Note: This Electronic Research Collection (ERC) is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the
US DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
Wednesday, September 8, 1993
BRIEFER: Michael McCurry
Subject Page
SOUTH AFRICA
US Welcomes Transition Agreements .............. 1-3
US Welcomes ANC Statement re: Lifting Sanctions 1-3,22
Possible US Assistance ......................... 2-3
US Contacts with Parties/Future Contacts ....... 3
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
Bosnian President's Meetings at UN/with US
Officials .................................... 3-6,13-14
Negotiations on Political Settlement ........... 4-11
-- US Efforts at Resolution/Adjustments ....... 4,6-7
-- Implementation/Peacekeeping/US Role ........ 4,7-9
-- NATO/US Air Support/Participation ...... 7-9
-- Incentives for Settlement .................. 10-11
US Protests re: Condition at Croat Camps ....... 9
Humanitarian Relief/Winterization/Donations .... 9-10
Fighting/Troop Movements ....................... 9-13
Prospects for NATO Air Strikes ................. 12
US Discussions with Allies ..................... 13
ANGOLA
Dr. Savimbi's Contacts with Asst. Sec. Moose ... 14-15
PAKISTAN
Foreign Minister's Meetings at Department ...... 15
AZERBAIJAN
Strobe Talbott's Visit .......................... 15-17
DEPARTMENT
Strobe Talbott's Visit to Central Asia, Latvia,
EC, NATO ..................................... 16-17
MIDDLE EAST PEACE TALKS
Discussions between Israel and PLO ............. 17-20,22-23
-- US Discussions with Congress ............... 18-19
-- Statement by Gulf Cooperation Council ...... 21
Bilateral Talks/Duration/Cosponsors ............ 18
CHINA
Inspection of Ship Suspected of Carrying CW
Precursors/Financial Liability ............... 21
(###)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #125
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1993, 12:56 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. McCURRY: Good afternoon everybody. I'd like to start
with a statement on South Africa. We welcome the September 7 agreement
by the negotiating parties in South Africa to establish a Transitional
Executive Council.
Agreement on the Council and three other draft bills is a
significant step forward in South Africa's transition to non-racial
democracy. We expect the South African Parliament to approve these
bills during its two week session this month, thus establishing the
basis for holding free and fair one-person/one-vote elections scheduled
now for April 27, 1994.
Much work remains to be done, however, including the
completion of a transitional constitution and the implementation of the
TEC -- the Council itself. We urge all parties to participate fully in
the transition process and to rededicate themselves to achieving a
peaceful and democratic South Africa.
We also welcome the announcement made September 7 by the
National Chairman of the ANC, Thabo Mbeki, that the ANC expects to call
for lifting remaining economic sanctions by the end of September. This
would set the stage for the return of foreign investors who will
ultimately play an indispensible role in enabling a democratically-
elected government to address some of the legacies of apartheid. That
statement will be posted and will be available. With that, I'll take
any questions you might have.
Q What specific sanctions remain, and when can they be
lifted?
MR. McCURRY: Most federal sanctions against South Africa were
lifted, I believe, in July 1991. There are some remaining federal
sanctions that prohibit the import and export of arms to South Africa
and the export of any commodity to the South African military and
police. There's also a Gramm Amendment to the Bretton Woods Agreement
that restricts U.S. support of IMF lending to South Africa.
Once the Transitional Executive Council is established, we
will take steps to remove South Africa from the provisions of the Gramm
Amendment. The other remaining sanctions, on arms and trade with the
military and the police, are based on U.N. resolutions; and, obviously,
it will be up to the U.N. to take action to rescind those resolutions.
I'm not aware at this point of any discussion to that effect at the
United Nations, but we will be watching that.
Then, in addition to the federal sanctions question, the issue
that often arises is sanctions that are in place by state and local
governments and then restrictions on investments by institutional
investors -- large pension funds, pension funds of typically municipal
workers or state workers.
If and when there is a call for the lifting of sanctions by
the ANC, that would set the stage for almost 160 various state and local
and other institutional entities to lift their sanctions that are in
place. We would hope as the ANC disseminates its message, if and when
it does so, that we would then be in a position to assist local
municipalities in understanding the new posture as it exists in South
Africa. And, of course, we would do what we could to encourage state
and local governments to lift their own separate sanctions.
Q Mike, I missed what you said at the very beginning. What
is it that triggers the lifting of the Gramm Amendment? Is it the same
call from the ANC or the call from --
MR. McCURRY: When the ANC itself calls for the lifting of
sanctions, that's when we then can go and explore lifting the Gramm
Amendment restrictions itself.
Q I thought there was one condition for that and then a
different one for the state and local municipalities, but I
misunderstood.
Q Why are you waiting on the arms embargo?
MR. McCURRY: I'm sorry?
Q Why are you waiting on the arms embargo?
MR. McCURRY: On the arms embargo? I think they're just
waiting to make sure -- there are certain things that, I think, are
covered in some of the agreements themselves and some of the discussions
among the parties that then affect some of the military training and
transfer issues that they're looking at.
Q Is the Administration drawing up a plan for military
training for a transitional government when a transitional government
comes into being?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know the answer to that, Ralph. I don't
know that we've addressed that in the past, so I'll take that up as a
question.
Q How about the issue of any other U.S. Government help to
that transitional government? Where does the U.S. Government stand in
its thinking or drawing up a plan on that?
MR. McCURRY: I think that's something that they've been
looking at as they remain in contact with the parties, and I think
that's something that was discussed at the time that both de Klerk and
Mandela were here. They will, I think, probably be coming for sessions
at the United Nations; and I think there will be an opportunity for
further discussion with them, at that point, about how the Transition
Council itself will operate and what type of assistance they will seek
from partners in the world community.
Q Mike, did Christopher send a cable or message similar to
what you just read to us to either Mandela or de Klerk since the events
in South Africa?
MR. McCURRY: He has not, although you may want to check in at
the White House on that question. I understand they might be involved
in something similar to that later on today.
Q Who will be at the UN, Mandela --
MR. McCURRY: I think Mandela is planning to attend. I'm not
certain.
Q Would the Secretary meet with him there in this context
of how to deal with sanctions and aid to a new government?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know the answer of whether we will or
not. We'll be looking to see how the schedules develop when they're
here.
Q Michael, you said if and when the ANC calls for the
lifting of the sanctions. Don't you consider the call made today by
Mandela himself as sufficient for the lifting of the sanctions?
MR. McCURRY: No. We understand that they will call. They're
watching the development of certain things themselves. At some point in
the near future -- and by the end of September, our current
understanding is, from the remarks by Mr. Mbeki -- they will then call
for the full lifting of sanctions. So that actually hasn't occurred
yet, and it is important to us that that actually happen.
Q Mike, on another subject, if possible. Izetbegovic
seeing the Secretary and the President -- can you give us some idea of
what the U.S. might be able to do for him besides offer words of
consolation?
MR. McCURRY: We've done, certainly, more than that already.
I think, as you know, we have urged that the Croatian and Serbian
parties in the negotiations in Geneva show more flexibility as it
relates to some of the concerns that President Izetbegovic has about the
status of the draft maps and some of the territorial issues that they're
examining in the Geneva negotiations. We've expressed our sense that
those adjustments seem to be something that in the spirit of reaching a
settlement could be undertaken by the parties negotiating in Geneva. I
think that that's certainly likely to be a subject of their discussion
today -- as will be our general sense that it is important, as I think
we've discussed here yesterday, to reach a political settlement so they
can begin addressing the humanitarian situation, which still does remain
grim. That's something that will certainly be part of the conversations
that President Izetbegovic will have, certainly, with Secretary
Christopher and I would imagine with President Clinton as well.
Q Mike, one of the things Izetbegovic says he's looking for
is a guarantee from President Clinton that the U.S. will participate on
the ground in securing an agreement.
The U.S. has taken a position up until now that they need to
see what the agreement is and whether it's fair and enforceable. The
agreement that exists now won't change much if these adjustments are
made. Is the U.S. prepared now to say that they're willing to -- or
will guarantee -- that they'll go in to help enforce the agreement?
MR. McCURRY: I won't go beyond the commitment we've already
referred to in the past. That's certainly something that they will be
discussing today. I think President Izetbegovic, in the past, has
inquired about our posture as it relates to implementing a political
settlement. We have indicated to him that we are certainly willing to
make good on the commitment to participate and will do so after we see
exactly how the political settlement itself is structured, whether it's
viable, whether it's enforceable and being enforced by the parties
themselves. So I imagine they will address those issues today and learn
more about President Izetbegovic's posture currently as far as it
relates to returning to the negotiations in Geneva.
Q Is it correct to assume that "participate" means troops
on the ground, or is possible that the U.S. would participate without
troops on the ground?
MR. McCURRY: I think the assumption in the past has been that
it would involve troops on the ground. We haven't looked at that issue
directly enough and don't know enough about the nature of the agreement
itself -- it would be premature now to speculate on exactly how the
participation would take place; but we have talked in the past about the
possible use of ground force, and that's certainly the commitment that
is on the record.
Q You said it was important to reach a political settlement
so that, essentially, the world can deal with the humanitarian situation
which remains. Is that the approach that the Administration will have?
Because if the Croats and the Serbs do not show the kind of flexibility
you are urging, that leaves the Muslims with a fairly grim choice.
Either they buy into the peace agreement as it now stands or continue
the war. Is that basically the set of choices which --
MR. McCURRY: Yes. The choices that they face are grim. I
think you've heard the Secretary himself say the alternative to a peace
settlement is grim as well: continuation of the fighting, which would
pose a very serious risk to the ability to help folks endure the coming
winter.
Q So there's not a whole heck of a lot of consolation that
the U.S. can offer Izetbegovic at this point. What we've got is out
there and it's not much.
MR. McCURRY: That's correct. It's not consolation. We can
help him understand the nature of the commitments we have made and the
nature of the commitments NATO has made, and help him understand our
view as it relates to the negotiations in Geneva, which is that they do
need to return to the bargaining table and get an agreement.
Q Can you clarify the nature of the commitments the United
States has made if he signs -- if he picks one grim choice and signs the
agreement that's now on the table?
MR. McCURRY: I can't. That's a question I think you've seen
various senior officials in the government address from the President on
down in recent days, and I don't have anything to add to their
commitment.
Q They all seem to have caveats -- that is, we would
participate in a settlement, but only if under certain circumstances; we
would have humanitarian aid, but we're going to get the help from other
countries; we'd like to see the strangulation lifted, but the Europeans
and NATO...
I'm just wondering, what is it that the United States -- for
the United States -- can tell Izetbegovic that would give him an
incentive to either press forward for his extra four percent or sign?
What incentive are we offering him? What commitments the United States
offers?
MR. McCURRY: I'm stumbling on your question because I think
we've made a lot of our commitments well known to him in the past. I
think this is an opportunity, really, for President Izetbegovic to
assess the situation in Bosnia, as it stands currently, and the status
of the negotiations. I don't know that he comes seeking those types of
incentives.
Q Hasn't he already done that with Mr. Jackovich and a lot
of other folks and a lot of other folks?
MR. McCURRY: And Ambassador Redman. He has. He has. He
certainly is meeting with us, as he did with the United Nations Security
Council yesterday, to help the world community understand the
predicament that Bosnia is in and the situation that he is in as
President. I think it helped him, certainly, to be in a position to
share that with the Security Council yesterday. He is aware of the
commitments that we have made already. I think the purpose of this
meeting is clearly much more to understand better.
Q He was met, essentially, by a wall of silence in the
Security Council --
MR. McCURRY: Not by the United States --
Q Other than Ambassador Albright, there was a mute
response?
MR. McCURRY: That's correct.
Q That's the kind of response he's getting from the rest of
the world. And, in essence, when he comes to Washington, Washington has
to point to that moot response, don't they, and say, "There's not much
more that we can do?"
MR. McCURRY: The United States was not mute in response to
his presentation at the Security Council yesterday. The Ambassador,
very correctly I think, approached some of her colleagues on the
Security Council on that very issue. Certainly, his visit here is to
revisit some of the things that have been done at the initiative of the
United States within NATO to raise the additional prospects of military
action should there not be the type of movement towards an agreement and
towards the lifting of the strangulation of Sarajevo that imperils the
citizenry there.
Q But, Mike, the British and the French were silent mostly,
and they're involved. The United States -- the American delegate asked
that the world come to the aid of this country, which is a United
Nations member. In a sense, she was also asking -- she was asking that
of the British and French. But I'm not clear on exactly what it is that
she was prepared to promise on the part of the United States that the
President of the United States might be telling Izetbegovic. She did
make a very fervent appeal.
But what is it that the United States is prepared to do to
protect Bosnia's position at the peace table right now?
MR. McCURRY: It's not what we're prepared to do. It's what
we have done, which is to urge flexibility on the part of the other
parties negotiating there. We've actually acted already, in a sense, to
assist and improve the positions of the Muslims at the negotiating table
itself.
Q And are you saying that that's all there is? Are you
saying that's there is; that everything the United States can do, it has
already done?
MR. McCURRY: No, I don't. That's sort of a hypothetical type
question. I wouldn't want to say that.
Q Did Secretary Christopher share Ambassador Albright's
disappointment? And did that prompt him to raise the silence with his
counterparts, the French and British Foreign Ministers?
MR. McCURRY: I would say, in the first instance, yes. I
think he shared some of her frustration and disappointment at their lack
of a response to President Izetbegovic. I don't know that he has raised
that today. He hasn't raised it today. He has had discussions fairly
recently with both Foreign Minister Hurd and Foreign Minister Juppe as
it relates to Bosnia.
Q Can I pick up on that? May I please? It's a week, I
guess, since the State Department publicly announced support for the
four percent of the -- a slightly larger slice for the government of the
land that was seized from them. Maybe it's steely silence. Have the
allies signed on to that proposition quietly, perhaps? Do France and
Britain support the U.S. in that position, do you know?
MR. McCURRY: I'd leave it to them to answer that question. I
think that we've made them aware of our view of the negotiations in
Geneva. We've certainly let them know that we think there are some
legitimate concerns being raised here that could be addressed with
flexibility on the parts of the Croats and the Serbs. That point of
view has been communicated very carefully to our European friends and
allies. I'm frankly not aware of what response they have made to us
other than to receive our view of the situation.
Q Mike, coming back to the U.S. pledge to participate in
enforcement of a peace agreement if there is one. Does the U.S. foresee
itself participating in such enforcement as the United States or as part
of NATO, or as part of a U.N. operation? Can you describe the
circumstances of that?
MR. McCURRY: I think our view is that the work that has been
done by the world community in Bosnia has been most effective when it
involves a military effort when it's been done under the auspices of
NATO. Q Does that mean the United States would not
participate if it didn't involve NATO? Would the U.S. participate only
if it involves NATO, I guess is the better way to phrase it?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know I'd say "only." I would expect if
and when it becomes time to participate in that type of implementation,
it's more likely that it would be done under the auspices of NATO; but,
again, with the caveat that that's not a point we're at the moment
because there has not been an agreement reached in Geneva.
Q Mike, you have given the Secretary General a role in
deciding whether NATO launches air strikes. I understand that he would
approve the first strike. Will that same kind of role not apply if the
United States joins in a peacekeeping effort with forces on the ground?
Will the U.N. Secretary General have any command and control role in
that at all?
MR. McCURRY: I don't think those questions have been
addressed yet by those who are doing planning. My understanding is that
there has been, at this point, some planning but they haven't addressed
the political questions about command and control.
Q But they must be quite far along in the process of
planning for a peacekeeping operation. The pledge was made some time
ago, and you wouldn't have made the pledge if you didn't have some idea
about how it could be done. If you feel it would be best done under the
auspices of NATO, should we interpret that to mean that the U.S. now
thinks Russia really wouldn't be able to play a part in it because
they're not a member of NATO? Or would there be some way of involving
Russia in a peacekeeping operation?
MR. McCURRY: I think those are all questions that just have
not been addressed with clarity by the United States yet. I think, as a
general proposition, our view is that the NATO framework is a good way
to conduct efforts with respect to Bosnia as it involves a military
element. We take the view that would probably be so as it relates to
implementing a peace agreement as well, but it's just premature at this
point to say that that's how it's going to be done in any sense.
Q I thought NATO -- when the Secretary was there in Athens,
didn't they have a rather detailed discussion and a fairly lengthy paper
on the subject?
MR. McCURRY: They had a very lengthy planning process which
went into implementing the Vance-Owen agreement. I know that they've
looked at the issue of how would they participate in implementing a new
agreement. But, again, part of the problem here is it's not clear what
the nature of the new agreement will be.
Q I know, but the fundamental issue of who participates --
would Russia participate together with the United States? That's not
something -- it seems to me anyway -- that it would matter very much
which agreement it is that's agreed to. If the U.S. has said it would
participate if all the parties agreed to something, it doesn't matter
what they agree to. You're saying it hasn't been dealt with. Okay.
MR. McCURRY: I'm just saying, they've thought about this but
they've not reached a point where they've made decisions that they're
ready to announce on that.
Q Is there any further message you have for the Croats who
apparently continue to do what you called yesterday deplorable things to
their Muslim captives and to the Muslims?
MR. McCURRY: We indicated yesterday that we had made some
very stern protests to the Croats on that, and we've talked in the past
about additional steps that the world community might take in connection
with behavior of that nature; but I don't have anything today that goes
beyond what we've said in the past on that.
Q The U.N. is indicating, again today, that it is
desperately short of all the normal kinds of supplies that are pumped
into Bosnia, or have been pumped into Bosnia -- that they can't come up
with the plastic sheeting and blankets and things, barely are getting
enough food and are 40 percent short going into winter here.
Where does the U.S. stand on that issue? Are there plans
being made for some new kind of campaign? The last time you spoke to
that issue, apparently nobody paid any attention.
MR. McCURRY: We are assessing the humanitarian situation and
watching what's happening with humanitarian convoys and airlifts. We do
agree that there will be shortages.
I think you're talking, really, about some of the planning
that's being done for winter. I haven't had a chance to look at that.
I've seen some things indicating that we are assessing very carefully
what the needs will be for the winter months. I just don't have
anything here. I can maybe get an update later on or tomorrow for that.
Q Do you think we can get an update as we did last week on
your two key points, whether the fighting has resumed. The report last
week was good. It pointed fingers where they had to be and it gave
counts of trucks and such. If you could do something like that --
because now it makes more sense. It really follows, clearly, after the
conditions the U.S. laid down.
MR. McCURRY: I will do that. I think you probably are aware
there are news accounts today that there is some fighting in north
central Bosnia, there is some shelling of Bosnian Government positions
taking place, and there are reports that there is some new activity on
Mount Igman. So we will be watching that today. And as we can get more
information, we'll see what we can make available.
Q You don't have any further details --
MR. McCURRY: No. UNPROFOR spokesmen in Sarajevo have
confirmed some of those initial reports that there has been some
amassing of troops on Mount Igman. We have very sketchy information at
this point.
Q The issue I was addressing was a donor issue.
MR. McCURRY: Right.
Q That the European nations, the Japanese, and the United
States are all far short of providing the kind of things to fill the
warehouses to begin with. Whether or not it ends up being delivered is
another question; but the donors are no longer kicking in.
Q Mike, what does that say --
MR. McCURRY: Yes, they are not building. It's not that
they're not kicking in. There's a significant amount of humanitarian
relief going up. The concern is that they're not building the warehouse
storage to the point that they think they will be able to make it
through the winter effectively. That is a real concern. Clearly, no
one should have the impression that there's not a great deal of relief
activity that's occurring there -- movement of convoys and provision of
supplies. There's a lot of detail --
Q According to the U.N. today, they don't have, in the
warehouses, blankets, plastic sheeting, the kinds of things that they
would like to be providing. They have some food but they do not have
the other critical things, and there's no housing for people in places
like Mostar. They're living outdoors.
MR. McCURRY: I can get more on that. That squares with some
of the assessments that we've had from the ground. Part of the reason
for that is, clearly, because they've been involved in the day-to-day
activity of providing relief to people who are desperately in need on a
day-by-day basis. So their planning and their preparation for winter
has been affected accordingly. But I think that's largely true. We'll
see if we can maybe get some more on that type of preparation effort.
Q I can see with the coming of winter what incentive the
Muslims have to settle. Could you tell me what specifically are the
incentives for the Croats and the Serbs to be more flexible?
MR. McCURRY: What incentives --
Q What incentives do they have to be more flexible?
MR. McCURRY: It is true that every time Milosevic, for
example, addresses any of these questions, he instantly raises the
subject of economic sanctions. So economic sanctions are clearly having
an impact. And the threat of economic sanctions on Croatia might very
well be having an impact.
Q Economic sanctions don't seem to be having much effect.
There are no economic sanctions against Tudjman, and there are no
economic sanctions against Karadzic. I'm asking what specific
incentives they have to be more flexible since they are the parties at
the table?
MR. McCURRY: In the case of Karadzic -- with Serbia -- they
have an on-going relationship with Serbia that is dependent on Serbia's
economic productivity which, at the moment, is a very real concern to
Milosevic. That's what I was suggesting to you. As you know, when we
make protests in the region, we do address them to Croatia and Serbia
specifically for that reason, because we believe they have some measure
of influence over the parties.
Q Mike, you just said that the U.N. has confirmed the
massing of Serbian troops on Mt. Igman, and the Administration has
nothing to say about that?
MR. McCURRY: It's the purpose. We see troop activity on Mt.
Igman. We're not certain what the troop purpose is about.
Q What difference would it make? They were supposed to
withdraw or face NATO air strikes.
Q But that's what (inaudible) Serbian troops --
MR. McCURRY: Both governments, the Bosnian Government and
Serb forces.
Q Are you apprehensive about the sketchy reports which are
described as ominous troop movements?
MR. McCURRY: I think I said that the reports are of great
concern to the United States, and we'll be monitoring them carefully, as
we are already monitoring the situation carefully.
Q Does that indicate that the President's threat of air
strikes that was renewed last week carries absolutely no credibility at
all with the Serbs?
MR. McCURRY: No. Lee, did you have a question?
Q No, I just asked that one about the -- also, did you want
to reissue any warnings to any of the sides about the strangulation of
Sarajevo, given the massing -- the reports of the massing of the troops
on Mt. Igman?
MR. McCURRY: I'm not reissuing warnings. I think they know
the seriousness of the situation. We know the seriousness of the
situation.
Q Mike, you're obviously not -- not only are you not
reissuing warnings, but you're not terribly concerned about the return
of some troops to the area.
MR. McCURRY: That's not true, Ralph.
Q The President --
MR. McCURRY: I just said we were concerned.
Q You said the reports are of great concern to the United
States.
MR. McCURRY: Right.
Q If they're such great concern to the United States, the
President said last week that if the strangulation continues, NATO would
take action.
MR. McCURRY: Right. What's the question?
Q Is NATO going to take action now that troops are
returning to the places from which the U.S. had praised them for
withdrawing?
MR. McCURRY: You know how and when a decision by NATO to
employ air strikes would be made. It wouldn't be made by me standing
here announcing it. It would be made by the North Atlantic Council
meeting to review the situation. So, determining whether they are going
to gather to meet to address that question is the way to understand
better what might happen.
Q Well, are consultations underway among the NATO allies?
Is the Secretary on the phone with the NATO allies to discuss this very
issue?
MR. McCURRY: As I indicated earlier, he is.
Q Are there any tentative plans for a North Atlantic
Council meeting?
MR. McCURRY: I'm not aware of any plans for a meeting, but I
think it remains possible that a meeting could be called on short
notice.
Q You said Hurd and Juppe, right?
MR. McCURRY: Hurd and Juppe, he has talked to about this, and
he's been in conversation with others. I think you also saw that the
President discussed Bosnia with both President Yeltsin and Chancellor
Kohl yesterday.
Q I thought you said that discussions with Hurd and Juppe
were related to the U.N. appearance by President Izetbegovic. That was
not what you said?
MR. McCURRY: No, no. They discussed, among other things -- I
mean, they obviously had Middle East questions to review and other
issues as well, but they reviewed the situation in Bosnia and our
assessment of the situation.
Q In his discussions, did the Secretary suggest a meeting
of the North Atlantic Council?
MR. McCURRY: Not that I'm aware of.
Q Did they discuss the return of troops to Mt. Igman?
MR. McCURRY: No. That's a report as of today, and these
calls were several days ago.
Q And those consultations are not relevant to the present
situation essentially.
MR. McCURRY: Well, they're relevant to the situation in
Bosnia. We've got one news account relating to one aspect of Bosnia
today, but the overall assessment of the situation in Bosnia is very
much what's at stake here.
Q Mike, are you going to have any kind of readout after
these meetings or is this it?
MR. McCURRY: I believe we will. I was discussing with the
White House earlier how they planned to do it. I'm not quite certain
what arrangements they plan to make, but I do understand that they're
going to provide some form of readout. Whether they do it through a
statement or making some people available, we'll know more later on in
the afternoon.
Q Why is the Secretary not allowing himself to be seen
publicly with President Izetbegovic?
MR. McCURRY: Well, that's not true. He's going to greet him
here -- meet him here, accompany him to the White House. We'd certainly
want to put the focus on his meeting with the President, and that's the
only reason why we're not doing anything more elaborate by way of press
arrangements here, because they'll be doing that at the White House.
That's how we often handle this. We handled the recent visit of
President Aristide exactly the same way.
Q So he'll meet him at the front door, and he'll escort
him?
MR. McCURRY: Yes. I think they're going to meet here before
they go over to the White House.
Q So he's meeting him at the front door, are you telling
us?
MR. McCURRY: That's my understanding, yes.
Q We won't see them after their meeting here, is that
correct?
MR. McCURRY: Probably not, because I think they go from here
straight over to see President Clinton.
Q That's what I was trying to get at. Okay.
MR. McCURRY: They go from here to see President Clinton
directly.
Q Mike, last time President Izetbegovic was here, I believe
it was Cyrus Vance -- maybe it was Lord Owen -- called the
Administration -- I think it was Eagleburger at the time -- asking that
they not meet with Izetbegovic. Did Owen or Stoltenberg do anything
similar to that this time?
MR. McCURRY: Not that I'm aware of. I will check, though,
and see if they did.
Q On another subject, Angola. Do you know anything about
Jonas Savimbi making a call to a senior State Department official to
renew -- about renewing the peace dialogue there? Anything on that?
MR. McCURRY: I've got a little bit about it. I haven't had a
chance to review it at all, but let me run through what I've got.
I can tell you that Assistant Secretary Moose has spoken by
telephone twice with Savimbi during the past few days. It's obviously
related to the fighting which continues in Angola and which continues to
take scores of lives each day. We have urged both the Government of
Angola and UNITA to end the killing and come to a negotiating table
without further delay.
We also endorse the efforts -- there's a U.N. Special
Representative, Mr. Beye -- to restart peace talks. As a first step, he
has obtained agreement from concerned African heads of state to meet in
Libreville with Dr. Savimbi. The United States is prepared to attend
that meeting. We have strongly urged Dr. Savimbi to accept this
important invitation immediately so that there can be rapid resumption
of negotiations within the framework of the accords that were
negotiated previously.
Q Did Secretary Moose initiate either of those two phone
calls or both, or do you know?
MR. McCURRY: All I have is that he spoke twice. I don't know
who initiated the call.
Q What was the purpose of the call?
MR. McCURRY: Well, to discuss the need for them to resume the
negotiations according to the Bicesse and Abidjan Accords.
Q Well, it must of been important. I mean, if he called
Moose -- I don't think he's going to call Moose to ask him or tell him
to resume the peace talks.
MR. McCURRY: I just am not certain we initiated the calls. I
think that we initiated the calls, but I don't know that for a fact. I
can check that.
Q Do you have any response to the Pakistan Foreign
Secretary's request of Secretary Christopher that the Pressler Amendment
be reviewed or, in fact, lifted because it wasn't serving any purpose;
in fact, it was (inaudible).
MR. McCURRY: I don't have anything for you on that. I know
that they discussed the Pressler Amendment. But I'll see if we have any
response to asking that they address that.
Q And also a general assessment of the talks, if you could
have any kind of a response?
MR. McCURRY: Yes, I will see if there is anything further, to
provide some of the things that we indicated earlier.
Q Michael, yesterday Ambassador Talbott spoke about a
change in management in Azerbaijan. Is the U.S. Government ready to
accept the de facto situation there and discuss with open discussion
with Aliyev?
MR. McCURRY: First of all, I think, as he indicated
yesterday, he will be leaving for the region, I believe, later today.
He did address before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at some
length our current view. I think he does plan to meet -- I'll double-
check that -- yes, he will have discussions with Ter-Petrosyan and with
Speaker Aliyev when he's in the region.
They clearly will be talking about the fighting in Nagorno-
Karabakh and the Minsk process itself, and what can be done within the
framework of the Minsk process to seek an end to the fighting. Those
discussions, I think, start again tomorrow in Moscow, if I'm not
mistaken, with Ambassador Maresca participating for the United States.
And, as we have been, we'll continue to work through that process to
address the fighting.
Q Have you made any new determination concerning Elcibey?
MR. McCURRY: No. I think that you are right in describing
how Ambassador Talbott referred to him. I think he also referred to him
as the democratically-elected President. But our discussions will
proceed, understanding that the importance of addressing the fighting
means that you deal with the realities that now exist.
Q Where is Talbott going on this trip?
MR. McCURRY: Let me give you a rundown. He's leaving today,
and it's a lengthy trip. He'll be gone until the 18th. He'll be
accompanied by Nick Burns from the NSC, who's now the Senior Director
for that basket of issues. I don't know if they divide it the same way
as we do here.
He will be in Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Uzebekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, the Russian
Federation, Latvia, the EC and NATO.
Q You said Kurdistan?
MR. McCURRY: From the 8th to the 18th.
Q Where's Kurdistan?
MR. McCURRY: We'll post this. We'll post this so you'll have
the whole listing. We don't have a complete day-by-day itinerary.
Q Where is Kurdistan, Mike?
MR. McCURRY: It's in the region. (Laughter)
Q Does the United States recognize Kurdistan?
MR. McCURRY: I would muff it if I answered it.
Q You'd rather talk about --
MR. McCURRY: I'll tell you more about what I've got here on
his trip. This is Talbott's third trip to the NIS states. After this
trip he will have been to every country in the region.
Q The region. What's the region as you're defining it --
Central Asia?
MR. McCURRY: Transcaucasus. Transcaucasus and Central Asia.
Q But you'll post the specific list --
MR. McCURRY: And I will post this specific --
Q And presumably it will not include Kurdistan. (Laughter)
MR. McCURRY: And any other trick questions. (Laughter)
Q Is Talbott planning a meeting with Elcibey?
MR. McCURRY: They have been in contact recently. I don't
know whether he plans to meet on this trip or not.
Q So he's going to meet with Aliyev but not with Elcibey?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know that he's planning to meet with
Elcibey. I do know that they have been in contact fairly recently.
Q But we still consider Elcibey as the President of
Azerbaijan?
MR. McCURRY: He's the only democratically-elected official in
Azerbaijan.
Q Does the State Department have any information to the
effect that Russian Ambassador Lukin is being replaced, and, if you do,
do you have any comment on that?
MR. McCURRY: I'm not aware of that report. I can check on
it. What's the report?
Q Just someone told me that he was -- Kozyrev was dumping
him for being too pro-American.
MR. McCURRY: Okay, I don't know. I'll check and see if we
know anything about that.
Q Michael, one last question on Azerbaijan. Can you talk a
little bit about the tension between Turkey and Armenia? Do you have
anything on that?
MR. McCURRY: I don't, other than to say that we have been in
contact with Turkey, Russia and Armenia to assess the situation, to
encourage them to work within the Minsk Group framework, to express our
concern about the fighting. We're also aware of the fighting close to
the border with Iran which has been of great concern to us, and we've
addressed that in our conversations with the parties.
I don't really have anything more beyond that, just more
situation updates, but mostly information I think you're familiar with
already.
Q Mike, is the Russian Foreign Minister coming to the
United States?
MR. McCURRY: I'm not aware of any immediate plans for him to
come. I think he may be planning to come in connection with the U.N.
General Assembly, although I can't confirm that.
Q Mike, on the Middle East peace talks, the Israeli
Government -- Rabin is in trouble with his cabinet. It looks like he
might lose the majority he needs. Arafat seems to be running into some
problems, too. You all still think things are going swimmingly, and
that Clinton will be hosting a signing ceremony on Monday?
MR. McCURRY: Those are your characterizations. We've
cautioned people all along that this is a difficult process, and
agreements are difficult to come by, and that we're taking this one step
at a time. I think you're just seeing the parties themselves, and news
from the region indicates some of the complexities that are involved.
But some of the things you just cited are clearly internal matters upon
which we have no direct comment. But I really don't have anything new
to share today on what's going on.
We clearly are very closely in contact with the parties as
they negotiate here. We're aware of the discussions that are going on
directly between the PLO and Israel. We know that they are -- the
parties themselves describe themselves as being close on those
questions, and that's something that we are watching very carefully.
Q You really had to have been on your toes to catch the
Palestinians and Israelis this morning. Do you know why they only met
for 30 minutes?
MR. McCURRY: Why they met for 30 minutes? I think they
probably exchanged their latest reports from elsewhere.
Q Mike, I have several questions here, but first a little
technical question as to whether or not --
MR. McCURRY: Those are the kinds that can really get you into
trouble.
Q Yes, I understand. But you know how it works. Has the
State Department been in touch with Congress regarding hearings
regarding this breakthrough between officials of Israel and the PLO?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know the answer to that. I don't know
whether we've been in contact with them about hearings. I think there
is, as you can well imagine, substantial interest in the United States
Congress about the status of the negotiations themselves.
I think that there have been a variety of people in the
Department who have had contacts with members of Congress about our
assessment of where things stand at the moment and what might happen.
There may be some interest on the part of members of Congress in having
hearings, but how those would be structured and who would testify on
behalf of the Department is premature to address at this point.
Q Well, the reason I'm asking is that there's a report this
morning that Congressman Hamilton didn't know anything at all about it
until he read about it in the papers. So I'm just wondering whether or
not there's been close consultation.
MR. McCURRY: You mean, he didn't know -- I think he was in
the same position as many people were. (Laughter) I don't know that
that entirely surprises. I don't think that indicates anything about
our lack of interest in keeping him well informed on the status of the
negotiations.
Q Mike, is the current round of peace talks extended until
next Tuesday?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know the answer to that. I do know that
there's strong interest, clearly with no surprise, for at least one of
the delegations to return home in time for the high Holy Days, which
would mean that they would have to leave probably by Tuesday, I would
imagine. But I don't have anything further on what their own plans for
discussions are over the next several days.
Q May I continue, Mike, please?
MR. McCURRY: Yes.
Q There's a report this morning by the -- attributed to a
fellow in Tunis described as the principal architect of the breakthrough
on the part of the PLO that the United States and Russia are guarantors
of the agreement reached between the Israeli and PLO officials. Have
you seen anything about that? And what does that mean in terms of the
United States guarantor of the agreement?
MR. McCURRY: I haven't seen the role described in that
fashion. The United States and Russia are co-sponsors of the
negotiations that are underway here in Washington, and indeed the
process itself has helped in part to lead to the breakthrough that the
PLO and Israel have made on the declaration of principles. But I think
the role that Russia and the United States would play in connection
with that declaration is not any different from the one that we've
discussed here in the last several weeks.
Q But they're co-sponsors of the process that's taking
place here in the State Department, but not co-sponsors of the agreement
made in Oslo or co-sponsors of the agreements -- or guarantors of the
agreement that may be reached. Is that correct?
MR. McCURRY: Let's see what agreements are actually reached.
The declaration of principles that has been reached between the PLO and
Israel in their discussions is something that we, as I think you know,
have embraced enthusiastically, and it's something that we have
described, in various ways, our ways in participating in implementing
that agreement. I'm balking at the word "guarantors," because that
implies a legal commitment within a document, and I am not aware of
where they are at the moment with that document. So I don't want to
extend that commitment.
Q Do you know, Mike, if there are any plans to provide
assistance to the Palestinian entities which supposedly will emerge at
some point in Gaza and in Jericho?
MR. McCURRY: Are there any plans to?
Q Yes.
MR. McCURRY: I don't know the answer to that. I know that
there's a general sense that there will have to be resources that will
be made available, but as to which entities or how that will be done, I
think that's beyond my understanding of where they are right now.
Q Mike, legally speaking on the guarantor question, would
the United States and Russia -- would they be guarantors for an
agreement that was reached in the formal peace talks? Is that part of
the Madrid format?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know the answer to that.
Q Could you take that question, if we are committed to be
guarantors of agreements reached in the formal talks, and if that
commitment legally extends to agreements, such as --
MR. McCURRY: It's similar to Joe's question in a way. It's
what legal obligations might exist as a result of witnessing this
document, if and when it is produced for signature.
Q Or if it is something different from what we have
committed to in the formal talks, I think it's an important distinction
in the question. Could you take it, please?
MR. McCURRY: Right. I'll see if we can. My strong suspicion
is we can't really develop any answer to that at this point, because
we're dealing with a document that doesn't exist. It's only been talked
about.
Q (Inaudible) -- for the talks, the formal talks,
agreements on the formal talks.
MR. McCURRY: If there was something that was developed -- if
this was signed as a result of the delegations here.
Q No, just in the formal talks, are U.S. and Russia
guarantors of those agreements.
MR. McCURRY: Okay.
Q And then, if they can, extrapolate that to what they're
working on now -- what the PLO and Israel are working on now.
MR. McCURRY: Okay.
Q Mike, another question -- another subject.
Q Wait a minute, don't go away.
MR. McCURRY: Follow up on this.
Q Yes. There was quite a lot of enthusiasm about the Gulf
states endorsing the agreement, but the whole story wasn't told
apparently, because the Saudi Arabian Embassy has given me -- provided a
statement that says that the Council welcomes a draft agreement because
"the principle of land for peace will bring the full Israeli withdrawal
from the occupied Arab lands, foremostly the Holy City of Al-Quds,
(Jerusalem)," and so forth, and so on.
I mean, what does this mean? I mean, are we party to anything
like this?
MR. McCURRY: Not that I --
Q Is this the State Department's understanding of the Saudi
Arabian and other Gulf states' idea of what this agreement means?
MR. McCURRY: That statement may have lost something in
translation. (Laughter) I'm not sure that it reflects exactly.
Q I'll give you a copy after the briefing.
MR. McCURRY: Okay. I will look at it and see if there's
anything for us to clarify on that. That's not, I think, our
understanding of the agreement that is emerging as the way we have
characterized it here and not the way that it was characterized there.
Q Another subject, on the Chinese ship -- yet one more.
Does the U.S. Government consider this episode to be closed?
MR. McCURRY: Yes.
Q And what about the issue of restitution or claims against
the U.S. Government?
MR. McCURRY: We got into that a little bit yesterday. I
think our view is that since the agreement to inspect the ship was
freely entered into by China and consistent with some of the
international agreements that are not yet in effect but have been
negotiated, that there was not a financial liability incurred on our
part; and that we suggested, I believe yesterday, that we made that
clear to the Chinese prior to the inspection.
Q And have our crack government spies figured out where
they put the chemicals on the way to Saudi --
MR. McCURRY: Argumentative. Out of order. (Laughter)
Q Mike, on another subject, now that the negotiators in
South Africa have agreed on a Transitional Council, will the Secretary
of State certify that South Africa is no longer a country that practices
apartheid and allow the U.S. to vote for loans in international
financial institutions?
MR. McCURRY: We covered a little bit of that earlier, Steve.
There are some questions about our posture in lending institutions,
things that we will have to examine, but we will do that in the context
of hearing more from the ANC on whether or not they feel the conditions
relating to economic sanctions have been satisfied. When we reach that
point, I think those are questions that we will address in a little more
detail.
Q One more little detail on the Middle East: The
Secretary, I think last week, said that the situation was evolving
rapidly, and as a result of that he sort of held open the idea that the
U.S. is reviewing its policy on dealing with the PLO.
It's not clear to me how rapidly anything's evolving, but in
light of his assessment that it is, has the review in the Administration
evolved rapidly, and is there any decision about how the U.S. will deal
with the PLO now that it's reached initial -- this agreement with
Israel?
MR. McCURRY: I don't have anything new on that. I think the
Secretary's statement stands. I believe he said that there's obviously
no change in our policy currently -- no dialogue with the PLO -- but he
suggested this is a dynamic situation, and we're reviewing it as it
develops, and we will continue to do that.
Q Is it your understanding that just as the United States
sort of undid what Shultz did, could we now -- could the United States,
could the President simply undo what the policy -- what the Bush policy
was toward the PLO in order to facilitate any hosting of duties that the
United States might have in the event of a signing?
MR. McCURRY: I don't want to imply that it's that simple. I
think there are also some Congressional restrictions that are in place
that would have to be examined. You've heard me say before that we
would certainly do nothing that would prove to be an impediment to the
parties themselves as they attempted to gather to formalize an
agreement. But there's a larger question there as it relates to a
policy on recognition that has other aspects that would have to be
looked at carefully.
Q But, Mike, you know, I realize it doesn't seem as though
you've given enough -- thorough, complete thought -- you haven't
concluded your thinking on this issue, but the U.S. has been very
specific in instructions to its diplomats abroad about how to deal with
PLO representatives, even in situations like social situation, and so
on. I mean, it's gotten down almost to a Biblical kind of instruction
set of how to deal with these things.
I realize it's hypothetical, but if there's some kind of a
ceremony at which the U.S. presides or participates, clearly some
decision has to be made by this Administration about whether the
Secretary of State would turn his back on the PLO representative, or
whether they would exchange words and whether that would constitute a
dialogue or not. And, if you're going to keep pinning it on Congress
and Congressional restrictions, then, you know, you're going to get
yourself in a real legal bind. Is there some way of getting out of
that?
MR. McCURRY: Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that all that
might get addressed before that moment that you describe? I'll just not
address it today.
Q Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:51 p.m.)
(###)