Note: This Electronic Research Collection is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #78
TUESDAY, JUNE l, l993, l2:35 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I have
one announcement and that is of the Secretary's upcoming trip to Europe.
Surprise, surprise.
Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, will travel to Europe
from June 8 to 14, l993. The Secretary will visit Luxembourg on June 9
for a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the European Community. This
Ministerial is one of a series of regular consultations called for in
the 1990 U.S.-EC Declaration. Before his EC meeting, the Secretary will
meet with Government of Luxembourg officials.
On June l0 and ll, the Secretary will participate in the
Ministerial meeting of NATO's North Atlantic Council, and a Ministerial
meeting of NATO's North Atlantic Cooperation Council in Athens, Greece.
While in Athens, the Secretary will also meet with key officials of the
Government of Greece.
On June l2 and l3, the Secretary will be Ankara and Istanbul
for bilateral consultations with the Government of Turkey.
On June l4, the Secretary will visit Vienna, Austria, to
deliver a speech to the U.N. World Conference on Human Rights before
returning to Washington that evening. While in Vienna, the Secretary
will engage in bilateral consultations with the Government of Austria,
and meet with officials of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in
Europe.
The sign-up sheet will go up now and it will come down at noon
tomorrow.
All right, that's all I have to announce. I'll be glad to
take your questions.
Q No questions on that subject, could --
Q You didn't mention Bosnia when you spoke of the Foreign
Ministers of the EC. Do you know if that's on the agenda?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I mentioned what specifically is
on the agenda for any of these meetings. Obviously Bosnia will be a key
topic to discuss with the Europeans as he goes through these whole
series of meetings.
Q No plan to add anything at the end, Richard?
MR. BOUCHER: At this point, that's where the schedule stands.
Coming back on the l4th.
Q Richard, do you have anything to say about your hopes and
aspirations for the meeting in New York tomorrow with the North Koreans?
MR. BOUCHER: First the facts and then we'll get to the hopes
and aspirations.
The facts are, as we announced last week, that the U.S. and
the Democratic People's Republic of North Korean officials have agreed
that U.S.-DPRK talks would begin on Wednesday, June 2. Obviously, in
preparing for this we remain in close touch with a number of others,
especially our South Korean allies.
The U.S. delegation will be led by Robert L. Gallucci, the
Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs. The North
Korean delegation will be led by First Vice Foreign Minister Kang Sok
Chu.
The talks will be in New York at the U.S. Mission to the
United Nations. They are scheduled to start at l0:00 a.m.
Our goal in the talks will be to seek a nuclear-free Korean
Peninsula by achieving North Korea's commitment to three things: One,
to remain in the Non-Proliferation Treaty; two, to carry out its
obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency; and three, to
fully implement the North/South Denuclearization Declaration.
Gallucci will press the North Koreans to abide by these
commitments as we consider, along with others in the international
community, what further steps to take to get North Korea to reverse its
decisions.
Unless and until they are prepared to abide by their
commitments, we should not expect a lessening of the pressure of the
international community on this subject.
Q A technical question. When is the waiting period up
before the formal decision to leave the NPT takes effect?
MR. BOUCHER: It was 90 days, and I think it comes up about
June 12.
Q The other day, Gallucci talked about the possibility of
the United States making some concessions. He didn't become any -- he
didn't get any more specific than that. But, for example, would the
United States be prepared to suspend military maneuvers with the South
Koreans?
MR. BOUCHER: Jim, I don't think it's useful to speculate on
things like that because the first goal, and the most important goal, of
the meetings is to get the North Koreans to reverse the decisions that
they have taken. And unless and until they are prepared to abide by
their previous commitments to the international community, you shouldn't
expect anything in the way of lessening of the pressure from nations
such as ours.
Q Is it an accurate description, as reported in The New
York Times today, that under the suggestion of the Chinese the United
States is softening its position with the North Koreans on this?
MR. BOUCHER: I think I just made very clear that the goals
are to get them to abide by the three separate commitments that they
have made: To reverse their decisions to withdraw from the NPT; to
reverse their refusal to cooperate with the IAEA on the special
inspections; and to get them to fully implement the North-South
Denuclearization Declaration.
So those have been our goals all along, and we are working
with others in the international community. We have indeed been in
touch with the Chinese. But the goal of this meeting is the same as the
goal with all the efforts that the international community is
undertaking, and that's to get them to reverse their decisions.
Q So, Richard, this is no bargaining session?
Q Are they going to continue -- is it envisioned that these
talks will continue for some period of time, or resume -- you know,
suspend and resume?
MR. BOUCHER: At this point, the only meeting that is
scheduled is one for June 2. I think the significant point of this is
to try to reach a resolution of these issues, and to do that as soon as
possible. But there is only one meeting scheduled at this point.
Q Richard, this is not a bargaining session. There will be
no quid pro quo?
MR. BOUCHER: Sid, this will be a discussion. I've told you
very clearly what our goals are in the discussions. I said that
Gallucci will press to have them abide by their commitments. I don't
think I should characterize it in any other way.
Q Richard, you have only discussed the U.S. goals in this
meeting, and obviously the other side would have some goals of its own.
I'm sure you will refer us to them for their view of it, but if the
other side has goals, some of which are widely known, such as improving
or establishing international trade relations with the cooperation of
the United States and perhaps even establishing some kind of working
relationship with the United States, is the U.S. prepared to discuss
those kinds of topics at this meeting, as well? I'm not asking whether
the U.S. will agree to them or anything like that, but are you prepared
to go into those talks to discuss North Korea's place in the
international trading community and its place in relationship with the
United States?
MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, we are having a discussion, and certainly
the other side will be interested in raising things, and I'm sure we'll
be prepared to respond to things like that. But I think the main point
for us remains you shouldn't expect anything to happen unless they are
willing to agree to abide by their commitments.
Q What do you expect to happen if they do as you wish --
abide by those commitments at this meeting?
MR. BOUCHER: At this point, I don't think I'm prepared to
make any predictions.
Q Then what kind of policy do you have in mind if the three
conditions North Korea do not want to solve?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, as I said, you shouldn't expect any
lessening of the pressures from the international community. And,
granted it is hypothetical, but the international community would have
to consider what further measures are necessary.
Q But you mentioned that -- you have some next step policy
to do with North Korea if you failed to persuade North Korea to return
to NPT and the other two things. What is the next step policy if North
Korea is adamant to do their own nuclear policy?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I mean, once again, I don't think I can
get too far ahead of this meeting. We are going to have this meeting.
We are going to press them to abide by their commitments.
I think you should see our efforts as part of the efforts of
the overall international community. These are efforts that we are
making, but they coincide with the efforts that the United Nations
Security Council has mandated, that the IAEA is making, and that other
governments are making as well.
So, it's part of that overall process, and depending on what
happens either way in this meeting the international community would
then have to consider what further steps it needs to take.
Q This will be strictly a bilateral meeting, won't it, or
will there be others?
MR. BOUCHER: That's right. No, it's just us.
Q Richard, one of the things that the North Koreans have
been pushing for is "a high-level dialogue." Is this what both sides
mean by a high-level dialogue-- an Assistant Secretary of State-- or if
there is some give, will this be followed by the next step up the ranks?
MR. BOUCHER: I can't do any more "ifs" on this one, Jim.
This is a higher level meeting than the meetings that we have been
having previously. Normal meetings are at political counselor level in
Beijing. This is a higher-level meeting.
Q Did they express any --
MR. BOUCHER: Over there.
Q Next Sunday, there are going to be presidential elections
in Bolivia.
MR. BOUCHER: Why don't you hold on, and we'll finish with
Korea first, okay.
Q Did the North Korean side express some dissatisfaction
that the representative of the United States delegation is not the
Deputy Secretary as last year, Kantor, and this time --
MR. BOUCHER: I think that would be something that you would
have to ask them. The arrangements are set in the way they are. They
agreed to this meeting.
Q You did not get any satisfaction from the North Korean
side?
MR. BOUCHER: All I can say is they agreed to this meeting at
this level.
Q Can you help us to figure out what the benchmark is for
these talks? Does the U.S. expect, or would you expect, North Korea to
issue some sort of public statement reversing its decision? Or would
you simply expect an invitation, let's say to the IAEA inspectors? Or
is there some benchmark you can lay down as to what it is the U.S. would
like to see to fulfill the goals you have outlined?
MR. BOUCHER: We would like to see them withdraw their
decision to withdraw -- reverse their decisions on this; to invite the
IAEA in for the inspections, the special inspections that were mandated;
and to pursue fully with the South Koreans the denuclearization issue.
How exactly they would do that, I don't think is something
that necessarily needs to be specified right now at this point, but I
guess I would go back to putting this meeting not as a stand-alone
meeting but as part of the overall efforts of the international
community to get them to do those things.
Q Who will be representing the North Koreans, do you know?
What rank?
MR. BOUCHER: I think I just told you, it's the First Vice
Foreign Minister, Kang Sok Chu.
Q Next Sunday, there are going to be presidential elections
in Bolivia, and some sources told us that one of the candidates has a
United States passport that makes him unable to be a candidate in
Bolivia.
And we have requested from the Freedom of Information Act
office information about that. They told us on the phone that there is
no record, but we were asking for a written statement and they don't
want to give us -- I don't know why. Do you know anything about that?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know anything about this. I'm sorry.
Q Do you have any comment on the ousting of the federal
president of Serbia and Montenegro?
MR. BOUCHER: No particular comment. We don't think that it
would indicate any serious change in Serbia's policies-- unlikely to
have any serious effect on that.
Q What do you expect from discussions in the Security
Council this coming week?
MR. BOUCHER: Where are we in the Security Council? We are
working with other governments up at the Security Council on a
resolution to implement the Safe Areas Resolution, Resolution 824. We
are active in those discussions with other members of the Council. We
will discuss a French draft of the Safe Areas Resolution at an informal
session today, and there are obviously other meetings going on between
Council members.
The Secretary General released on Friday a working paper on
the safe areas concept. It outlined some of the issues that the Council
must decide in order to implement the Resolution 824. We are studying
that paper closely.
Q There was some unhappiness with that paper expressed by
the British and the French. You say you are studying it closely. Are
you unhappy with it, too -- he found fault with the whole concept of
safe havens?
MR. BOUCHER: Mary, it's not a public document as far as I
know, at this point. It's something that we are looking at. It's
something where he discussed various concepts and force levels and
different things that had to be addressed by the Council. So I'm not
sure it's something to say yea or nay on. It's something -- it's a
concept paper, ideas that he thinks need to be considered as we go
forward.
Q The British and French said he had gone beyond the
factual presentation.
MR. BOUCHER: I didn't see their statements. I'm not going to
characterize his paper from our side.
Q The Secretary indicated that he thought the Safe Haven
Resolution might be ready for action by mid-week this week. Is that
still the U.S. view?
MR. BOUCHER: We would still hope so. We would like to see it
as soon as possible. I can't really predict the timing.
Q And is "mid-week" tomorrow or some time later than that?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, mid-week would be tomorrow. I think the
Secretary said we hoped to see it by then. We certainly continue to
hope to see it. We are working actively on this, but I can't really
give you precise timing at this point.
Q Richard, technically the Security Council already
declared the six areas to be safe havens, without enforcement mechanism.
That doesn't seem to have carried great weight. I'm not quite sure how
you characterize shells coming into a soccer field in the capital if you
call the area a safe haven.
Do you believe that simply passing a resolution with the
threat of action but not followed-up with much in terms of direct
military action or additional forces will, on its face, alter the
situation?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, Terry, I think the shelling that we have
seen over the weekend, and the upsurge in fighting around Sarajevo and
Goradze, indicate the urgent need of implementing the measures that we
proposed along with four other governments in the Joint Action Program
about a week ago.
That contained a whole series of measures, many of which we're
already in the process of carrying out, but several of which involved
new United Nations resolutions. We've got the resolution on war crimes.
This next resolution is one that is to implement the safe areas concept
and to make it an actual situation on the ground, to make it -- to
realize it in terms of what happens on the ground. It's one component
of the Joint Action Program. We are proceeding forward on all the
components of the Joint Action Program, and we do think that the
continued fighting points out very clearly why this kind of
implementation is necessary.
Q Can you say specifically how the safe havens, as
envisioned by the United States, would have protected those people at
the soccer field or any of the others who have been hit in Goradze or
other places?
MR. BOUCHER: Saul, the precise terms of the resolution are
still being worked out. Exactly how the forces that would be in the
safe area would prevent such attacks -- exactly how they would make it
safe -- is the subject of an active discussion with other members of the
Security Council, and that process continues.
Q What I asked is: How does the United States envisioning
the safe havens thing, helping protect those people? As far as I know,
the United States would be opposed to taking any action against people
lobbing shells over the head of the U.N. peacekeepers into soccer
fields.
If that's incorrect, could you correct me as to what the
United States view is on how safe havens would have protected those
people at the soccer field?
MR. BOUCHER: Saul, we announced a Joint Action Program about
ten days ago that described a number of steps that we would take,
together with other governments, to stop the killing, to prevent the
conflict from spreading, and to bring pressure on the parties to reach a
political settlement.
Exactly how a response to a given mortar shelling would take
place under the Safe Areas Resolution is something that is being worked
out. But we have described all along, in terms of this particular
resolution, the need to implement it, the need to provide a military
presence in the safe areas that would make them truly safe, and that's
what we are doing.
Q And I asked you, and I am going to ask you a third time,
and probably the last I would ask, can you say why -- how the United
States believes it could -- safe havens would work to protect such
people as those killed on the soccer field?
I know what the Joint Action Plan said. We are all familiar
with that. But I am pressing to find out how the United States would go
about protecting those people, the Bosnian citizens, from attack if the
safe havens plan is passed.
MR. BOUCHER: Saul, you are essentially asking me for the
details of what's going to be in this resolution.
Q I'm asking you what the United States favors to be in the
safe havens plan that would protect those people.
MR. BOUCHER: Saul, you are essentially asking me what it will
say in the Safe Areas Resolution in terms of how you deal with a
specific threat. Should they shoot back at some guy that fires a
mortar? Should they go capture him? Should they negotiate with him?
Should they bomb them from the air?
That kind of language, those kinds of terms of how to make the
safe areas safe are being discussed up at the United Nations. And as I
think I told you last week, we think it is better for us to discuss this
and work it out with the others who will be involved before we try to
lay out a specific detailed scenario for you here.
Q Let me ask you, just finally, this: As with the safe
havens plan, once it is passed, as the United States is planning to get
it resolved, would that have protected the people at the soccer field
and other such places?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I can't promise you that it
would. It has not been worked out yet. The exact terms of what the
forces in the safe areas will do has not been worked out; and I can't
promise you that, on one or the other specific attack that's already
occurred, that it would or would not have done that. That's sort of
doubly hypothetical.
But in any case, the resolution is being worked out; and those
kind of rules, those kind of terms for the presence of the foreign
forces in the safe areas, are being worked out. We're an active part of
that process, and we'll be discussing it with the others up in New York.
Q Richard, the Bosnian Muslim government says it does not
accept the safe haven idea. What is the practical effect of their
opposition to it? Do they have it within their power to make this thing
unworkable, or does it really matter what they think?
MR. BOUCHER: Barrie, we think the safe areas, as you know,
have a lot of pros and cons. We've discussed that before -- the
Secretary has discussed that before. We think they can help stop the
killing. We have had some discussions with the Bosnian Government at
this point. I think you've in seen in public their reaction; but we do
think it's a concept that's worth moving forward with, and we would hope
that they would accept that view.
Q And if they don't?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure what the final analysis would be on
that, but we think it is something worth moving forward on. We're
prepared to move forward on it and we are moving forward on it. We hope
that others would be prepared to do that as well.
Q One over here with Johanna.
Q I just wonder if you have, in fact, a situation on the
ground, some details about the soccer match, incident?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any details of that. The fighting,
in general, I guess is on the -- well, it goes up and down.
Sarajevo came under heavy attack from the Bosnian Serbs over
the weekend. The Old Town and the Centar, Dobrinja and Vogosca
Districts were shelled by Bosnian Serb artillery. The city was
relatively quiet this morning, however. I'm not sure if the shelling, I
think, of the stadium -- that was yesterday or today. I don't know.
There was heavy fighting over the weekend and today around
Gorazde in eastern Bosnia where the Bosnian Serbs have reportedly broken
through outer defense lines.
Fighting continued around Maglaj in north central Bosnia.
Fighting was also reported around Olovo and south of Tuzla in
northeastern Bosnia. Mostar was generally quiet.
In Croatia, there were artillery rounds exchanged by Croatian
Serb and Croatian Government forces over the weekend around Zadar and
Biograd on the Dalmatian coast and around Gospic, north of Zadar.
Q Could I also ask for an update on your surveillance of
the borders, and your assessment at the moment about how much if
anything is getting through?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any new assessment today. I think
when we last looked at it late last week there were, indeed, some
restrictions that had been placed on traffic across the border,
including some cut-off in things like petroleum supplies, but it was by
no means an effective cut-off. There was much more that remained to be
done.
Q One more. It is entirely possible that the shells that
reigned on the soccer match in Sarajevo were fresh supplies?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know what shells they were or where they
came from.
Q Richard, just to follow up on the border question. Where
do you stand now with the whole question of border monitors and
Milosevic's position on that?
MR. BOUCHER: The resolution is being worked on up in New
York. Again, I don't have any specific prediction of when it can be
passed. It's under consideration by the Security Council.
Q But what about Milosevic's position on this? There were
reports, as you know, that he has decided that he's not going to allow
this.
MR. BOUCHER: There were, indeed, such reports. I think we've
made clear our position that first of all, this resolution is a test of
the willingness of Milosevic to meet the standards that he himself has
set for a cut-off; that having promised to do this, he should be willing
to allow it to be monitored.
As you note from the joint action program -- and you'll see in
the resolution as it moves forward -- that primary responsibility for
making this effective lies with Milosevic. He's the one that promised to
cut it off and he's the one who should be cutting it off.
Q Richard, a follow up on an earlier question. The United
States has committed itself to protecting the UNPROFOR troops at the
safe areas. Can you specify what kind of a threat or attack against the
UNPROFOR troops would trigger a United States reaction?
MR. BOUCHER: Once again, this gets into the kind of detail
that you might see in the resolution, the kind of detail that obviously
lies in the hands of the military planners. At this point, I really
can't get ahead of the status of the resolution, which is that we're
working it out.
Q Richard, would you tell us, is there trouble working it
out?
MR. BOUCHER: David had a question.
Q Where do you stand on getting other countries to offer
troops to this expanded UNPROFOR force in the safe havens?
MR. BOUCHER: That is something that the U.N. and UNPROFOR
would take care of. I'm not aware of any new commitments.
Q What are the old ones?
MR. BOUCHER: There are a number of countries that already
have troops with UNPROFOR.
Q So when you say "new commitments," beyond the ones that
are already serving there, no country has yet come forward and said it's
willing to provide additional troops?
MR. BOUCHER: I guess I'm not certain of that, David. There
are countries, many countries that already have forces in UNPROFOR.
There have been a number of countries that have indicated they're
willing to put ground troops into safe areas to help protect them.
The U.N. is currently working on, shall we say, the
arrangements, the plan, to implement that to help protect the safe
areas. And obviously, how that plan is decided would, in part,
determine how many troops you need and then what further troops they
might need beyond what they have now.
Q Are we still talking about an increase of a couple
thousand here --
MR. BOUCHER: I've seen those numbers bandied about. But at
this point, without knowing exactly what the troops -- what the presence
needs to be -- how big and how large or small a presence it needs to be
and knowing exactly what the role of the forces there would be it's hard
to speculate.
Q Richard, just to follow up on that. Is it safe to say
that the whole concept of these safe areas has run into trouble in the
Security Council? Or are the discussions underway what you would
describe as purely technical discussions about a mandate role, how it
all works? Or are we talking about a conceptual problem with members of
the Security Council opposed to the idea of these safe areas?
MR. BOUCHER: Mary, there are different views in the Security
Council about how this resolution should work, and we're in the process
of working them out. I don't think I want to characterize too broadly
what the different views are. There are different levels of views in
different countries.
Q Richard, is the Secretary of Defense speaking for the
Administration when he said over the weekend that the Vance-Owen plan --
not the process -- was still active and the best bet for improving the
situation in Bosnia?
MR. BOUCHER: I didn't see those remarks, Sid, or see exactly
what he said. Obviously, we've said before we felt there needed to be a
process for a negotiated settlement, and we felt the Vance-Owen plan was
something that could be built upon.
Q Richard, going back to something you said earlier, I
think you said something like the U.S. is prepared to move forward with
this safe haven proposal at the U.N. and you hoped that other countries
would be prepared to move forward with it as well. In what
respect is the United States prepared to move forward with it? Beyond
voting for it at the U.N., and if it ever comes into being, providing
protection for UNPROFOR forces? Is there any other respect in which the
U.S. is prepared "to move forward" on the safe haven plan?
MR. BOUCHER: You're saying, "Apart from everything you're
doing, are you going to do anything else?"
Q Apart from voting for it --
MR. BOUCHER: We have made clear --
Q -- and doing something that doesn't exist until the safe
havens go into effect?
MR. BOUCHER: We have made clear what our role, what we would
expect our role to be and that is one to help work out and support a
U.N. Security Council resolution on the subject; and, second, to provide
protection and rescue for UNPROFOR forces in the safe havens if they
should need it and request it.
Q Is there any U.S. discussion at the U.N.? Is the U.S.
participating in the discussion of defining the size of the safe havens,
or defining the numbers of troops who ought to be in it, or talking
about what equipment they might have, or who might provide it? Is the
U.S. participating in any of that since the U.S. has not indicated a
willingness to contribute to those aspects of it?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, yes.
Q It is?
MR. BOUCHER: We're participating in the specific discussions
of what goes in the resolution and what it means.
Q Does the U.S. feel it has adequate weight in that
discussion -- telling other countries how many troops to put in and so
on and so forth?
MR. BOUCHER: Once again, Ralph, I think in terms of defining
the safe areas concept, it's something that we've supported, that we've
discussed all along with the countries who came to Washington to agree
on the joint action program. It's something that we're discussing at
the United Nations, with the other governments up there. We're
involved.
Q Richard, where is Bartholomew these days, and what is he
doing? And, also, I may have missed this last week, the new Ambassador
to Bosnia was -- the U.S. Ambassador was sworn in, I guess, last week.
What are his plans?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll check on both of them. I haven't checked
on where they are. Bartholomew has been around. He's been keeping in
touch with the parties. He's been participating in the planning and the
discussions that we have going on here in Washington.
Q Is he participating in that Security Council discussion
about technical details of the safe havens?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think he's up in New York. I think
Madeleine Albright has been handling that.
Steve.
Q On another subject. Any reaction --
Q One final on this -- on the Balkans, please. Have
American plans for Macedonia jelled in any way since you last addressed
it?
MR. BOUCHER: Nothing new on that at this point, Mark.
Q Any reaction to the decision by the government in Kiev to
put off verification of START I and NPT?
MR. BOUCHER: I saw some wires on that. It wasn't clear -- I
think it was parliamentarians talking about it -- it wasn't clear
exactly whether that was a firm timetable or what. Let me check further
on it and get back to you later.
Q Richard, do you have any reaction about neo-Nazis killing
of the five Turkish immigrants in Germany?
MR. BOUCHER: This is something, obviously, that we follow,
that we watch. We have expressed our concern about the latest incident
of right-wing violence as well as our support for the strong measures
being taken by the German Government to bring those responsible for
justice. The German authorities have decided to handle this as a
federal case and have already arrested a suspect.
As in the past, we've encouraged Germany to continue its
efforts to counter right-wing extremism by all available means.
German officials, including Chancellor Kohl, have expressed
their own outrage at the Solingen incident. Foreign Minister Kinkel and
Interior Minister Seiters will represent the German Federal Government
at funeral services for the victims this Thursday.
Q Do you have anything else to say about the incident?
MR. BOUCHER: I think -- we've expressed our outrage at it.
We think it's awful. It's something we're concerned about and something
we've discussed with the German Government. We think that they are
indeed taking strong measures to try to counter this kind of right-wing
violence.
Q Do you also have any comments about the Cyprus meeting
which restarts today in New York?
MR. BOUCHER: No, nothing specific on that.
Q Richard, the U.N. says that it's going to have to
withdraw the last of its monitors in northern Iraq who are helping with
the Kurds because of lack of financing -- that they'll have to be
withdrawn, I think they said, by the end of June if they don't get more
financing.
Is the U.S. actively involved in this at all, in coming up
with anymore money, or are you looking --
MR. BOUCHER: I think this is something that we've addressed
in the last two weeks. I don't know if they've made any new statements
today; but it's something that we have indeed addressed in the last two
weeks. We've been trying to work with other governments to get more
money to support the guards.
My latest information was that they had enough to keep the 186
guards there through the end of June.
Q They said that by the end of June they're withdrawing all
of them.
MR. BOUCHER: Okay. Well we're still working on making sure
they can have enough money to keep them there for a longer term.
Q Do you feel confident you're going to be able to come up
with that?
MR. BOUCHER: I think we've been working hard. We've gotten
-- some of the original discussions two weeks ago was that they have to
pull out right away, so we've gotten some money for them and we're
continuing to work on it. I think we can do it, yes.
Q Has the U.S. made a decision about how much additional
money it will provide to keep that going?
MR. BOUCHER: The money, I think, is coming out of the frozen
assets. You'll remember, there was a resolution that provided for
borrowing from Iraqi frozen assets by different countries. I think
we've already transferred a significant amount of what we could. I'm
not sure if there's more that can be transferred from the United States
or not.
But to a great extent, we're working with other governments to
make sure that they use this authority to provide the wherewithal for
these U.N. programs to continue.
Q Staying on Iraq a minute. Anything new on the American?
Is he still --
MR. BOUCHER: No, I have to check on that. I haven't heard
anything on it.
Q And what about the FBI's investigation of the
assassination attempt?
MR. BOUCHER: Go ask the FBI.
Q Richard, on Haiti: What does the U.S. Government think
is the next step now? There seems to be a fair amount of pessimism,
including from Mr. Caputo, about what actions have been exhausted and
what actions remain to be dealt with.
MR. BOUCHER: Let me get you something on that, Ralph.
Q Sorry, just the same region, same hemisphere --
Guatemala: Do you have an update on the U.S. view of the situation
there? What ought to happen next?
MR. BOUCHER: They ought to restore democracy and restore
constitutional government. Let me give you a little more on what's
going on down there and what we're doing to achieve that.
The city remains relatively calm. There are some
demonstrations against President Serrano's actions that took place over
the weekend without incident. Some newspapers have begun to publish
under censorship and some are defying the censorship.
Constitutional rights, including freedom of arrest without
warrant, unreasonable search and seizure, freedom of expression and
freedom of assembly for political meetings remain suspended.
We're continuing to urge the return of constitutional
government by peaceful, legal and constitutional means.
We hope that Guatemala's political leaders will work together
to bring about a return to democracy. It's for Guatemalans to work out
the means by which that goal can be achieved.
The measures that we announced last week remain in effect.
New measures, such as ending Guatemala's trade benefits under the GSP
system, remain under consideration.
The OAS Foreign Ministers will meet in Washington on Thursday
to consider the situation in Guatemala. Secretary Christopher and
Deputy Secretary Wharton will represent the United States at that
meeting.
Q What about our Ambassador? Ms. McAfee was just
confirmed, if I recall correctly. Is she going to go down there, or is
she being held up there?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I'll have to check on that, John.
Q Richard, did the Administration over the weekend let it
be known to potential leaders in Cambodia that they would not recognize
a government that included the Khmer Rouge?
MR. BOUCHER: Sid, what we've said -- and I think we issued a
statement on this on Saturday -- is that we would pledge -- in advance,
on Saturday -- we said the U.S. is prepared now, before the results of
the elections are known, to announce its intention to recognize the
results of the polls should the U.N. certify the electoral process is
free and fair.
We have made clear, I think, as far as back as the Paris
accords, that as a signatory of the Paris accords we're committed to
recognize the government that emerges from free and fair elections. So
that continues to be the path that we're following.
The U.N. officials in Cambodia have announced, today, in fact,
that with 60 percent of the vote counted, Funcinpec -- that's the party
led by Prince Sihanouk's son, Prince Ranariddh -- leads with 42.3
percent. The Cambodian People's Party is second with 37.2 percent. U.N.
officials continue to count the ballots and expect to have the final
tally by early next week.
The U.N. reports that more than 4.2 million Cambodians, or 89
percent of the registered voters, cast ballots.
The U.N. has certified that the voting was free and fair. U.N.
officials will make a statement as to whether the election process, as a
whole, was free and fair after all the votes have been tabulated.
The U.N. will address any allegations of irregularities in the
voting. But we understand that a number of international observers have
also reported that the balloting was free and fair.
Q Just to clarify, the Administration will recognize a
coalition that includes representatives of a group that by any standards
are guilty of genocide?
MR. BOUCHER: Sid, you know the whole point of this effort
that the United Nations has been undertaking there has been to move from
the battlefield to the ballot boxes, we once said. The whole point is
to get people to lay down their arms and stop the killing and to engage
in a political process that's done freely and fairly and peacefully.
That remains the point.
I've given you the direction in which it appears the results
are heading. Granted, that's only 60 percent. But we have urged all
the Cambodian parties to respect the outcome of the elections, provided
the U.N. certifies them as free and fair, and we are pledged ourselves
to recognize the outcome of a free and fair election.
There'll be a new constituent assembly that would begin
drafting a new constitution and would take steps to form a new
government shortly after the final results of the election are known.
After the adoption of a new constitution, the new government should be
formed and the assembly is expected to become the National Assembly for
the new government.
Q Have we sent congratulations for the successful voting
procedure to Sihanouk or (inaudible) or party leaders?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure of what we've said directly to the
party leaders. Certainly, we think the Cambodian people deserve a lot
of credit for the enthusiasm with which they voted and for the way the
voting was conducted. We've also expressed very much our support,
appreciation and praise for the United Nations in the way they've
carried out the election.
Q Thank you.
(Press briefing concluded at 1:13 p.m.)
(###)