930526 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 #76

                 WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 1993, 12:52 P. M.
                (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)


    MR. BOUCHER:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentleman.

          If I could start off, we'll give you a schedule for the 
Secretary's trip to Minnesota tomorrow.  We'll have that available, I 
think, after the briefing.

          If I can just highlight the key events:  He'll begin the trip 
to Minneapolis at Honeywell, Incorporated.  This is a company that's 
been actively involved in Russia for many years.  The Secretary will 
talk to them about the joint ventures that they have out there involving 
aviation, industrial and district heating controls.  During this visit, 
we expect him to emphasize our commitment to assisting U.S. business 
abroad.

          At the University of Minnesota, the Hubert H. Humphrey 
Institute of Public Affairs, he'll deliver a foreign policy address, 
underscoring the importance that he attaches to speaking directly and 
often to the American people about U.S. interests in the world.  And 
you'll find the speech will deal primarily with the historic events -- 
the historic situation that we face these days, the role of U.S. 
leadership, and, in particular, about the situation in Russia and what 
we're doing there as an example of all that.

          At the end of the visit, he'll be visiting the Center for 
Victims of Torture.  This is a center in Minneapolis.  It's the first 
treatment center of its kind in our country and one of only a handful 
worldwide.  It was established in l985 at the initiative of former 
Minnesota Governor Rudy Perpich.  It's dedicated to providing care to 
survivors of politically motivated torture and their families.  I think 
that fits in with the priority the Administration has placed on human 
rights.

          So we'll have that schedule for you at the end of the 
briefing.

          That and the statement that given the trip, given the speech 
and the Qs & As the Secretary will be taking out in Minnesota, we won't 
be doing a regular briefing here tomorrow.

          Those two things conclude my announcements.

          Q    What arrangements will be made for our coverage? Will we 
have an advance text?  Is he taking Q & A?  Are you piping it in?

          MR. BOUCHER:  He is taking Q & A.  We think we'll have an 
advance text for you, and we will pipe it in.  We've got a new gizmo 
that they took out there, and they apparently tested it yesterday and it 
works so we'll be able to pipe it in for you.

          Q    What time, Eastern Daylight Time, is this going to be?

          MR. BOUCHER:  The speech is at noon, Minneapolis time.

          Q    l:00 p.m. our time.

          MR. BOUCHER:  l:00 p.m. our time.

          Q    And the event will be --

          Q    Is there any background material --

          MR. BOUCHER:  There will be Q & A.

          Q    I'm sorry.  Is there any background material available on 
this Center for Victims of Torture, and is there any current policy 
implication to that visit?  For example, have any victims of torture in 
Iraq or Bosnia or whatever, been treated there recently or anything?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I'll see what I can get you on that.  I think 
there are a couple individuals we know he'll see.  I'll see if I can get 
you some information at this point.

          Q    Richard, are you prepared to address yourself to 
suggestions by a senior State Department official about a reduced U.S. 
role in the world?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I'll address it to some extent, George. I think 
you know from the comments the Secretary, himself, made this morning -- 
at the meeting with the Vice President and Department employees -- he 
made very clear his views.  He and the President have made very clear 
their views before.  The Secretary stated point-blank this morning that 
the need for American leadership in the post-Cold War world remains 
undiminished.

          The Secretary and the President have frequently articulated 
our fundamental goals in the direction of our foreign policy.  As 
recently as May 5th, the President, himself, said -- and these are 
quotes -- "As always, we stand ready to defend our interests, working 
with others where possible, and by ourselves where necessary, but 
increasingly in this new era we'll need to work with an array of 
multinational partners, often in new arrangements."

          As the Secretary has often said, U.S. leadership is absolutely 
essential, and we intend to exercise that leadership.  When something 
threatens our vital interests, our strategic interests, we'll act 
unilaterally when necessary.

          As the Secretary also said on television last night, one of 
the requirements of being the world's most prominent power is that we 
use that power wisely and judiciously; and we think the American people 
expect no less.

          Q    Do you know who the official is, and have any steps been 
taken to discipline him?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Alan, we do know who the official is.  We have 
discussed this issue extensively with him.  He agrees, as usual, with 
the statements that the Secretary and the President have made on this 
subject.  And, no, there are no steps being taken to discipline him.

          Q    Well, Richard, may I follow that up?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Yes.

          Q    (Inaudible)

          MR. BOUCHER:  Alan asked if there were any steps being taken 
to discipline him, and the answer is "No."

          Q    It's kind of a neutral statement.  I wonder does the 
Administration -- I mean does the Secretary, the State Department, feel 
any harm was done?  Because we have seen instances in this 
Administration where the Secretary -- I think I could actually say 
welcomed dissenting views, differing views.  You had that from officials 
on Bosnia.  You people were open about what some people were saying to 
you about what the U.S. should do in Bosnia -- which wasn't what the 
U.S. was doing in Bosnia.  Is there a feeling that this type of 
presentation, in fact, contributes to the debate about foreign policy?  
Is it welcomed at all?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Barry, first of all, I wouldn't put these 
comments in the category of dissent.  I was not there.  I have not seen 
the whole transcript or anything like that.  But the Secretary and the 
President have frequently articulated our policy in a very clear and 
precise way on the need for U.S. leadership and their firm intention in 
this Administration of exercising U.S. leadership.

          And again and again, as you look at the facts of what has 
happened and what we've done in situations throughout the world, you see 
that the United States is involved in a leadership role in every single 
instance.

          If the remarks are interpreted to mean that somehow we intend 
to diminish the U.S. leadership role, that is clearly not U.S. policy; 
and I think all we need to do is make that clear. And I think you'll see 
that what we're saying jibes with the facts and jibes with what we said 
before.

          Q    Well, Richard, did the official clear his remarks with 
anyone at the State Department before he made them or was he speaking 
totally on his own as a private individual?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not aware that he even had prepared remarks.  
I think he was speaking off the cuff.  But that comes from people who 
were there; and, as I said, I wasn't there.

          Q    The question is whether he's off the reservation.

          Q    Could you address the second part of my question: Was he 
speaking totally on his own?

          MR. BOUCHER:  To the extent that these remarks are understood 
to convey a diminished U.S. leadership role, they're not U.S. policy.  I 
don't think that's what the official intended, but, in any case, I think 
I've said very clearly that that would not be U.S. policy.

          Q    Richard, are you saying the official said he was taken 
out of context or he was misunderstood?  You said --

          MR. BOUCHER:  No, I'm not.

          Q    -- there have been extensive conversations with him.

          MR. BOUCHER:  I understand.

          Q    Did he say, "This was all misunderstood" or "I was 
misquoted" or "It was taken out of context"?

          MR. BOUCHER:  No.  No, he did not.

          Q    Richard, just for the record, as one who was there and 
looking back at my notes, he didn't talk about a diminution of the U.S. 
role.  He just said it would be different in this more fragmented world.  
That's not terribly different from what Christopher and the White House 
have been saying.

          MR. BOUCHER:  Well, I kind of have that problem, too. But I 
wasn't there.  I don't have notes.  I don't have a transcript of it.

          Q    (Inaudible)

          MR. BOUCHER:  I would appreciate that.  But, in any case, you 
know, I've seen various quotes in the newspapers.

          I think the only thing to be clear on here is that the 
Secretary and the President have been clear on the U.S. leadership role, 
and anybody that has questions about that I think we can answer them.

          Q    Richard, as somebody who also was there, I notice that 
this morning -- you haven't -- but this morning the White House is very, 
very harsh in talking about this official from the White House Press 
Secretary's podium, saying this official does not speak for the 
President and things like that.

          Now, in light of the quotes that you have just cited from the 
President and the Secretary and reading the Secretary's remarks last 
night on the Nightline program, I have to tell you honestly I fail to 
see where there is -- although it's stated a little bit differently -- I 
fail to see where there's any difference between what was said yesterday 
and that is now being disavowed by the White House and what the 
Secretary of State is saying.  Can you point out what the difference is?

          MR. BOUCHER:  No, I can't, because I wasn't at the discussion 
with the senior official on background.

          Richard, as someone who was there, I'd like to read you a 
quote --

          MR. BOUCHER:  You all can do your own --

          Q    No.  I want to get your response to this quote and find 
out if this is U.S. policy.  The senior administration official said 
that we are now living in a world where there are fewer heavy-weight bad 
guys and more middle-weight bad guys. And in those circumstances, he 
said, we simply don't have the leverage.  We don't have the influence.  
We don't have the inclination to use military force.  We certainly don't 
have the money to bring to bear the kind of pressure which will produce 
positive results any time soon.  Is that U.S. policy?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I have never heard the Secretary or the 
President exactly say things that way.  They have said, as the Secretary 
said again yesterday on television, that we need to decide -- we need to 
use our power wisely and judiciously.  We need to decide in different 
instances whether we should act alone, whether we should act 
multilaterally, and to what degree of military commitment we should 
apply to a given situation.

          Q    But Richard, I mean, the Secretary last night, when 
interviewed by Ted Koppel, was laying out when the United States would 
act and under what conditions, and he said, "For example, if somebody 
was invading us, of course we would act alone."  Isn't that drawing the 
line pretty close?  I mean, don't you think that there is some kind of 
--

          MR. BOUCHER:  Mary, he didn't draw the line, he drew an 
example that I think everybody can understand.

          Q    Could you say that he would not get U.N. permission to 
act if the United States were invaded?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I think we have it already in the case of the 
right of self-defense, Alan.

          Q    Richard, you quoted some things the Secretary said, and 
of course there are many, many reams of copy of things that he said.  
Among the other things that he has said a few times at public hearings 
and so on, is that the U.S. can't be the world's policeman, police 
force, I think he said.

          MR. BOUCHER:  Yes.

          Q    You didn't quote that today.  Did you not do that because 
--

          MR. BOUCHER:  If you want me to, I'll be glad to.  I think I 
just quoted the fact that there will be some instances where we choose 
to act unilaterally, some instances where we choose or we have to act 
multilaterally.  Sometimes it is inherent in the nature of a problem, 
such as, for example, Bosnia.  In some cases, there are multilateral 
endeavors where the United States has a unique capability, like the 
airdrops in Bosnia; or where as part of NATO the no-fly zone; or in 
Somalia where we have a surge capacity to bring about a change in the 
situation, and then turned it back into a more multilateral operation.

          So there are always going to be different circumstances, but 
the role of U.S. leadership I think in all of these areas is 
undiminished.  The intention of the Administration to take a leading 
role is undiminished, and the examples that you see around the world of 
what the Administration is doing right now continue to show that the 
United States takes a leading role.

          Q    Richard, just so we go through the entire liturgy of 
incidents like this, does the President and the Secretary still have 
complete faith in this official and in his ability to carry out his job?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Yes.

          Q    Richard, would it be possible -- you know, you say you 
are responding to selected quotes, and you are.  Would it be possible 
for the State Department to take a look at this rather academic 
dissertation delivered in a setting, in a clubby setting of people who 
profess to know a lot about foreign policy, some of them actually 
journalists, and see if the State Department will react to the full 
statement, which was considerably more balanced than maybe the quotes 
you are reacting to.

          It was a philosophical discourse, and like some people here, 
there are quotes that, as Ralph pointed out, there have been quotes of 
the Secretary that point in the very same direction, that the Cold War 
is over and the United States isn't going to go bouncing around the 
world acting as the world's policeman in all instances, but will when 
necessary assert itself.

          Could we have a reaction to what the man said instead of --

          MR. BOUCHER:  Barry, I think, first of all, we don't do 
philosophical exegeses on texts --

          Q    But that's what we got yesterday.

          MR. BOUCHER:  -- and particularly when you have a subject on 
which the Secretary of State and the President of the United States 
have, as Ralph points out, spoken many times where they have defined 
things precisely and clearly, and where even once again today in his 
remarks, the Secretary of State has defined things precisely and 
clearly.

          Anything that might have been said that contradicts those 
remarks or is not in keeping with those remarks is not policy.  Anything 
that is consistent with those remarks is policy, and that's about the 
level of analysis that I would apply to some other text, when you have 
those authoritative ones.

          Q    Richard, you said the facts speak for themselves. The 
official did speak quite factually, and the facts do speak for 
themselves on Bosnia, where the United States had a difference of 
opinion with other allies, and acquiesced to the Russian and the 
European plan on action there.

          There is clearly a greater emphasis -- and this has been 
stated by all officials, the President and the Secretary of State and 
others -- a greater emphasis on a multilateral approach.

          Could you, in that light, restate, please, the United States 
role in NATO which up until now has continued to be effective mainly 
because of U.S. leadership?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I don't think it's precisely necessary for me to 
restate the U.S. role in NATO, given that that has been stated many 
times, and if we have to do a whole litany of the U.S. role of 
everything in the world, I'd be glad to do it for you, but give me a 
chance.

          There is no change.  The U.S. leadership, whether it is in the 
world, in NATO, in a crisis like Bosnia, when it came down to getting 
people together, getting them to agree on further measures, and putting 
together the further measures as we did in Washington last weekend, I 
think you see U.S. leadership in the world -- whether it is in NATO, in 
Somalia, in other crises around the world, exercised in different ways, 
depending on the circumstances.

          Q    Richard, could I ask you a question about Bosnia, if we 
are through with this.

          Q    No, I have just one more.  I would like to make a request 
that this official's remarks, since they are now the subject of a 
briefing here and a briefing at the White House, and denial by the 
President and the Secretary to the extent that they differ, and so 
forth, that they be placed on the record.

          MR. BOUCHER:  I'll see about that, but my problem is we didn't 
have any transcript from our side of it, and I don't quite know what I 
am being asked to put on the record.

          Q    Well, we can provide a tape recording of the session, if 
that would answer --

          MR. BOUCHER:  We'll see if that's necessary.  But once again, 
as we point out, there are volumes of official, clear and precise 
statements on this subject from the Secretary and the President.

          Q    It is difficult for the readers to understand what is 
going on here unless they have, you know, a cast card, to know who is 
speaking and what their office is and I just think it would be in the 
public interest.

          MR. BOUCHER:  Okay.  We'll check.

          Q    Well, in that case, to take the point, is there a sense 
among the senior officials of the State Department that whether you call 
it a changed role or a diminished role or whatever, that we are having 
difficulty in getting our allies to understand and accept the new U.S. 
role in world affairs, which is one of the things that was stated very 
flatly yesterday?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I wouldn't say that, John.

          Q    You wouldn't.

          MR. BOUCHER:  No.

          Q    So he's wrong on that?

          Q    This is a more philosophical question, but since we're 
talking about philosophy, bear with me.  Does Secretary Christopher 
aspire to go down in history as a statesman, and how would you describe 
his world view, his approach -- his sort of approach to the global 
problems around the world?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Well, Elaine, as far as the first, I think 
that's a personal question that you may some day ask the Secretary.  I 
just can't try to answer on his behalf.  The Secretary is a dedicated 
man who's working very hard in his job as Secretary of State, and I 
believe he aspires to do a good job at that.

          As far as his world view, I think he, himself, has described 
it before to you, and I'd invite you to look at the speech he'll give 
tomorrow in Minnesota.  I think that will give you a pretty clear 
picture.  But he has discussed this again and again in specific 
instances and in Congressional testimony.

          Q    What is your response to the reports that Milosevic is 
not now going to accept monitors, and how does this set back the 
agreement that was reached over the weekend?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Did John have the first chain of questions?

          Q    Oh, excuse me, John.

          Q    That's okay.

          Q    I'm sorry.

          MR. BOUCHER:  All right.  We've seen those reports.  We don't, 
at this point, have any more information from Vitaly Churkin who is 
traveling to Belgrade, so we don't know what he said directly.  And, in 
fact, I think we still see the statements coming out as being unclear.  
Milosevic, as far as we know, has not yet stated his position publicly, 
and, as I said, we don't have a readout on Churkin's trip at this point.

          The issue, as we stated it before, is the issue of testing 
Milosevic's word, seeing whether he's willing to do what he said he 
would do.  We do have other ways of keeping track of what's going on 
along the border.  The use of border monitors and more control over the 
traffic between the borders would certainly be an important step forward 
in making it clear that he does intend to do what he said he'd do, and 
that's why we think they're important.

          As you saw in the joint statement on Saturday, the 
responsibility -- the primary responsibility for enforcing the closure 
of the Serbian-Bosnian border rests with Belgrade.  We can assist by 
placing monitors on the border or by providing technical experts or by 
our own surveillance, but this is something that we are following, and 
we think it rests in their hands to make it effective, and it rests in 
their hands to provide the information through the use of monitors to 
the international community to demonstrate that they're making it 
effective.

          Q    Richard, after our somewhat Kafkaesque exchange on the 
meaning of the word "safe," as in "safe havens" or "safe areas," on 
Monday, I went back to an American dictionary, because I couldn't quite 
understand whether you and I were using the word in a different sense.

          For the record, this is the Webster's New World Dictionary, 
and it defines the word "safe" as:  (1) free from damage, danger or 
injury, secure; having escaped danger or injury; unharmed; (2) giving 
protection involving no risk, trustworthy; (3) no longer dangerous, 
unable to cause trouble or damage.  And it also talks about somebody who 
reaches base without being put out.

          Leaving aside the baseball, is that what these havens are 
going to be?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Alan, we all know what "safe" means.  I told you 
on Monday, as we said over the weekend, that we would be working 
promptly at the United Nations to define the role of the UNPROFOR forces 
in these safe areas to make them safe.

          Q    To make who safe?  The UNPROFOR forces or the area?

          MR. BOUCHER:  The areas.  They're called "safe areas." The 
role of the UNPROFOR forces, what they do, is being discussed up at the 
United Nations.  The resolution is being discussed -- let's see, the 
Perm Four plus Spain continued their discussions on it yesterday as well 
as again today.  Discussions continue at the United Nations with other 
members of the Security Council, and we'll continue to work towards a 
resolution that will define -- not the word "safe" -- but define the 
role of UNPROFOR forces in making these areas safe.

          Q    So people living in these areas will actually be safe?  
In other words, there won't be shells raining down on them.  They won't 
be subject to starvation or blockade.  They will actually be secure.

          MR. BOUCHER:  The intention of the previous resolution was to 
declare that they should be safe.  The intention of this resolution is 
to implement that by specifically defining the roles of the UNPROFOR 
forces in doing that.

          Q    And if it turns out that they're not safe, the United 
States and its allies will act to uphold that U.N. Security Council 
Resolution by making them safe, by removing the sources of danger to 
them.

          MR. BOUCHER:  Once again, you're trying to specify an exact 
role for UNPROFOR.  That is what's being discussed up there.  Exactly 
how they will accomplish their mission is something that's being 
discussed and will be defined in the resolution.

          Q    Richard, has the United States, speaking of safe areas, 
given a separate assurance to Canada that Canadian troops will be 
protected by American and Western power as well?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Yes.  We have -- we've always had such 
discussions with the Canadians, but they're part of UNPROFOR as well, 
and our commitment to use air power to try to protect and rescue 
UNPROFOR certainly covers them.

          Q    What was the reason for giving them a separate assurance?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Have we discussed this separately with the 
Canadians?  Yes.  It's essentially the same assurance we gave over the 
weekend.

          Q    How long have they had assurance --

          Q    My question is why are you doing it separately for the 
Canadians?  Is it simply to bring them in and include them in the 
assurances that were given the British and the French?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Maybe I misunderstood the first question:  "Have 
we given a separate assurance to the Canadians?"  We, over time, I mean 
before last Saturday, had a commitment to protect -- to help protect and 
rescue UNPROFOR forces with our air power.  That commitment, I think if 
you look at the language of the joint statement, was reaffirmed or 
reiterated or something like that, and that commitment had been 
previously discussed with the Canadians as well, because they're part of 
UNPROFOR, they're out there, and we've had discussions with the 
Canadians.

          Q    Is that a future commitment or has it existed for weeks, 
months?

          MR. BOUCHER:  It's an existing one.  It's existed for some 
time.

          Q    So there is no new U.S. role in the agreement. There's 
essentially no change.  We've committed ourselves to protect 
peacekeepers and will continue to protect peacekeepers with air power.  
There's nothing new from the United States.

          MR. BOUCHER:  Once again, I'll cite the language of the joint 
statement.  The United States is prepared to meet its commitment to help 
protect UNPROFOR forces in the event that they are attacked and request 
such action.  We're going to keep that commitment.

          Q    Is there anything new the United States is going to be 
doing in this -- under this program?

          MR. BOUCHER:  There are 13 points of things that we're going 
to be doing, Sid.  We're going to be passing the resolutions at the 
United Nations.  We're going to be working with others to define this 
role for UNPROFOR forces.  We've said we would pass a resolution on war 
crimes.  We passed the resolution on war crimes last night, and we've 
said we'd always be working on the resolutions for safe areas.  We are 
working on the resolution for safe areas.  We said we'd also be working 
to do border monitors.  We are doing border monitors.  And I think if 
you look through the list, you'll see all kinds of things that we're 
doing.

          Q    If I may, sir, ask a question about Guatemala. What 
further steps --

          Q    Not yet.

          Q    Not yet?

          Q    One more question on this.

          MR. BOUCHER:  Okay.  When do we expect it to pass?  I don't 
really have a time frame for you.

          Q    (Inaudible) -- week?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Safe areas -- it looks like it will go before 
border monitors.  Border monitors is still being discussed.  Safe areas 
looks like it's a little ahead of it now.

          Q    On the war crimes -- you know Mr. Karadzic has rejected 
--

          MR. BOUCHER:  Hold it.

          Q    On the UNPROFOR, the Muslims have said they won't feel 
safe with Russian troops taking part in this.  What's the U.S. thinking 
about the role of the Russian units in the UNPROFOR?

          MR. BOUCHER:  At this point that's something that will have to 
be discussed and really settled out by UNPROFOR.

          Q    Richard, were similar assurances about U.S. air power, 
rescue and protection given to each separately of the members of the 
UNPROFOR forces in Bosnia?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I don't know which ones of them we might have 
discussed this with before, but clearly they're given to each of the 
forces that will be in safe areas --

          Q    (Inaudible) -- commitment that's being given to the 
individual nations as distinct from a commitment being given to the 
United Nations, which is -- a commitment to the U.N. for whatever forces 
it puts there.  I guess I'm trying to figure out why this is happening 
the way it's happening.

          MR. BOUCHER:  Maybe my first answer set us off on the wrong 
foot.  The situation as I understand it, we discussed this commitment 
with four other governments on Saturday here and put it into a document.  
I thought I was being asked, "Well, Canadians are out there, too, have 
you talked to them about it? Have you given that commitment to them?"  
And I said, "Yes, we have."

          Q    You said there is an existing commitment already. I mean, 
if Canadians came under attack before this resolution is passed, the 
U.S. has a commitment to help protect them or to remove them from 
danger?

          MR. BOUCHER:  In much the same way as we've stated on 
Saturday.  Yes.  On Saturday we -- once again the language is --

          Q    Existing commitment for all the other -- Spanish troops 
and others in Bosnia right now, in addition to Canada?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I don't know exactly which we might have talked 
to and stated that to before, but this makes it clear and a matter of 
record.

          Q    Would you look into the question of -- since the document 
on Saturday talks about reaffirming a U.S. commitment --

          MR. BOUCHER:  Well, I finally found the language.  "The United 
States is prepared to meet its commitment to help protect UNPROFOR 
forces."

          Q    Okay.  Could you just perhaps get us the date on which 
that commitment referred to was made?  This commitment indicates a 
commitment is in existence.  It is prepared to meet a commitment which 
was already in existence on Saturday.

          MR. BOUCHER:  I'll see if there is something like that.  It 
might have been something that, you know, was part of a series of 
discussions that we had at different times with different people.

          Q    Richard, on the war crimes, you know Mr. Karadzic has 
rejected it, saying that it has no force, and he's going to resist it.  
(1) Does that make any difference; and (2) should he set foot in Geneva 
again, for example, would the United States or its allies be prepared to 
do anything about following up its earlier charges that he is one of the 
war criminals referred to?

          MR. BOUCHER:  The tribunal that was established by last 
night's resolution will have to bring indictments and effectively issue 
arrest warrants once they get established.  As far as individuals go, 
that would be the process of identifying them.  At that point it would 
be required of all states to cooperate.  Well, it's required all along, 
but it would be required for all states at that point to cooperate in 
ensuring that those individuals were brought to trial.

          Q    Richard, on that, you may have just answered this, but 
I'm sort of curious as to why 300 people and $30 million for one year of 
war crimes tribunal?  Why does it cost that much and take that many 
people?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I think we've put up a taken question the other 
day that explains some of the numbers.  We felt that they were 
appropriate and adequate.  This is an important process that we have 
supported.  It's something that we have sought for some time.

          I think it was pointed out in the answer the other night that 
there were 1,000 people working at Nuremberg, and we looked at -- I 
think the numbers in this case will be quite smaller than that.  But it 
is important.  It is a major goal of our policy, and we think that it's 
adoption is a major step forward.

          Q    Are we paying top-of-the-line legal fees, or are people 
perhaps willing to contribute some pro bono time here?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Well, the judges -- let me see.  The judges will 
be nominated by the Security Council and elected by the General 
Assembly.  The prosecutor will be appointed by the Security Council upon 
nomination of the Secretary General.  So that's how the process will 
work, and I can't tell you what the fees will be at this point.  That's 
an estimate of approximately $31.2 million per year.  Our assessment -- 
it comes out of regular assessments -- and our assessment rate is 25 
percent.

          Q    Can we go to Guatemala?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Sure.

          Q    Is aid being suspended, for openers?

          MR. BOUCHER:  All U.S. bilateral assistance and cooperation 
with Guatemala, including our participation in international lending is 
now under review.

          Q    What does "under review" mean?

          MR. BOUCHER:  It means it's being looked at again. It's under 
review.

          Q    Is it suspended?

          Q    Do disbursements cease or continue?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Well, I don't know.  I'm going to have to check 
on that.

          Q    Well, the status at this point is U.S. aid is continuing, 
but it's being reviewed.  Is that --

          MR. BOUCHER:  No.  He asked whether it's suspended or 
continuing, and I said that's something I'm going to have to check on.

          Q    Is there any change in U.S. assistance to Guatemala?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Once again, I think that's the same question, 
and I just said I would check.  Okay.  We put out some numbers yesterday 
or the other day.  In Fiscal Year 1992, we provided approximately $47 
million in development and food aid to Guatemala.  Twenty million 
dollars was appropriated for economic support funds for Guatemala.  Of 
this, $10.5 million was not disbursed.  $400,000 was appropriated for 
military training, of which $270,000 was disbursed.  The U.S. provided 
no other military aid to Guatemala.

          Q    The $20 million is part of the $47 million?  I mean, do 
you have a total, or is that separate from the $47 million?

          MR. BOUCHER:  That's separate.

          Q    What about counter-narcotics?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I don't have numbers on that.  I'll have to 
check.

          Q    What about this current year?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Well, I'm coming up short on a lot things here, 
aren't we?  I'm not sure if the numbers are set for this year, but I 
will check on that for you, Jim.

          Q    Could you tell us about the OAS and the Foreign Ministers 
meeting, and so forth?

          MR. BOUCHER:  There was an emergency meeting of the OAS 
Permanent Council yesterday.  They passed a resolution unanimously.  The 
resolution deplores the events in Guatemala; urges the authorities there 
to reinstate democratic institutions and respect for human rights 
immediately; authorizes a special fact-finding mission to Guatemala; and 
calls for a meeting of the OAS Foreign Ministers within ten days, to be 
scheduled next week.

          These actions were taken in accordance with the OAS's 1991 
Declaration of Santiago, which requires an immediate Permanent Council 
meeting and a meeting of Foreign Ministers within ten days in case of an 
interruption of the democratic process of an OAS member state.

          OAS Secretary General Baena Soares will lead a fact-finding 
mission sometime before the meeting of the Foreign Ministers.

          There is also a statement by our Ambassador there, Ambassador 
Hattie Babbitt, and we'll make that available to you.

          Q    That meeting will be --

          MR. BOUCHER:  I don't know at this point exactly where it 
would be.  I think previously when such meetings have been held, they 
have been in Washington.

          Q    Referring to the economic aid, but what further steps is 
the United States considering or is ready to take vis-a-vis the 
situation in Guatemala?  And, secondly, how would you define U.S. policy 
towards the region considering the continued crisis of democracy there?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Our policy towards the region has been defined, 
I think, as very strong support for democracy.  If you look at the 
speech about two weeks ago that Deputy Secretary Wharton delivered on 
our policy, you'll see a fuller, more complete exposition of that.

          The steps that we are taking, we are reviewing the aid program 
and we're working with the OAS members through this mechanism to 
determine what further steps we can take collectively.  The goal, of 
course, is to persuade President Serrano to reverse the steps that he 
has taken.

          Q    Do you have any response from the Guatemala authorities?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I don't know of any specific response at this 
point.  Obviously, we've made our position pretty clear in public as 
well.

          Q    You think he's a free agent, as some reports are 
indicating that he's basically doing this because the military has, in 
effect, ordered him to do it?

          MR. BOUCHER:  That's not something I could analyze for you, 
John.  It seems to me that the support for democracy and the need to 
maintain democratic institution applies to whoever is doing it and for 
whatever reason.

          Q    Any travel by the Assistant Secretary of State in 
connection with this matter?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Not that I'm aware of at this point.

          Q    (Inaudible)

          MR. BOUCHER:  Bernie Aronson.

          Q    Watson still hasn't been sworn in?

          MR. BOUCHER:  That's right.

          Q    Richard, a year or so ago, in a very similar situation in 
Peru -- I may be wrong -- but it seems like the next day, you or 
Margaret (Tutwiler) or whoever it was at the time, came out and 
announced that we were suspending aid to Peru.  And yet --

          MR. BOUCHER:  No.  As a matter of fact, Sid, that memory just 
occurred to me as well.  That day I came out and said aid was under 
review, and people asked me, "What does that mean?  Does that mean it's 
suspended," and I didn't get you an answer until 7:00 in the evening.

          Q    And what was the answer?

          MR. BOUCHER:  So here I am doing it again.  I'll try to do 
better this evening.  I hadn't learned anything but maybe I can do 
better on the answer.

          Q    Suspended military aid (inaudible) humanitarian aid --

          MR. BOUCHER:  What it meant at the time?

          Q    At the time of the meeting was it suspended or not?

          MR. BOUCHER:  It was.  There were different categories.  Some 
were suspended, some weren't.

          Q    So with Peru, we suspended it that day, the next day, as 
you just said.

          MR. BOUCHER:  Once again, Sid, we did put out the answer at 
7:00 that evening, so I'm sure the answer is still available, and it was 
some aid was suspended and some wasn't.

          Q    Would it be accurate to say that -- even if you don't 
like it -- in the course of the current fiscal year the United States 
has provided $270 million worth of training for military personnel whom 
President Serrano is relying on now to conduct his dissolution of 
democratic institutions?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Well, no, it wouldn't, Ralph.  I don't like it, 
but I'd also tell you why it's not accurate.  It's not accurate because 
that was Fiscal Year 1992.  The second is, I can't tell you who the 
individuals were that were trained, and I don't know whether President 
Serrano is relying on them or not.

          Q    The fact that the date -- the training, obviously, is 
something -- I presume that the U.S. engages in training which has 
benefits that go beyond the fiscal year in which the troops are --

          MR. BOUCHER:  You asked me if what you said was accurate; I 
said it was not.

          Q    Two hundred seventy thousand --

          MR. BOUCHER:  It was $270,000 for military training.

          Q    What is being done about Guatemala's GSP or CBI status?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not aware of any change in that one. I'll 
have to check.

          Q    Is that under review, or you don't know?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I'll have to check.

          Q    Richard, another subject.  Did you have any reaction to 
the release of the Chinese dissident, Xu Wenli?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Yes.  We welcome the news that Xu Wenli has been 
released from prison.  Xu's case has figured prominently in our own 
human rights dialogue with the Chinese. He was one of several prisoners 
of conscience that Assistant Secretary Winston Lord raised with Chinese 
officials during his recent visit to Beijing.

          Xu served 12 years of a 15-year sentence for his role in 
advocating democracy during the Democracy Wall period of 1978-81.  We 
will continue to urge China to release all those, like Xu, who were 
detained solely for a peaceful expression of their political or 
religious views.

          Q    How many people were on the list that Lord took with him, 
and how many of them released?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I don't know, John.  I'll see if I can get that 
for you.

          Q    This is viewed by some people as sort of a cynical 
Chinese ploy on the eve of the decision of MFN.  Would you like to 
respond to that observation of their motivation?

          MR. BOUCHER:  You'll have to ask the Chinese about their 
motivations.  Certainly, we felt that this individual should be 
released.  There have been other individuals released over the past 
several months, but we've made clear, in public and in private, our view 
that all those who are detained for a peaceful expression of their views 
should, indeed, be released.

          Q    What impact is this liable to have on the MFN discussions 
and ultimate decision?

          MR. BOUCHER:  At this point, I don't think I can preview for 
you what impact it might have.  Certainly, human rights is a key area.  
We've said that there has been some progress, but that there is much 
more to be done.

          Q    Is it the U.S. view that the Chinese have kept their 
promise to comply with the Missile Technology Control Regime?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I think that's something that either we will 
address in the coming days or that I should get you something on it.

          Q    On the human rights and freedom of speech, do you have a 
view on Boutros-Ghali's decision not to allow a Chinese dissident to use 
the press facility in the U.N. headquarters?

          MR. BOUCHER:  We do have a view, and that view is expressed by 
our Ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine Albright.  She called 
both the Chinese Ambassador and the Secretary General to ask that they 
reverse their decision.  They did not agree.

          Q    Another subject?  Do you have any reaction on the 
rejection of the Nagorno-Karabakh peace plan, which Turkey, United 
States and Russia is supporting?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I hadn't seen that.  I'll have to check on that.

          Q    Yesterday, in southern Turkey, more than 30 Turkish 
soldiers and civilians were killed by PKK terrorists. Do you have 
anything on that?

          MR. BOUCHER:  As you say, on May 24, the PKK ambushed a group 
of Turkish soldiers in Bingol Province in eastern Turkey. According to 
press reports, 33 soldiers and two civilians were killed; six soldiers 
were injured in the attack.

          We condemn this brutal act of terrorism by the PKK. This 
savage action ends the two-month long cease-fire initiated by the PKK in 
southeastern Turkey and appears to be intended as a provocation to stop 
the process of political accommodation which the Turkish Government has 
been considering.

          It's particularly unfortunate that this act came only hours 
after the Turkish Government voted to offer amnesty to some PKK members.

          As we've said many times in the past, the long-term solution 
to the problems in southeastern Turkey must be found through political, 
not military means.

          Q    Speaking of that region, do you have anything new on the 
situation in northern Iraq?

          MR. BOUCHER:  No, there's nothing new there.

          Q    Thank you.

          MR. BOUCHER:  No, we have a few more.  We have one there, one 
there, and one there.

          Q    Do you have any information about the incident in Rafha, 
Saudi Arabia, regarding the Iraqi refugees?  I think this occurred in 
March, the disturbance there?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Is this something new or is this something old?

          Q    It's something old, but it just came out in the news a 
few days ago.  There was a disturbance in Rafha, in one of their 
facilities for Iraqi refugees.  A number of people were killed and 
injured.

          MR. BOUCHER:  I don't know exactly what and when you're 
referring to, but I'd suggest you might want to get in touch with either 
-- well, probably with the Saudi authorities on that.

          Q    Richard, do you have any fresh comment on the Cambodian 
election?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Yes, we do.  Cambodia:  The election is 
underway.  It will conclude on May 28.

          According to U.N. officials, an estimated 85 percent of the 
registered voters had turned out as of May 25.  The U.N. Transitional 
Authority has said "The election marks a great success," and we would 
agree with that assessment.

          Mary.

          Q    Just to get back to Bosnia for a minute.  You know 
there's been these reports that NATO countries, that some NATO countries 
have expressed unhappiness with the plan agreed upon between the United 
States and Russia, Great Britain, and France and Spain.  Is there a 
sense of disappointment in the Administration that somehow some of the 
allies do not understand this plan, or this plan is being 
mischaracterized?  Do you feel that people don't understand what this 
plan is trying to accomplish?  Because, as you know, there's been severe 
criticism in Congress, now from NATO members, from Muslim countries, 
from non-aligned nations at the Security Council.  How do you explain 
this?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Well, Mary, I think first of all I just plain 
don't agree with your premise.  The Secretary --

          Q    (Inaudible).

          MR. BOUCHER:  No, there has been some criticism.  We've seen 
statements supporting it.  We've seen statements from various 
governments, not only the governments involved, but other people like 
the Italian Foreign Minister praising it. We've seen statements from 
people in the Congress in support of what we're doing.  We've said that 
these steps are important. These are steps that we think are important 
to take right now.

          We haven't, I think, tried to oversell it at the same time.  
So it's something that we've been discussing with other governments.  
We've been in touch with a variety of governments in different ways, 
both through our embassies and we've talked to Ambassadors here.  We've 
seen a fair number of statements of support.  I think, in the end, the 
test of whether there is support for these steps and these actions will 
be whether we can actually carry them out.  You're seeing them being 
taken up at the United Nations with the War Crimes resolution.  You're 
seeing discussions go on.  The NATO Defense Ministers have been 
discussing it, and I think we're moving forward on other resolutions.

          Q    Richard, will those discussions go on next month in 
Luxembourg with the Secretary meeting with other Foreign Ministers 
there, like June 9 or 8?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not quite ready to announce the Secretary's 
trip yet, but he certainly will be going to the NATO meeting in Athens.  
It's already scheduled, and I would expect that Bosnia will be a serious 
subject of discussion.

          Q    He's going to stop in Luxembourg before Athens?

          MR. BOUCHER:  Let me avoid announcing specific stops on that 
trip at this point.

          Q    Going back, to follow up on Mary's question, one test 
would be that extra troops would be required to protect the safe havens, 
and the recent NATO meeting it emerged that nobody is quite willing to 
come up with the extra troops?

          MR. BOUCHER:  I don't think you can say that, Howard. The 
process that's going on at the United Nations is to define the UNPROFOR 
role.  UNPROFOR and the troop-contributing countries will have to decide 
how many troops are necessary.  I don't think that there was any 
pledging going on at the NATO meeting, nor was any expected.

          Q    Thank you.

          (Press briefing concluded at 1:39 p.m.)
(###)

To the top of this page