Note: This Electronic Research Collection is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #80
THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 1993, 12:50 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I don't
have any statements or announcements, but I'd be glad to take your
questions.
Q Richard, what can you tell us about the package of
proposals for Bosnia dangling at the U.N.?
MR. BOUCHER: At the U.N.?
Q Yes.
MR. BOUCHER: Sure.
First, on the Safe Areas Resolution, there's an informal
meeting of the Security Council this afternoon. We expect the Safe
Areas Resolution will be discussed there.
At yesterday's Council meeting, there was progress made in
reaching a compromise on the French draft resolution. The French draft
was circulated in the final version yesterday evening, and a vote on it
in the next day or two is possible.
We're supporting a broad-based effort within the Council to
reach consensus on the Safe Areas Resolution, as we said we would do in
the Joint Action Plan.
Q That compromise -- did that change the U.S. role in any
way, or did it change the idea in any major way?
MR. BOUCHER: No.
Q Go ahead.
Q What is the idea?
MR. BOUCHER: There's a text that's been circulated as the
final draft. It's a resolution that implements the concepts of safe
areas. It defines the roles of the UNPROFOR forces that would be there
and defines the means by which they should protect themselves, protect
the areas.
Q Would it lift the arms embargo?
MR. BOUCHER: No. This is safe areas.
Q Does it define who will provide the forces?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't think it does -- not in the
resolution.
Q On the basis of this definition now, Richard, do you have
a sense of how many additional troops are going to be required?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't at this point, Barrie. That's something
that U.N. and UNPROFOR will have to determine.
Q But does it -- I mean, does it suggest that additional
troops will be needed?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I'm in a position at this point to
go entirely through the text of the resolution, but it doesn't specify
any particular numbers.
Q Well, yesterday we discussed the possibility -- rather,
we discussed the fact that the non-aligned had put forward their own
resolution and that there might be some elements from that incorporated
into the French draft. Has that happened, and can you give us a sense
of what they might have been able to get in?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, without getting into the text, we and
others -- and in the full meeting of the Council -- have been working
with the other governments up there, with the non-aligned. And yes,
indeed, some of the things that they wanted to see in the text are
reflected in the final draft. There was a process of working out a
compromise.
Q Was the arms-embargo aspect one of the things they wanted
to get in?
MR. BOUCHER: No. As we understand it, there's no specific
text in front of the Security Council on an arms embargo; and so we
haven't taken a position on the specific resolution with them, in that
regard.
Q You have the framework of that French draft. That could
trigger the use of the U.S. air power?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, once again, I'm not quite in a position
yet to outline for you all the details of the text. But, as you know,
what we've said in the Joint Statement is that we committed ourselves to
using our air power to protect or rescue UNPROFOR forces should they so
request it.
Q How are you actually going to rescue them? Is this going
to be an Entebbe-kind of thing, with planes landing at the Srebrenica
town hall, putting UNPROFOR forces aboard and taking them? How are you
going to rescue them?
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, obviously, that question --
Q (Inaudible)
MR. BOUCHER: It would depend on the circumstances, wouldn't
it?
Q Does the resolution --
Q I'm just curious. I can understand that you might bomb
somebody who's attacking them, although the Secretary of State --
Q Yes.
Q -- said that that would not be effective for more than a
day or two. But I can't understand how you're going to rescue them when
you say you're not going to be on the ground.
MR. BOUCHER: Alan, it's ridiculous to expect me, right here,
right now, to define military action or what sort of action our military
planners will decide is appropriate in a situation that has not yet
occurred.
I'm sorry, but it's not a question that anybody in the world
can answer right now.
Q But the ground forces --
MR. BOUCHER: Second of all, I think we went through the issue
yesterday that you raise again of air power; and I think we've explained
that, and I'd refer you back to the record.
Chris.
Q Richard, you put out a piece of guidance -- I think it
was last week -- that showed that the previous Administration, I think
in December, had made a general commitment to protect UNPROFOR forces;
then this Administration had -- and then, of course, the Joint Action
Plan about two-and- a-half weeks ago had specifically done it. How did
the Joint Action Plan change that commitment, or did it change the
commitment to protect and rescue UNPROFOR forces?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, Chris, it did and it didn't. I mean, it
didn't in terms of -- you know, we have a commitment to protect and, if
necessary, rescue UNPROFOR forces should they require it.
On the other hand, the joint action program and the resolution
that we're about to pass changed the role and the circumstances that
UNPROFOR is going to find itself in.
So, obviously, there's some difference there in terms of the
interrelationship between the two.
Q Does the text of the resolution adopt the language of the
Joint Action Plan on the subject of committing U.S. forces for
protection or rescue of UNPROFOR troops? Is there any change in that
formula in the resolution?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, the resolution doesn't specify U.S.
commitments. It's a Security Council resolution about what the Security
Council members can or should do. So the language is slightly
different. But, no, it doesn't; our commitment remains the same.
Q Do you have anything new on the business of strategic
material getting through across the border -- Mr. Milosevic's pledge?
Do you have any new observations on whether he's living up to his
pledge?
MR. BOUCHER: There's not a whole lot of detail that I can
offer you here. I can make some general observations though.
First of all, we believe that the Serbian government -- the
so-called Federal Republic of Yugoslav government -- took some limited
steps last month to follow through on the stated intention to cut off
deliveries on everything but food and medicine.
There was some stepped-up monitoring at the borders by the
Serbian and Montenegron authorities. The delivery of a wide range of
goods was restricted.
Traffic across the border has been reduced overall; but, we
need to point out it has not been halted altogether. And the Bosnian-
Serbs have, apparently, been able to obtain some of the goods that are
purportedly restricted by the embargo.
The border is long. It runs through a lot of difficult
territory. But I think you've seen the press reports, and we have
reports as well, that indicate some restrictions -- some places where
the traffic is down, and traffic is down overall, but also the continued
trans- shipments of goods.
Q Do you know if those goods include weapons?
MR. BOUCHER: I can't specify any further at this point.
Q Does the U.S. have the capacity to know? Is your
inability to specify based on some security reason or is the United
States, under the present circumstances, not able, with its
surveillance, to figure out what's getting across the border?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think that's a question I can answer for
you now.
Q Richard --
Q Can't you not answer my question because (laughter) we
can go endlessly. I mean, the point is: The U.S. Government, with
these -- I think, fairly described as --
MR. BOUCHER: We have the capability of surveillance, a
capability of watching what's going on.
Q Right.
MR. BOUCHER: I mean, there have also been press reports in
the border area. Some of the journalists have been out there too. So
there are all kinds of reports out there about what's going on.
You're asking me a question of exactly what that capability
is: Can we find out this? Can we find out that? And those are the kind
of questions I can't answer.
Q I'm just trying to ask if the U.S. Government knows if
weapons or chickens are crossing the border. And you're talking about
monitors supplied by the Serbs themselves. This is incredible; they're
not exactly the most reliable monitors.
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I mean, they're there.
Q Yes.
MR. BOUCHER: The fact is they're there. They're monitoring
the border. That, presumably, expresses some sort of intent or effort
on their part.
I was noting it --
Q Yes.
MR. BOUCHER: -- but, at the same time, I don't want to really
change the overall situation as we've described it before; and that's
that there have been some restrictions, there is some traffic down
overall. But, in fact, there are still goods getting through.
Q Richard, on the same subject, how are the sanctions
working on the Danube? Have we been able to increase the amount of
traffic that is being cut off there or decrease the amount?
MR. BOUCHER: The sanctions on the Danube, in fact, have been
very tight. During the month of April there was almost no traffic at
all on the Danube, and the problem has been rather that legitimate
shipments that needed to go through had to -- the arrangements were
being made to authorize those.
And so now there have been a few convoys starting again.
Did I say the month of April?
Q You did.
MR. BOUCHER: I think I better double-check that it wasn't
May.
I'll get you that answer afterwards; but there was a long
period after the sanctions went into place when there was very little
traffic, if any, on the Danube. And just recently the arrangements have
been put in place by all the various monitors to allow approved cargoes
that are allowed to go through -- that aren't destined for Serbia -- to
go through. And so there's some traffic that's resuming now under those
procedures.
Q Is legitimate highway traffic of the same sort being cut
off or limited in any way, coming from east of the former Yugoslavia?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know that I have an update on that
specific highway traffic. There's been, I think, a lot of decline in
traffic overall --
Q Richard --
MR. BOUCHER: -- due to the sanctions. The sanctions are being
enforced. There's a lot of efforts that we have under way with other
governments out there -- increased support. I think the WEU has just
gone through a process of working out some agreements with the countries
in the area to help them on the Danube. So there's a lot of efforts
under way to make these sanctions tight, and tighter every day.
Q On that subject, the Ukrainians say that the Danube
blockade has been ruinous to their economy. They think they've lost
some $2 billion worth of traffic that normally would have been gaining
exports.
Specifically, is there any thought being given to somehow
compensating them or adjusting things to compensate for their economies?
MR. BOUCHER: Jim, I don't know where that number might come
from and whether it's related to this temporary halt in traffic on the
Danube --
Q It's from the Ukrainian government --
MR. BOUCHER: -- and the resumed shipments now may make that a
little easier to allow legitimate traffic through.
But I don't really have anything for you on the issue of
compensation at this point.
Q Do you have any reservations about the monitors and the
monitoring -- the success of the monitoring on the border? What's the
status of the U.N. effort to beef that up?
MR. BOUCHER: It was discussed yesterday in the Council. It
came up yesterday -- the Border Monitors Resolution. The focus, as you
know, right now in the Council is on safe areas; but we do support the
adoption by the Security Council of a Border Monitors Resolution. It's
something we said in the joint action program.
Q But what's the status of it? Do you think it will be
passed anytime soon, and --
MR. BOUCHER: I can't predict that, when the focus right now
is on the safe areas.
Q Is it still the U.S. view, as the Secretary has said
repeatedly, that it's up to Milosevic and his government to decide
whether there will be monitors on the border?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, if you're going into Serbian territory,
you can't do it without their acquiescence -- without their permission.
I think we made clear all along the purpose of this is to test Milosevic
at his word. He's the man who made the commitments; he's the man who
made the statements. They were clear, they were categorical. And we're
willing to help him make sure that what he said would happen happens.
Q Could --
MR. BOUCHER: And I think that's the clear point.
Q Couldn't borders -- borders can be checked from either
side, can't they? Is there some consideration being given to not using
Serbian territory to enforce the impending U.N. resolution on border-
monitoring?
MR. BOUCHER: I think, as we've said before, Ralph, the
concept of this, the way it's proceeding in terms of moving towards a
U.N. resolution, is to test Milosevic. He made the pledges. It is his
responsibility to make his promises effective.
The enforcement -- monitoring the actual enforcement at the
border -- is the responsibility of the Serbs to make their pledge
effective. And then we are looking at supporting the adoption of a
resolution by the Security Council to send observers to ensure that
those pledges are kept.
Q Richard, a couple of days ago you were unable to tell us
just how safe these safe areas would be because you said that there were
discussions going on in New York on that very subject. We now have a
resolution that's on the table and, presumably, has been more or less
accepted.
At this stage, then, can you give us a sense of how safe will
the safe areas be?
MR. BOUCHER: Barrie, I can't try to do that, even now. The
resolution is -- there's a final draft. It will be voted. It will be
available to all of you, and you will see the descriptions in there
about what the UNPROFOR troops intend to do to make the area safe.
Q Presumably, they will be doing more than they have been
up until now. Can we assume that?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, it's an expanded mandate. The purpose of
doing this resolution is to expand the mandate for UNPROFOR and is to
implement the concept of safe areas that was adopted by the Security
Council in a previous resolution, as a declaration, and is to now
implement that and make it effective through the use of UNPROFOR forces.
Q Just conceptually, will they have a mandate to seek out
those things which are making their regions unsafe?
MR. BOUCHER: That's the kind of question that you'll be able
to answer once you see the resolution.
Q Richard, does the resolution include language reaffirming
Vance-Owen as the desired goal of policy in Bosnia?
MR. BOUCHER: Once again, I'm not here to brief on the text of
a resolution that hasn't been passed. I'm sorry, but I'm just not in a
position to do that.
Q Whether it does or not, can you tell us whether the
Secretary will take the opportunity of his visit to Europe to press our
allies once again on the Administration's preferred options?
MR. BOUCHER: The Administration's preferred options remain
the preferred options. I'm sure the discussion in Europe will involve a
lot of Bosnia. You know that one of the points in the joint action
program is that those options, those other options, remain on the table
-- that they're not prejudiced or excluded; and I would expect a
complete discussion of the Bosnian issues.
Q Are they sitting on the table or are we pushing them
across the table?
MR. BOUCHER: That's an extension of metaphor I'm not prepared
to do at this point.
Q Richard, what is the U.S. Government's assessment of
passage over the Serbian-Bosnian border? At the time of the Joint
Action Plan --
MR. BOUCHER: I think I just did that.
Q Can you have a discussion of the Bosnia issues without
discussing it with the parties to the conflict? Or did you mean to be
saying there that there will be some discussion with the parties of the
conflict?
MR. BOUCHER: I wasn't talking about bilateral meetings during
the trip or any other meetings during the trip.
Q Or multilateral meetings?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, the multilateral meetings, you know the EC
meetings --
Q But will any of them involve the parties to the conflict?
My question is whether -- you said there would be a complete discussion
--
MR. BOUCHER: At this point, Ralph, I don't have a list of
other meetings during the trip of any kind.
Q Richard, could you address the question of supplies
reaching the Bosnian Serbs, or not reaching the Bosnian Serbs? What
about reaching the Muslims? What's the status of the airdrops in
eastern Bosnia, and what's happening with the airlift in Sarajevo?
MR. BOUCHER: The airdrops are continuing. I don't have a
precise update on that. I can get it for you if you want it.
The Sarajevo airlift was suspended on June 1, three days ago
-- two days ago -- because of a seriously deteriorating security
situation. The airlift officials are expected to meet today to assess
the security situation and to make a recommendation on when the airlift
might be resumed.
On convoys, there have been a lot of convoys getting through;
in particular, last week. There have been some that have been held up
this week. But we have been getting through to places like Srebrenica
and Zepa and others like that.
In Srebrenica, at this point, we're concerned about the water
situation. The situation of the water there continues to deteriorate
because the Bosnian Serbs are refusing to permit U.N. officials access
to the water purification system that's under their control. But the
U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees is sending convoys today from
Belgrade for Srebrenica and Zepa.
They've cancelled convoys on the Belgrade-Sarajevo run due to
fighting around Sarajevo. But the warehouse in Metkovic sent out 15
convoys on June 1-2, carrying 919 metric tons of relief supplies. For
the period May 31 to June 1, the High Commissioner for Refugees reports
that 20 convoys with 1,111 metric tons went from the warehouses in
Zagreb, Zenica, and Belgrade.
Q On the airdrops, some time ago there was concern about
the dwindling resources. What's happening to the supply pipeline?
MR. BOUCHER: I'd have to get you something on that, Howard.
I know the airdrops have continued.
Q Richard, recognizing your refusal to say what's in the
resolution and your inability to define how safe the zones are going to
be and what the UNPROFOR forces will be allowed to do, can I ask in the
most general terms, will the people who are living in these zones feel
an appreciable difference in their lives after this resolution is passed
and implemented?
MR. BOUCHER: That is the intention, and I would think so.
Q You would?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes.
Q Richard, I know you don't normally do columns, but I
wondered if you had any comment on William Safire's essay this morning
in which he wonders if the Secretary is pursuing his own agenda on
Bosnia or is merely inept?
MR. BOUCHER: No, Johanna, we don't do columns. We haven't
done that column for four years, and I don't think it's a good time to
start now.
Q Richard, can I ask -- back on Bosnia -- can I just review
what you've said so far? There's one resolution on the table which will
be voted on in the next day or two on safe havens.
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, there certainly is.
Q There are several others, however, making their way
toward the table. One would be beefing up the monitor system and
another would be --
MR. BOUCHER: Border monitors.
Q -- making some adjustment on the Danube blockade. Is that
a separate resolution, or doesn't it require a resolution?
MR. BOUCHER: No. That's a procedure that's being worked out
under the authority of the previous resolution. In the Joint Action
Program we talked about three U.N. resolutions. One was the War Crimes
Tribunal -- we've done that; (2) is the safe areas -- we're close to
doing that; and (3) is the border monitors resolution -- that's
something we still think should be adopted. Once the focus is off safe
areas, we expect there will be more discussion of that.
Q Richard, following up on Alan's question, you just gave
us a list of activities going on in various safe areas, including
Sarajevo and Srebrenica. Without disclosing what's in the resolution --
if you don't want to do that -- is it fair for us to conclude that the
U.N. resolution will deal with the issues of allowing the people in the
safe area of Srebrenica to have safe water supplies, or allowing the
people in the safe area of Sarajevo to have an operable airport? Or is
that not the sort of thing that the U.N. is dealing with in this
resolution?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure U.N. resolutions ever get specific
to the point of a water purification plant. Our strong support --
indeed, insistence on the need for the continuation of humanitarian
supplies -- has been stated over and over again. It was stated in the
Joint Action Program, it's been repeatedly stated in U.N. resolutions,
and it has been carried out through things like the airdrops, through
things like the continued convoys despite the difficulties.
Q But we're talking about --
MR. BOUCHER: So these efforts will continue. Obviously, I
think, with the implementation of the safe areas concept, we said the
most important thing about it is it can save lives. It can save lives
not only through stopping the fighting in these areas, but it can also
help with the receipt of humanitarian supplies. So that support is part
of it.
Q I guess some of us have a problem. We've had a problem
of trying to understand, when the U.N. designated certain areas as safe
areas, I guess, after a while, we became accustomed to the idea that
that was a designation that didn't necessarily make them safe.
Now we're talking about implementation of the designation, and
we're trying to determine whether -- trying to understand whether it's
the U.N.'s intention that these areas actually be safe. Otherwise, we
have to keep calling them so-called safe areas, or things like that. We
can't just keep calling them safe areas when it's obvious the people
can't even drink the water.
MR. BOUCHER: In the end, it's going to depend on what happens
on the ground. In the end, it's going to depend on what the parties can
do, or can be brought to do, and what the UNPROFOR forces can do in
terms of making them safe.
The resolution will authorize the UNPROFOR people to expand
their mandate, to expand their role and will define -- in general terms,
give them the authority of the Council to carry out the actions that may
be necessary to make those areas safe; and we'll specify many of those
actions. So that's what the resolution will do.
Q Do you know if there have been any volunteers at this
point yet to send additional forces into these safe areas with the
allies?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't know; and I don't know what the
troop levels will be.
Q Richard, another subject?
MR. BOUCHER: One down there, too.
Q Is there another Bosnia question?
Q I have one more.
MR. BOUCHER: One more Bosnia? This gentleman has had his
hand up for a while, too.
Q Could you elaborate further on the first high-level
meeting between the U.S. and --
MR. BOUCHER: Hold it. We were going to do one more Bosnia?
Q I wanted to ask, three weeks ago, or so, President
Clinton enumerated three interests that the U.S. has in Bosnia:
humanitarian, containing the conflict, and responding to aggression.
This morning, and on MacNeil/Lehrer, Secretary Christopher
said that we're motivated by humanitarian interests and our only
strategic interest is containing the conflict. I'm just wondering what
happened. Are we still concerned about responding to aggression? Are
we not characterizing that war as a war of aggression anymore? What
happened to the third principle?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't see a difference here, Tim. I think
we've stated as clearly as possible that our goals are to stop the
killing, to prevent the conflict from spreading, and to increase the
pressure to bring about a negotiated solution. Those three goals have
been stated repeatedly. Implicit in all of those is stopping
aggression.
The Secretary has, I think, repeatedly also discussed the
American interests and how we're pursuing the American interests in this
conflict. We've made very clear we have humanitarian interests, and we
also have the strategic interest in preventing the conflict from
spreading. So it's --
Q So you're saying it's implied that stopping the
aggression is strategic interest or not?
I don't want to put too much into it, but it's --
MR. BOUCHER: Stopping the killing and stopping the aggression
from killing people is humanitarian interest as well. Stopping the
conflict from spreading is stopping the aggression from going more
broad. It's all the same thing.
Q Increasingly, Richard, you don't even hear the word
"aggression" being used here. The Secretary has delivered some very
long answers on the Bosnia situation in which there's basically no blame
apportioned, no aggression taking place; it's three factions with a long
history of hatred for one another. Aggression doesn't seem to be part
of the picture anymore.
MR. BOUCHER: Howard, every time that I can remember that the
Secretary has addressed this, he's made clear that there is blame,
whether it's for crimes or for fighting, on all sides; but that the
principal burden, the principal responsibility lies on the Serbian side.
As I've reported to you day after day on the steps we're
taking, the pressures that are increasing, they're all on the Serbs.
Q Well, I'll tell you, I have a problem. If it's in the
U.S.'s strategic interest not to see the battle -- the conflict spread,
why isn't it in the U.S.'s strategic interest to see that war stopped
before it can begin to spread? How do you draw a line? And what about
the Europeans? Is their security interest only in containment? If the
war stops, then your strategic interest in containing the war, I
suppose, is satisfied. I don't get this.
MR. BOUCHER: That was my answer to Tim's question. Stopping
the aggression --
Q No, but you introduced --
MR. BOUCHER: -- is inherent in all these things that we're
trying to do. What we're trying to do is to come up with specific
steps, and we think we've done some of those in the Joint Action Program
to get the killing to stop, to contain the conflict, and to bring more
pressure on the Serbs to settle this thing through a negotiation.
Q All right. But Christopher's long interview with NBC,
only part of which was aired on the "Today" program, speaks of the
U.S.'s strategic interests not being involved or invoked, as he put it,
in the Bosnian war itself; only if -- well, "only" is -- I shouldn't say
-- he didn't say "only" -- but the strategic interest, he said, is to
see the war not spread.
And I don't understand that. If a war is ended, well, then it
can't spread, by definition; or if people keep killing themselves,
presumably, you know, they could get confident enough to spread the war.
How does the U.S. Government draw a strategic line like that? What
about the Europeans?
MR. BOUCHER: The Europeans -- you can ask the Europeans.
Q Well, he asked them, and I know what their answer was.
MR. BOUCHER: Well, then you don't need to ask me either, do
you? The Secretary, I think, has been very clear that we have a
humanitarian interest in stopping the killing and seeing the
humanitarian supplies get through; and we've done a lot of things to
carry that out.
We also have a strategic interest in preventing the conflict
from spreading, particularly outside of Bosnia's borders --
Q Correct.
MR. BOUCHER: --and we have done things to carry that out. In
the Joint Action Program you'll see a series of steps that respond to
those various interests, to those various needs, whether it's safe areas
or continuation of humanitarian supplies in order to help stop the
killing inside Bosnia, or whether there are steps that we can take with
Kosovo or Macedonia to help keep the conflict from spreading, or whether
it's further steps to bring pressure on the Serbs to resolve this
peacefully. I think we've defined what the interests are, we've defined
what the goals are, and we've defined what the steps are to carry it
out.
Q Well, maybe I'll get a chance to pursue it with him some
day. I don't see -- my problem is a war in Macedonia affects the U.S.'s
vital or strategic interests is what he and all you folks are saying;
but a war in Bosnia does not. It's just a humanitarian problem. I
don't get it.
MR. BOUCHER: You're --
Q It's said a priori. It's said --
MR. BOUCHER: Okay. You're turning things back and forth.
Q No, I'm not. You guys say if the war spreads --
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, it is true, as you said, that if you stop
the fighting in Bosnia, you also stop it from spreading.
Q Of course.
MR. BOUCHER: And that's why there has been an effort placed
on --
Q Is it necessarily true? That's not necessarily true. It
could stop in Bosnia, and it could still spread.
MR. BOUCHER: I guess that's true, Alan. But the presumption
is that if you stop the fighting where it is now, you stop it from
spreading; you may not. That's why you need a series of steps, a
package of steps, as we worked out with the Europeans in the Joint
Action Program, that work on all these different aspects of the problem
at once.
Q Does the U.S. Government still consider this war in part
a war of aggression by one state against another?
MR. BOUCHER: Tim, we've been around that 13 times. Our view
on that has not changed. There's elements of aggression. There's
elements of intra-state, and there's elements of civil war.
Q Could I just check on something, though. On the subject
of containment, does this mean that -- you're worried about the conflict
spreading outside of Bosnia. Does this mean that the Serbs, for
example, the Bosnian-Serbs may get a message that as long as the
conflict remains within Bosnia, then that is not a threat to --
MR. BOUCHER: No. I don't see any reason for them to draw
that conclusion. With the U.N. considering placing UNPROFOR forces in
cities that are threatened and under siege, with the United States
committed to helping protect those forces through the use of our air
power, I think it would be unjustified to draw any conclusion that they
have license to do what they want in Bosnia.
Q Richard, does --
MR. BOUCHER: We have a guy that wanted to change the subject
a long time ago.
Q Yes. Same subject. Does the U.S. Government have any
clear idea of what went on in Belgrade the other day in that dust-up in
front of the Parliament?
MR. BOUCHER: I think I have a little more information on what
happened after. The Serbian Renewal Movement leader, Vuk Draskovic, was
arrested and beaten by Serbian police after a demonstration in Belgrade
on June 1. Approximately 5,000 demonstrators had gathered outside the
Parliament building to protest the assault of a Serbian Renewal Movement
parliamentary deputy by a Serbian Radical Party deputy following the
parliamentary debate on the recall of President Cosic.
The police and some among the demonstrators fired shots. At
least a dozen people were injured on both sides of the demonstration.
One policeman was killed.
Draskovic's injuries required hospital treatment. He and his
wife have reportedly been sentenced to 60 days in jail for disturbing
the public order and are subject to further prosecution. Despite
repeated attempts, our Embassy in Belgrade has been unable to confirm
their health or detention status.
Obviously, we deplore the senseless violence that's occurred
during the demonstration, as well as the police brutality that led to
Draskovic's hospitalization. This is an issue which we intend to raise
at the CSCE as part of their human rights standards which Serbia has
claimed it maintains and respects.
Q But you're still reading no great inference --
MR. BOUCHER: No broader political implications at this point.
Q What do you think about the stability of Milosevic's
government at this point? It's unchanged in your view in the last
couple of days, three days, four days?
MR. BOUCHER: As I said, I'm not trying -- at this point we're
not drawing any political conclusions from the incidents that occurred.
Q The U.S. has said for I think more than a year now, maybe
a year and a half -- has talked about how brittle the Government of Iraq
is, for example. We haven't seen too much public evidence of that
brutality, but would you characterize -- would you care to characterize
the government in Belgrade, using a phrase like that or anything of that
sort?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't think I would. Thank you.
Q You wouldn't care to characterize him?
MR. BOUCHER: No. And I don't think in the case of Iraq
either we've tried to make specific predictions about how long it will
last.
Carol, and then we had a North Korea question back there, too.
Q There was a report out of Kiev that Premier Kuchma had
told Parliament -- the Parliament meeting that was discussing START --
that Ukraine should declare itself a nuclear state and temporarily keep
hold of part of its nuclear arsenal. Have you seen this statement, and
does it come as some -- as a surprise to you?
MR. BOUCHER: I have not seen that statement at all, Carol.
What I saw reported in the wires this morning was a very strong
statement by Foreign Minister Zlenko about the importance of reaching
non-nuclear status and support for ratification. I hadn't seen any
statement by Kuchma at this point.
Q Well, would you take a look at that and see --
MR. BOUCHER: And I think President Kravchuk was there as
well.
Q Well, would you take -- I mean, Kuchma is a fairly
important player as well, so would you take a look at that and see if
you can confirm that --
MR. BOUCHER: I'll check and see if we have anything on it,
yes.
Q Yes. Could you see if he told Strobe Talbott that when
Strobe was in Kiev?
MR. BOUCHER: I think we've told you about 13 times, Barry,
that Ukrainian leaders, including during our recent visit, once again
assured us of their intention to be a non-nuclear state and to ratify
the START and the NPT.
Q Speaking of non-nuclear states, do you want to talk about
the talks on North Korea?
Q I have a question on this subject, please. Is the United
States concerned that Ukraine will have operational control of its
nuclear weapons in one to two years?
MR. BOUCHER: Let me explain the situation as we know it. The
nuclear weapons of the former Soviet Union remain under the single
unified command of the Commonwealth of Independent States' Armed Forces
led by Marshal Shaposhnikov.
We have heard reports about Ukrainian efforts to seek
operational control. We have made it clear that we would oppose their
establishing such control.
Senior Ukrainian officials have consistently assured us that
they continue to support Ukraine's commitments to become a non-nuclear
weapons state; and, as I mentioned just today, Foreign Minister Zlenko
made a strong statement in that regard in front of Parliament.
Obviously, this is a subject of great importance to us. It's
one that we follow closely. We remain confident that Ukraine does not
have the independent control over nuclear weapons and does not have the
capability to order the use of strategic weapons on its territory.
Q But are you concerned that they are moving in that
direction, and is there any evidence that they could in fact gain
operational control within two years?
MR. BOUCHER: Carol, I'm afraid all I can tell you is what we
just did, and that's that we heard reports about Ukrainian efforts to
seek operational control, and we've made clear to them that we would
oppose their establishing such control. The senior Ukrainian officials
have consistently assured us that they continue to support Ukraine's
commitments to become a non-nuclear state.
Q What kind of reports are those? Are those press reports
you're referring to, or are you referring to having heard reports over
some longer period of time from government officials or other informants
in Kiev?
MR. BOUCHER: That's not something I can get into.
Q But you're not saying they're press reports.
MR. BOUCHER: No, I didn't say that.
Q Could you elaborate further on the first high-level
meeting between the U.S. and North Korea? And, secondly, is your
government now discussing some sort of sanctions against North Korea
with member states of the United Nations Council -- Security Council?
MR. BOUCHER: As far as further, I think you saw the statement
done in New York, but just to review for the basics of what happened
yesterday. Representatives of the United States and the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea met to discuss international efforts to
resolve the nuclear issue and to eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons
on the Korean peninsula. As Assistant Secretary Gallucci stated
yesterday, the two sides had seven hours of discussions, but there was
no significant progress. As was stated yesterday as well, the two sides
agreed to meet again on Friday.
With regard to your second question, I would say that our goal
remains to seek a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. To achieve this, North
Korea must commit itself to remain in the NPT, fully cooperate with the
IAEA, and implement the North-South denuclearization declaration.
We continue to consider, along with other members of the
international community, what further steps to take to accomplish these
goals.
Q Were the sanctions among them?
MR. BOUCHER: I think we've previously said that that was in
the universe, but at this point I think the next step is to have this
meeting with the Koreans tomorrow.
Q Richard, why are you having this meeting on Friday if you
had no progress in seven hours yesterday?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, they agreed it might be useful -- the
people who were up there talking agreed it might be useful to get
together again, and they're getting together again on Friday.
Q Was there some indication that either side -- either the
U.S. or the North Koreans planned to take back some results or some
paper or some proposals that they've discussed in the first meeting and
return on Friday with fresh opinions or instructions of some sort?
MR. BOUCHER: We'll have to see what happens tomorrow.
Q Well, no, that's a question that relates to what happened
yesterday. Was there some commitment to do that?
MR. BOUCHER: At this point we've said as much as we can about
the content of the discussions. They're underway. They will continue on
Friday.
Q Richard, any comments in response on developments in
Bolivia?
MR. BOUCHER: No.
Q Richard, does the United States recognize the Vice
President of Guatemala as the new head of government, new head of state?
MR. BOUCHER: Mr. Espina?
Q Yes.
MR. BOUCHER: Our understanding is that with the Presidency
having been vacated by former President Serrano, the Vice President,
Gustavo Espina, has, according to the constitution, now assumed the
Presidency. There is disagreement between the former Vice President,
Espina, the Congress, the Constitutional Court of Guatemala and others
as to whether this is an interim, temporary step.
The United States is not in a position to intervene in that
constitutional dispute. We reiterate, however, that we want to see
Guatemala return immediately to full constitutional democracy, and that
we want this done through peaceful, legal and constitutional processes.
Q The Ambassador will be --
MR. BOUCHER: Our Ambassador?
Q Yes. Ours.
MR. BOUCHER: No change in that.
Q When she gets there, how will she address this gentleman?
MR. BOUCHER: In whatever his status is that's worked out
through the constitutional process.
Q But we have no view on his status?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, we're not in a position to decide
constitutional questions for Guatemala.
Q So the U.S. position today is that what's going on in
Guatemala right now is a "constitutional dispute." There's no aspect of
another coup or military involvement, or anything. This is -- in the
U.S. view this dispute over Espina's status is a constitutional dispute.
MR. BOUCHER: Our understanding is that the issue is being
addressed down there as a constitutional question.
Q And in the meantime, who do you recognize as the
repository of sovereignty in Guatemala?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think it's for us to annoint people,
Jim. He has assumed the Presidency, but the constitutional situation
remains confused. It's a fluid situation. It's one that changes and
one that's playing itself out.
Q Richard --
Q On the -- I'm sorry -- on the OAS meeting, what does the
U.S. think -- in light of what you've just said about the situation in
Guatemala, what is there that the OAS can or should do in the course of
its meeting today? What's the purpose of having it? If they're having
a constitutional dispute and the U.S. thinks that, yes, that's something
that has to be played out down there, what's the point of having a
Foreign Ministers meeting here?
MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, the point of having the meeting is to
support democracy. It's to make clear the hemisphere's support for
democracy and to look at ways that we can take additional steps or
whatever we can do to make that change go peacefully, legally and
constitutionally; and I'll leave further statements on that for the
Secretary's statement this afternoon.
Q So does the U.S. think that the OAS should consider
additional steps to, what, to get involved in the constitutional dispute
in Guatemala or --
MR. BOUCHER: No. I'm not prescribing anything for the OAS.
The meeting is ongoing now. Deputy Secretary Wharton is over there.
The Secretary will be going over this afternoon and will make a
statement there on what we think the OAS can and should do.
Q Richard, is this your last briefing?
MR. BOUCHER: I think so, yes. Yes]
Q Well, we -- I guess, without dissent, we want to say we
wish you well. We appreciate your help and your candor, and that you
tried to be on time most days. (Laughter) And we hope you have a new
assignment that will be one that you'd like. So, thank you.
Q Do you have an announcement along those lines?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't.
(Applause)
Q That was on the record.
MR. BOUCHER: I'll say on the record, thank you very much.
I've made a lot of friends here, and I hope to keep seeing you, even if
I don't stand up at the podium and talk.
Q Indeed. Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:31 p.m.)
(###)