930601 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 #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.) 
(###)

To the top of this page