concern, and I
gave quite a long list of them, which included their continuing refusal
to accept the results of the Iraqi-Kuwait border demarcation commission.
And, yes, indeed there were some more specific statements of that ilk
yesterday from them, and that is certainly something that flies in the
face of the U.N. resolutions, and we've been pressing very strongly for
the full and complete implementation of all the U.N. resolutions.
Q (Multiple questions)
Q Still on Iraq --
Q Yes. That's what I want, too.
Q Have you noticed any change since yesterday in the
situation in the north or in Iraq's apparent intention as a result of
deployments or movements or anything of that sort?
MR. BOUCHER: No.
Q There was a report --
MR. BOUCHER: There has been no change.
Q But there was a report that Secretary Christopher told
some reporter that, yes, there is evidence of massing. I don't know
where that came from, but I heard it on CNN.
MR. BOUCHER: Don't believe everything you hear. We can give
you the transcript of what he said yesterday, and you can check it.
Q No, no. But this was supposed to be today, according to
what he "told a reporter." So has he said that, yes, there is evidence
of massing?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure he -- he has not said anything
beyond the comments he made yesterday on it.
Q Is there anything on reports of Iranian jets attacking
Iraqi bases or --
MR. BOUCHER: Yes. What we know on that is the following:
Iranian warplanes attacked two guerrilla bases associated with the
Mojahedin el-Khalq inside Iraq near the Iraqi city of Jalula. J-a-l-u-
l-a. The U.S. believes that both parties should abide by the United
Nations Security Council Resolution 598, which was the basis for the
cease-fire in the Iran-Iraq war.
We call on both states to abide by all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions.
Q And what's the status of Iranian jets if they should fly
over the "no-fly" zones?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm sorry?
Q What would the status be of Iranian jets, should they be
flatly caught flying in an area of the "no-fly" zone?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I'm not sure exactly where the city of
Jalula is, first of all, but the "no-fly" zone is a "no-fly" zone. But,
even more than that, they've agreed to the cease-fire arrangement. We
think they should respect it.
Q Coming back to Bosnia for a second, if that's all right.
Your comment about the U.S. support for the expanded UNPROFOR role, can
you be more specific about what you mean by "expanded UNPROFOR role"?
Are you talking about covering a wider area involving a larger number of
troops, involving heavier equipment but staying in the same smaller
area? Can you be more -- what do you mean by "expanded"?
MR. BOUCHER: Those are the sort of details that will be
defined in our discussions with the others involved and in particular,
as I said, with the countries who will have the troops out there.
The expanded role would be in terms of the kind of mandate that
we're working on now at the United Nations along with the other
countries up there -- an expanding role in ensuring the safe areas
remain safe.
Q Ensuring the safe areas that have been previously
designated by the U.N. remain safe, is that correct?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes. That's my understanding of the way the
resolution's working at this point.
Q So when you refer to "expanded role," in the U.S. view
that does not involve expanding the number or location of safe areas.
You're talking about an expanded role within those same areas.
MR. BOUCHER: Obviously, that's something the Council could
consider. My understanding of the discussions at this point, that the
new resolutions being discussed is to define the role of the UNPROFOR
forces in the safe areas that have already been designated by the
Security Council; and to define that role in an expanded fashion that
makes it possible for them to maintain the safety of those areas.
Q Richard, to clarify that, the six areas which are named in
the statement on Saturday -- that included Sarajevo, I believe -- had
they been previously designated by the Security Council?
MR. BOUCHER: Resolution 824 of May 6.
Q And so you don't want to spell out what the U.S. thinks
the expanded role ought to be at this point?
MR. BOUCHER: At this point that's something that's under
discussion up at the United Nations, and we're going to take the novel
position of deciding to discuss our views with the other countries
involved before we discuss them with you.
Q Last week I think you said something about the border
monitors being required to be effective. Do you have any further
definition of that at this point?
MR. BOUCHER: No. That's something that we are indeed
discussing with other members of the Council. I think yesterday or
previously I've discussed the way that resolution would work,
effectively authorizing the dispatch of border monitors but asking the
Secretary General or the U.N. to prepare a plan that would then be
reviewed and accepted by the Security Council.
Q I'm sorry, one more thing. It's a small thing. I may
have missed -- I think you said it before, but I may have missed it.
Have you received a kind of a readout, or whatever, from Churkin's talk
with Milosevic?
MR. BOUCHER: No, we haven't.
Q Some of the NATO allies, apparently, have been criticizing
the five-nation agreement worked out on Saturday. Have they contacted
the U.S. with their complaints?
MR. BOUCHER: I haven't done a rundown of different countries
and governments. We've certainly been watching the international
reaction, particularly in the public area, and we have been in touch
with other governments. We've had some briefings for Embassies here.
We've sent out the Joint Action Plan to our Embassies for them to go and
discuss the action plan with other governments.
As you know, we think that these are important and useful
steps. These are steps that can indeed save lives, that can help
confine the conflict, and that can increase the pressure on the Serbs
towards a negotiated settlement, and we think they're worth taking, and
that's the position that we'll be taking.
Q How do you answer criticism from some of these fairly
close allies that they weren't even consulted?
MR. BOUCHER: We did talk to a variety of governments, but I
hadn't seen any particular complaints, frankly, about countries that
said they weren't consulted.
Q I'm sorry, still on that one: There was an interesting
little by-play occurring yesterday when Christopher met Juppe, the
French Foreign Minister. The French Foreign Minister had just finished
publicly calling on the United States to put ground troops in the safe
areas, and then in -- my question basically is, did they discuss that
issue in the meeting, do you know, because the photo op occurs before
the meeting, so we don't know at that time whether it would be
discussed. Can you tell us whether that issue was discussed or brought
up?
MR. BOUCHER: That's something I would have to check on. I'm
sure they discussed the Bosnian situation and the next steps that we'd
take in terms of moving forward on the plan of action that they'd agreed
to on Saturday.
Q Could you look into whether the specific question --
whether the French raised with the U.S. the specific question of
contributing U.S. troops to the safe areas -- whether they raised it
again yesterday, and, if so, was the Secretary's response consistent
with his response publicly in the photo op? I presume it was.
MR. BOUCHER: I presume it was as well, if the question came
up. I'll check and see if I can get you that.
Q Thank you.
MR. BOUCHER: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:22 p.m.)
(###)