Note: This Electronic Research Collection is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #79
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 1993, 12:31 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
If I can start with two brief announcements. First of all, we
are pleased to welcome two new interns in the Press Office, David Bosco
and Tabitha Oman. Both are native Washingtonians. They have just
finished their sophomore years in college; David at Harvard College and
Tabitha at the University of Colorado. They are both government majors
with an interest in inter-government international affairs, so this is a
good place for them to be; and we are happy to have them with us. They
will be with us through the summer, hopefully helping you as much as
they are helping us. Anyway, David and Tabitha are over on the side
there.
Second of all, a briefing this afternoon at 2:00 p.m. Counselor
Timothy Wirth and Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Humanitarian
Affairs John Shattuck will be briefing in this room on the World
Conference on Human Rights. It's to be held in Vienna from June l4 to
the 25. The briefing will be on the record.
And, as you know, the Secretary will be making a speech to that
conference on the first day, June l4, as part of his trip to Europe.
That's all I have in the way of announcements. I'll be glad to
take your questions.
Q Could you tell us what pressures besides the aid cut-off
announced last week were brought to bear by the United States in
Guatemala?
MR. BOUCHER: George, I think the aid cut-off, the review of
GSP, these are things, as the Secretary said, that were part of an
international effort through the OAS and working with other governments
which seems to have paid off, seems to have played, as the Secretary
said, a significant role in the turn of events, which seems to be
leading back in the democratic direction.
The United States also made very clear to all the parties in
Guatemala what our views were, the same views that I have expressed to
you here, and that is that democracy needed to be restored peacefully,
legally, and constitutionally. And that position was made very clear to
all the different factions and parties in Guatemala.
They appear to have moved to develop a formula for the return
to constitutional government. Military and civilian political
leadership consulted extensively on this formula. We are following the
events down there closely. The facts are not entirely clear, but it
appears that they are finding a means to return to democracy under a
constitutional process.
Q Richard, on that subject, I asked the Secretary about the
issue of the military playing a role here. Doesn't this sort of set a
tone for a future constitutional democratic civilian government in
Guatemala, that the civilian leaders will always be kind of looking over
their shoulder and saying, "Well, you know, it is really obviously the
military that's going to decide whether I stay in this office or whether
I don't, and they are going to be the ones pulling the strings and
calling the shots."
Does this -- is the U.S. afraid at all of that aspect of this
-- of the way this turn of events is occurring?
MR. BOUCHER: Obviously the military was involved in
yesterday's events, but you had a constitutional court ruling that
President Serrano's actions were unconstitutional. They were involved
in consulting extensively with the civilian political leaderships. They
were acting pursuant to a request of the constitutional court and in
consultation with that court; and these parties devised a solution
which, as I said, appears to be being carried out and appears to be
moving towards constitutional rule.
So, to the extent that the military's role was to act pursuant
to civilian authority and to the constitutional court in cooperation
with the civilian and political leadership, well, that's the kind of
role that they should have.
Q And if I just could follow up briefly, in Russia, when
Yeltsin was undergoing his constitutional strains, the U.S. applauded
the fact -- or I guess took some satisfaction in the fact that the
military in Russia essentially stayed on the side lines in all of that,
didn't weigh in with one -- in one way or another. Is there a
comparison to be made here?
MR. BOUCHER: Of course not.
Q Because you never make comparisons.
MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, the two situations are in no way
analogous, I think. If you start thinking through them, I guess it's a
question of whether the military stays under civilian control and acts
in support of constitutional government and constitutional principles;
and that was what we have supported in both cases.
Q Richard, has former-President Serrano applied for a U.S.
visa, and/or has he received one?
MR. BOUCHER: He has had a visa. He has had a visa that has
been -- from some time ago. I don't know exactly when.
Q And do you expect him to come here?
MR. BOUCHER: He has a tourist visa. It's still valid. We
understand he's coming to visit relatives in Texas.
Q Do you know when?
Q When will he do that?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure exactly when. Soon.
Q Will he be welcome in the United States on the basis of
his activities in Guatemala?
MR. BOUCHER: He has a visa, his visa is still valid, and, as
far as we know, he's coming to visit relatives.
Q Yes, but that question is, will he have --
MR. BOUCHER: We haven't tried to revoke the visa, if that's
what you're asking.
Q That's what I'm asking, yes. Also, is the U.S. planning
to meet with the former-President of Guatemala when he comes to visit
his relatives to discuss the situation there at all with him?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know of any such plans at this point.
Q Richard, do you know what the plans are of the newly
confirmed ambassador to Guatemala? Will she go down now or will she
await the restoration of democracy?
MR. BOUCHER: I think we said yesterday that she would remain
in Washington until the situation is clarified. At this point, we
haven't made that decision about when she should go down there. We
haven't seen the situation sufficiently clarified, I guess.
Q Richard, I wanted to flip George's question and ask you
whether you felt the U.S. had any role in this return to democracy, or
whatever we are going to call it?
MR. BOUCHER: I certainly think we did, but acting along with
others in the hemisphere, acting through the OAS, acting in a direction
that was also supported broadly in Guatemalan society. There was a
large number of people who turned out for democracy, both inside
Guatemala and outside Guatemala in the OAS, and certainly the role of
the United States in support of democracy -- the way we moved to suspend
aid and review other programs, the position that we made clear both in
public and in private -- I think those were all factors.
Q Richard, following that, how do you reconcile U.S. concern
for democracy in general with the other general rule that the United
States does not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries?
MR. BOUCHER: It's a pretty broad question, Jim, one that I
think, if you did a careful analysis, you would see a lot of evolution
in those principles as time has gone on.
There is, you know, a universal declaration of human rights.
There are standards of democracy that are embraced throughout the world.
There are standards of democracy that are embraced by the OAS
specifically, by all the OAS members in the Santiago Declaration. I
think it is generally held at this point that countries have an interest
in peaceful and stable societies, and that democracies are those kind of
societies. I think we live in an age where our interest in democracy
and the interest of other governments in the hemisphere in democracy is
not taken to be interference.
Q Still following on that, does the -- can you be any more
specific about who, if anyone, from the United States Government was
present in Guatemala in these last few days since the coup who may have
exercised U.S. influence either on the military or civilian leaders or
talked with, consulted with, members of the court or parliament members
or whatever?
MR. BOUCHER: Our embassy is down there. They have a full
complement of people, minus the ambassador.
Q Was it active on this --
MR. BOUCHER: And they were active throughout in stressing the
importance of democracy and the importance of restoring constitutional
rule.
Q And was the U.S. -- was there a U.S. military attache in
Guatemala in this last period of a few days, and was the U.S. attache,
military attache, active in contacts with the Guatemalan military?
MR. BOUCHER: We have a Defense Attache Office down there. I
can't give you a list of meetings or contacts that they might have had;
but I think that the view that we have expressed down there in all our
sections and all our people is the same view that we have been
expressing up here.
Q In other words, even though military aid had been
suspended, contacts between the U.S. Defense Attache and the Guatemalan
military were active during this period.
MR. BOUCHER: No. I don't know specifically who in the embassy
had what contacts with whom, with which Guatemalan; but I do know that
in the contacts that we did have -- and I don't have a list of them --
that the views that we were expressing were the ones that I have
expressed to you here publicly.
Q New subject? Ukraine, Richard. Does the latest deferral
of the parliamentary debate on nuclear weapons go against assurances
that Strobe Talbott received in Kiev recently? And is the United States
still confident that Ukraine is going to abide by its START I
commitment?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, let me review the situation as we know it
now. President Kravchuk has made a statement that the Ukrainian
parliament will begin debate on the START treaty this month, and that's
something that we welcome.
Ukrainian Government officials, including President Kravchuk,
have continued to state their support for the ratification of START and
accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon state.
As for the timing of the final vote, it's a matter of Ukraine
to work out according to its own procedures. It's frankly unclear
exactly when a final vote in parliament will take place.
We do expect Ukraine to fulfill its Lisbon Protocol obligations
promptly, and that hasn't changed. Further delays would continue to be
a matter of concern. But I have to point out at the same time that we
don't view our relationship with Ukraine solely in terms of arms control
agreements. We seek a partnership with Ukraine that's based on a broad
range of economic, political and security issues. We look forward to
their fulfilling the Lisbon obligations promptly as part of the natural
development of that partnership.
Q On Yugoslavia, do you have an update on the situation in
the safe haven of Gorazde?
MR. BOUCHER: Of Gorazde or Gradacac?
Q Gorazde.
MR. BOUCHER: Gorazde. Let's see what we know on the fighting.
Heavy fighting continued around Gorazde. That's about all I have.
Sarajevo was relatively quiet except for the soccer match
explosion. Some small arms fire in the Novo Sarajevo district. There's
also been fighting reported around Maglaj, around Olovo, Brcko, and
Gradacac in northeastern Bosnia. Srebrenica was tense but quiet, and
there's some fighting between Bosnian-Croatian and government forces
reported around Mostar, Vitez, and Kiseljak.
Q I would like to ask you about something the Secretary said
last night in his interview on MacNeil/Lehrer. Let me read you the
quote, and then I'll ask the question.
He said, "One of the things I think perhaps the American people
have not understood adequately is that there is no simple air power
solution. All of military planners say that an air strike could perhaps
accomplish something the first or the second day, but thereafter the
artillery pieces, the mortars, would be hidden in the hills, hidden
under trees, or even more frighteningly placed next to schools or
mosques or hospitals. So I think there are real limitations on air
power as a solution to the problem in Bosnia."
My question is, if this is the case, why is this still the
preferred solution of the United States, or part of the preferred policy
of the United States, and why did the Secretary go to Europe to push for
air power to be used?
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, you can't reduce the whole to one of its
parts. Air power alone, as the Secretary said, has certain distinct and
clear limitations in this situation. That's why, as he explained
elsewhere in that interview, which I'm sure you've read thoroughly, the
preferred option for the United States was and still is a lifting of the
arms embargo to provide the Muslims -- the government -- with the
wherewithal to defend itself; and given the prospects that there might
be an upsurge in fighting or attacks during that time, that air power
could in some way compensate for that period. That is what the
Secretary explained is what he went to Europe with.
Q Also, given the limitations of air power, what does this
mean for the use of air power in the protection of safe havens?
MR. BOUCHER: Once again, it's what the Secretary said -- you
can't expect air power alone to accomplish those goals. I think he's
also discussed many times the division of labor; and, as you know, we're
currently working on a United Nations resolution that would more
precisely define how to implement the safe havens concept.
Q So the United States remains willing to use air power to
protect not the safe havens, the people, the U.N. peacekeepers in the
safe havens, or guarding the safe havens? That remains the U.S. --
MR. BOUCHER: That remains the same.
Q Why wouldn't the same restrictions, or the same -- not
restrictions -- but the same concerns that the Secretary expressed about
if the U.S. were to use air power to protect UNPROFOR forces in some of
the safe havens, why wouldn't the weapons threatening the UNPROFOR
forces be subject to being placed next to a mosque or in a school yard
or something like that? And why wouldn't that give the U.S. the same
pause or the same concern about using its air power to protect the
UNPROFOR forces as it apparently has for protecting Bosnian Muslims?
MR. BOUCHER: The point that the Secretary made in the quote
that Alan read is that air power alone can't do this. There is a
division of labor. There will be UNPROFOR troops on the ground in the
safe areas with an expanded mandate; and there will be a U.S. role,
having pledged our air power to help protect or rescue the UNPROFOR
forces should they so request. So it's a matter of looking at the
totality of the situation as it develops.
Q Do you have a better sense of what the shape of that
resolution is going to be now, what it will do and what it won't do?
MR. BOUCHER: It's still being worked on up in New York.
Yesterday, the Security Council discussed a French draft of the
resolution to implement the six safe areas.
We understand that members of the non-aligned movement have
raised concerns about the current draft and that they have prepared an
alternative text. We do believe it's important for the Council to reach
a consensus on safe areas resolutions and to move forward to adopt a
joint action program, and we're working to achieve this goal.
There is a meeting of the Perm 4 plus Spain and the non-aligned
nations that's been going on since this morning. I think it's still
going on now. The full Council will meet in an informal session this
afternoon to discuss further this safe areas resolution.
Q Would you anticipate that there will be some -- I'm sorry
-- that there might be some coming together of the non-aligned
resolution and the French draft?
MR. BOUCHER: There might be.
Q Because I understand that one of the things that --
MR. BOUCHER: I can't at this point predict a precise vote.
Q One of the things that this non-aligned draft, I believe,
calls for is actually -- indirectly, at least -- the lifting of the arms
embargo.
MR. BOUCHER: Yes. Their proposal, I think, includes the idea
of some lifting of the arms embargo. I don't have the exact text; and,
as I said, it's all being worked on up in New York, and Security Council
members have discussed this.
Q What's the U.S. view on that aspect of it?
MR. BOUCHER: Our view is what I've said previously, what the
Secretary said previously. We support the idea of enabling the Bosnian
Government to exercise their right to self-defense by acquiring weapons
to even the balance with the Serbs.
Q So the U.S. would support at least that portion of the
non-aligned resolution?
MR. BOUCHER: I said we've supported the idea. At this point,
the exact text of resolutions is being worked on up in New York.
Q Do you still have any sense at all as to how many
additional troops are going to be required to enforce this?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't. Not at this point.
Q The CIA Director is in Sofia today -- it's in the context.
I want to know whether his mission is connected with the Bosnia
questions?
MR. BOUCHER: I have no idea.
Q Can you comment at all on his visit?
MR. BOUCHER: No. I think if there is such a visit, you can
ask the people involved.
Q Richard, but do we -- just back to Ralph's question -- do
we think that lifting the arms embargo without stiffening it with air
power, is that going to work -- just the arms embargo? You said the air
power alone won't work. Will lifting the arms embargo alone work?
MR. BOUCHER: Sid, I've described the preferred option. You
know that these options remain on the table and that some of the
elements, or some of these other options are being advocated by various
people up at the U.N. as the U.N. moves towards a resolution.
We do think it's important to move forward, to move forward on
the Joint Action Program; and we're trying to achieve that up in New
York, so I don't think I can take pieces apart. What we're trying to do
is to work out something that can make a difference on the ground and
can help stop the killing, contain the conflict, and increase pressure
on the parties that aren't willing to reach a negotiated solution; and
those steps are in the Joint Action Plan, and we think we should move
forward, including on the U.N. resolutions that we're working on.
Q I'm bit puzzled as to the way the United States is going
about it. It advocated lifting the arms embargo. It said this was part
of its preferred solution.
Now there are a whole lot of countries out there that agree
with the United States, and the United States isn't actively supporting
them. Instead, it's supporting a resolution for what you call safe
havens but what might better be called "semi-demilitarized dangerous
zones." How do you explain this contradiction?
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, without introducing your personal
characterizations of things, I think we made quite clear when we agreed
on the Joint Action Program that these were interim measures, that other
measures might be required, and it was explicitly recognized by the
other governments involved in the Joint Action Program that other
options remained on the table and were not prejudiced.
There are indeed governments with different points of view, and
there's a process going on at the United Nations to try to take action
and try to move forward on the things. We think we can move forward and
should move forward on the elements of the Joint Action Program, and
we're trying to do that up in New York.
Q But, Richard, there's a political -- there's a mechanical
aspect to this here. You've settled on what you call the Joint Action
Plan. Now you're pursuing it at the U.N., and suddenly an element of
what was not part of the action plan has been introduced. Our question
is, does the U.S. feel at this time, mechanically, that the right way to
go about this process is to amend part of the action plan that dealt
with safe havens to include an aspect that the U.S. favors -- lifting
the arms embargo -- but was not agreed to as part of the action plan?
Is the U.S. in favor of inserting that element that was outside the
action plan into the U.N. resolution dealing with part of the action
plan?
MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, at this point there's a process going on
in New York that, as Barrie suggested, might result in some merger of
the non-aligned proposals and the ones that the Perm Four plus Spain
have come up with in the Joint Action Program. That's a process that's
ongoing. I can't really get into the negotiations at this point. There
are discussions going on up at the United Nations.
You know what our position has been on lifting the arms
embargo; but you also know that we've taken the position on the Joint
Action Program that those are worthwhile things that we should try to
move forward on, and that are worth doing promptly. We do want to see
things move forward, and we'll be working at the United Nations to move
forward as best we can.
Q Richard, in light of the generalized fighting that you
noted, is the Secretary going to raise this preferred option when he
travels to Europe again next week?
MR. BOUCHER: I think we've said that all the options remain on
the table. I don't know where exactly we'll be when we go to Europe
next week, so at this point I can't give you a precise agenda.
Q I wanted to ask about what's going on in Belgrade and what
your take is on it -- the jailing of the -- and the beating of the
opposition leader. I mean, does the State Department consider that this
could be the opening steps in a larger move against Milosevic, or how
seriously do you view all this?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think we deal with this in a pretty
straightforward way of just noting what's going on. I don't think I
have any broader conclusions to draw from it at this point. What we
know is as follows: There was a crowd estimated at 5,000 that gathered
outside the Parliament building in Belgrade last evening, following the
assault of a Parliamentarian of the Serb Renewal Movement by a
Parliamentary follower of Seselj.
As the police moved to clear the area last night, approximately
32 people were injured, including several policemen. One policeman
died. We think some of the demonstrators were armed.
More than 100 persons were arrested, including Vuk Draskovic,
the leader of the Serbian Renewal Movement, who had earlier addressed
the crowd.
Q But you have no -- does this suggest that --
MR. BOUCHER: No preliminary conclusions from this point.
Q -- sanctions are working?
MR. BOUCHER: It was a fight between members of the Serb
Renewal Movement and the followers of Mr. Seselj.
Q Following up briefly to your comment about where we're
going to be when you go to Europe next week, you mentioned, I think, in
a posted answer last night that Reginald Bartholomew would be
accompanying the Secretary of State on the European trip; and I think
yesterday or the day before you said that Bosnia was likely to be a
topic that was certain to come up --
MR. BOUCHER: Obvious topic.
Q -- obvious topic. Will the -- does the Secretary plan to
meet with any of the parties to the conflict during the course of his
European visit next week, such as the Bosnian Muslim Government, the
Belgrade Serb Government, the Bosnian-Serb leaders?
MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, at this point the meetings that are firm
are the NATO meetings and the EC meetings and obviously the meetings
with Turkish Government officials. I don't have anything on any further
bilats or other meetings that he might have.
Q Would you take the question of whether the Secretary
intends to use his visit next week to Europe to meet with the parties to
the conflict?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm sure we'll get you that information at the
appropriate time.
Q Richard, back to the United Nations, did the meeting with
the North Korean go off as planned this morning?
MR. BOUCHER: The meeting has started. It's an ongoing meeting
that's going on, and that's about the -- whatever it was -- 12:15 update
from USUN.
Q Richard, also on North Korea. It's a little technical
question but important. What's the interpretation of the U.S.
Government as to exactly when North Korea's notice of withdrawal from
NPT takes effect? Apparently the treaty requires the notice to be made
three months prior to all parties and the Security Council, and some of
the governments are saying they received the notice on March the 14th or
they haven't received the notice at all.
MR. BOUCHER: That question came up the other day; and I said
that my understanding was that it was June 12, or about June 12. I'm
not sure I can get any more precise for you than that, but that's our
view.
Q Back on Guatemala --
MR. BOUCHER: We have one over there, too.
Q Go ahead.
Q Do you have any position on the strange happenings in
Jerusalem -- the Libyan contingent, the pilgrims and the Israeli
reaction, the Arab reaction? What do you think of this? Is this
something that you would encourage?
MR. BOUCHER: I think, first of all, it's worth noting that we
obviously welcome access to the holy sites in Jerusalem. We've always
said that that's something that is important. At the same time, our
views on Libya and the U.N. resolutions have not changed; and I think
the parties are also aware of our views on that.
Q Do you see this as a Libyan attempt to improve Libya's
image in the United States?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can characterize what the Libyans
may or may not be trying to do in this.
Q While still in the Middle East, do you have anything new
on the preliminary contacts with the Palestinians? There were reports
last week that Faisal Husseini received an invitation from Secretary
Christopher to come to Washington before the next round. Anything new
on that?
MR. BOUCHER: Nothing new to say on that. We remain in touch
with the parties.
Q Following up on the Libya question for just a second, the
U.S. has strict sanctions in place vis-a-vis Libya and urges other
nations to do so as well. Is the U.S. going to take up with the Israeli
Government the question of Israeli businesses allowing commerce with
Libyan tourist agencies providing services in Jerusalem and tourism?
MR. BOUCHER: Our understanding -- and the Israelis did consult
with us before the arrival of the Libyan pilgrims -- our understanding
is that they came by bus to Jerusalem. Israel knows about the
requirements of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 731 and 748; and
the visits to the holy sites, as far as we understand, wouldn't
contravene those requirements in the U.N. resolutions.
Q Richard, back on the Middle East conference, has the
Secretary sent out any invitations for the next round, or the
continuation of the last round, whatever you're calling it?
MR. BOUCHER: At this point, Jim, we don't have any other news
for you. We remain in touch with the parties.
Q What are you calling this, by the way?
MR. BOUCHER: What are we calling it?
Q Are you calling it a continuation of the round or a new
round?
MR. BOUCHER: We're currently in an adjournment.
(Laughter)
So we'll call it when we get to the new talks. We call them an
adjournment in the talks, that's where we are now.
Q Can I come back to Bosnia for just a second, two small
ones? One, the Secretary General, I think is his title, of the Islamic
Conference in Dubai made a public statement urging the presence of
Islamic troops in Bosnia. Does the U.S. favor the contribution of
troops from Islamic nations, for example -- but not to limit my question
to this -- for example, in connection with the safe havens or something?
MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, I hadn't seen those comments and really
don't have a reaction to them.
Q Well, the U.S., generally speaking, though, you said the
other day has been urging other nations to contribute -- to make
contributions to the safe haven operation, in part by contributing
troops, didn't you?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't remember saying that, but in any case --
Q Does the U.S. not urge nations to provide troops to the
safe haven operation?
MR. BOUCHER: We certainly think that everybody should support
UNPROFOR, but the exact composition of UNPROFOR's forces is really
something for the United Nations and the UNPROFOR people to decide.
Q O.K. And one other small one: Do you have any comment --
I'm sorry it's taken me this long to get around to this -- but any
comment on Sunday's full-page ad -- I believe it was in the New York
Times -- from the Ambassador from Saudi Arabia urging greater attention
to the Bosnia issue by the United States?
MR. BOUCHER: I didn't read the ad.
Q You didn't see it.
MR. BOUCHER: No. I don't have any particular comment.
Q Richard, if I could ask one more on --
MR. BOUCHER: Can we have David. He's had his hand up.
Q This is unrelated so --
MR. BOUCHER: O.K.
Q Just does the State Department have any indications of
increased tension or violence in Sandjak region?
MR. BOUCHER: I haven't seen anything new on Sandjak. I'll have
to check.
Q Do you have any comment on the Australian Government's
decision to halt the Northwest Airline flights into Australia?
MR. BOUCHER: I hadn't seen that. I'll have to check on that
one, too.
Q Anything on the American in Iraq? I asked yesterday.
MR. BOUCHER: We put out something yesterday, didn't we?
Q Did you? OK.
Q Yes.
Q Richard, back on Guatemala, do the events of the last 24
hours have any impact on the OAS Foreign Ministers meeting? Does the
Secretary still plan to attend? Is the nature of the meeting changed at
all?
(Staff hands note to Mr. Boucher)
Q This just in.
MR. BOUCHER: This just in. Our understanding is the meeting
is still on. They convene at 11:00. Deputy Secretary Wharton will be
there, at least at the opening. The Secretary will speak probably
between 3:00 and 4:00. Obviously, the Ministers will want to review the
situation as it stands tomorrow; but as far as we know, the meeting is
still on.
Q Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:02 p.m.)
(###)