930602 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 #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.)
(###)

To the top of this page