Note: This Electronic Research Collection is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the
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.)
(###)