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
Friday, September 10, 1993
BRIEFER: Michael McCurry
Subject Page
ANNOUNCEMENT
Applications for Press Credentials for APEC
Conference, November 17-19, Available ........1,8
Background Briefing on Middle East Peace Process1
CAMBODIA
US to Contribute $2 Million to Provide Financial
Assistance to the Provisional National Gov't .1
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
Invitations/Preparations for WH Signing Ceremony 1-2,4-5
--Secretary's Call to Russian Foreign Minister .1,4
--US Delivers Invitation in Tunis to PLO .......2,11
--Resumption of US-PLO Dialogue ................2-3
--Level of Contact of US-PLO Dialogue ..........3-4
--Secretary's Call to Former Secretary Baker ...5
--Assessment of US Legislation Restrictions
re: PLO ...................................5-6
SOUTH AFRICA
Prospects for Lifting Sanctions/Gramm Amendment 6
SOMALIA
Non-Binding Senate Resolution re: US Policy ....6-7
U.S. Interests/Goals in Somalia ................7-9
Attack on Peacekeepers/Civilian Casualties .....7,9,10
Aideed Role/Influence/Prospects for Dialogue ...9-11
DEPARTMENT
Senator Dole's Letter re: Personnel Files ......11
SOUTH KOREA
Gallucci's Visit/Meetings September 10-11 ......11
(###)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #127
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1993, 1:09 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. McCURRY: Good afternoon, everybody. I have two
announcements. The first is a housekeeping matter.
We will post further information on this in the Press Office,
but it is to alert you that we are now going to open a process for
applying for credentials to the upcoming APEC conference in Seattle in
November; and we've got some information available about how both the
U.S. and the foreign press can apply for credentials for that gathering
in Seattle. You'll see that all posted accordingly in the Press Office.
The second is an announcement. The United States is pleased
to announce that it will contribute $2 million in response to the U.N.
Secretary General's July 9 appeal for voluntary contributions to provide
financial assistance to the Provisional National Government of Cambodia.
The success of the recent elections in Cambodia marks the
beginning of that country's transition from conflict to peace and
democracy. The U.S. contribution is intended to help ensure that the
remarkable progress toward peace that has been made in Cambodia is not
interrupted and that the United Nations endeavors are brought to a
successful conclusion.
The United States looks upon this contribution as an
investment and a vote of confidence in Cambodia's future. We applaud
the contributions already made by other countries and urge those who
have not done so to make similar pledges.
And with that announcement, I'll take any questions that you
might have. One other housekeeping item which might affect your
questioning. I plan to be here as long as you absolutely want, to
answer questions and then make a certain Administration official, who's
been described as "rumpled" and who knows a lot about the Middle East
peace process, available ON BACKGROUND at the conclusion of the briefing
to do some Middle East questions.
So with that, why don't we go ahead?
Q Has the Secretary been on the phone or talking to any of
the folks?
MR. McCURRY: I would in general describe a significant amount
of activity underway, both at the White House and here at the
Department, in preparation for Monday's signing ceremony. As you can
all imagine, there is just a world of very complicated details to work
out for an event of that size and that importance. We don't have a lot
of specific information we can share with you at this point about who's
being invited, who we expect to come, and a lot of the other details
because frankly they're in the process of being worked on. We want to
make sure that when we've got information available, it's the reliable
information that you can start making plans on; and, as we get more
information, we will let you know.
I will tell you that the Secretary did call Foreign Minister
Kozyrev this morning and had a good conversation with him to invite him.
My understanding is that the President will be placing quite a few calls
today, inviting individual people. I'm sure the White House will be
able to give you more detail on that. At various levels in the
Department we've been in contact with foreign governments to make sure
that they are aware of the signing ceremony and that they know that
they're invited; and, I think as some of you know, the United States did
deliver an invitation in Tunis a short while ago to invite a delegation
from the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Beyond that, though, I
don't have a lot of details.
Q Without indicating names on the invitation? It just
said, "Come, send who you wish"?
MR. McCURRY: I think it was an invitation to them to know
that their delegation would be invited. Frankly, who will come to
represent the PLO at this point is not clear.
Q Was this before or after President Clinton resumed the
dialogue?
MR. McCURRY: This was after the President announced that we
were resuming a dialogue. And, yes, they presumably did say "hello" to
each other, so presumably they did have something that amounted to a
dialogue; but to pre-empt the obvious question, I think that the
Secretary himself will be coordinating the Department's overall approach
to the PLO as they begin a more formal dialogue, which I expect will
begin very shortly.
Q It would be fair to say that the U.S.-PLO dialogue was
opened by a diplomatic courier in Tunis?
MR. McCURRY: I think if you are looking for -- historically,
I think that would be accurate. I think extending an invitation or
delivering an invitation to the PLO would mark the first. Then again,
obviously, it's at a more logistical level; but there will be additional
contacts in the days ahead.
Q Mike, are there any contacts contemplated -- with the PLO
contemplated here in Washington, now that they are --
MR. McCURRY: I certainly would not consider that surprising
since there are some representatives of the PLO who are here in
Washington now. Again, I would say that the Secretary himself will be
coordinating a number of these details, and we'll see things like that,
I assume, develop over the next several days.
Q Is anybody in this Department yet in contact with any of
the PLO people here as far as you know?
MR. McCURRY: Not that I'm aware of. I'll leave that to the
Administration official, because I think he's aware; but I just checked
with him a very short while ago, and my impression at that point was
that there had not been anything.
Q In June 1990, the PLO office in Washington changed its
name to something else and continued functioning. Can we assume that it
will now change its name back to the PLO office in Washington?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know the answer to that. I think those
are among many details. One of the purposes of re-establishing a
dialogue will, of course, be to address procedural and diplomatic
questions like that; and there are many questions like that we frankly
don't have answers to at this point.
Q Would it be ungracious to ask if there's going to be some
sort of a monitoring operation of PLO activities, as there was the last
time they renounced terrorism?
MR. McCURRY: I don't want to characterize your question in
any way whatsoever, but I think that the commitments that were made --
Q But it's a legitimate question. Are you going to keep
tabs on their behavior?
MR. McCURRY: The commitments that were made are important
commitments, and, of course, the United States expects those commitments
will be fulfilled.
Mark.
Q At what level will the contacts with the PLO be
conducted? You said the Secretary's coordinating that. Would he get
engaged?
MR. McCURRY: To be quite honest with you, my assumption is
that there is some planning now that has to occur for this event on
Monday and that the initial contacts might be in connection with
planning the participation by the PLO delegation in the signing ceremony
on Monday; so that would imply a level that would -- I wouldn't want to
say a low level, but certainly people who can help carry out logistical
planning for the ceremony that will occur.
Q As a policy matter, has it been decided at what level
this dialogue is going to be conducted?
MR. McCURRY: No. The Secretary will be deciding that and
constructing the approaches that will be made to the PLO as the dialogue
begins to take shape.
Q Mike, since President Clinton is hosting on Monday and
Russia is a co-sponsor, has the President invited Boris Yeltsin?
MR. McCURRY: Not that I'm aware of. I indicated that the
Secretary had invited Foreign Minister Kozyrev to come and wanted to
extend that invitation personally, and we're certainly hoping that the
Foreign Minister will be here. I'm not aware of any plans to have the
President here.
Q Did he say if Kozyrev said yes? I assume he did.
MR. McCURRY: I forgot to ask. I know that the Secretary told
me that he had talked, and I neglected to ask did he say he would be
here.
Q There's no luncheon. Nabil Shaath said there will be no
lunch served. (Laughter)
MR. McCURRY: I don't believe that's accurate. I think there
is going to be a lunch.
Q He suggested that maybe somebody ought to decide who's
coming, because Hillary is preparing a good lunch --
MR. McCURRY: No.
Q I'm just kidding. There's not a luncheon.
MR. McCURRY: Actually, I took that as a serious question,
because I do think there's -- seriously, I think there are some among
the many plans that are being thought about are having a luncheon here,
as a matter of fact; and, of course, there may be a dinner later in the
day.
I know you'll be intensely interested in all the plannings and
arrangements, and as we have all of that important information
available, we will make it available to you.
Q Can you say yet whether the Foreign Ministers, or at
least the Foreign Ministers of the other Arab nations will be invited?
MR. McCURRY: I cannot. I think that there are Foreign
Ministers from other Arab nations who I expect will be present; but I
can't answer as to the ones that you are most directly interested in
probably, and those who are participating in the peace process itself.
I don't know the answer to that. I'll defer that to our senior
Administration official.
Q You said the President is making some calls. Is that
because calls will be made to -- at the level of heads of state or heads
of government?
MR. McCURRY: I really will leave that over at the White
House. My understanding is, among others, that there are some former
Presidents of the United States that he will be contacting; but I will
leave that to the White House to describe.
Q Has Baker been contacted?
MR. McCURRY: I know that the Secretary and former Secretary
Baker spoke over the weekend. I don't know that the invitation has been
extended to him, but certainly the plans are to see that he is.
Certainly, there are plans underway to make sure that he's invited.
Q Will the Administration propose to Congress that the
legal obstacles to formal recognition of the PLO be dropped -- repealed?
MR. McCURRY: As many of you know, there was a sizable
contingent of members of Congress at the White House for a briefing by
the President this morning. I don't have a full readout on their
conversations, but I do know that the next steps that will follow after
the announcement today are things that will be done in close
consultation with Congress. I don't know that any decision has been
made to take a specific step yet, but again I'll defer that to our
briefer this afternoon to see if he's got some additional understanding
of that.
Q Mike, we've been trying all morning to find somebody in
this building -- Legal Affairs, NEA, anywhere -- up on the Hill, over at
the White House, who knows what specifically needs -- what legislation
relates to the PLO. There's no one in -- the Legal Office here says
they don't know. You probably don't have it there, but if you could
take the question, just tick off what are the things -- the legislation
that relates to the PLO. Not what will be repealed, but what there is
that --
MR. McCURRY: Actually, I looked into that question myself
because I knew that would be of some interest, and I know that they are
reviewing exactly the legislative requirements; but I am told at this
point that some of the legislative restrictions do involve travel of PLO
officials, opening PLO offices, contributing to international
organizations that have programs which benefit the PLO. Beyond that, we
are making a full assessment of what legislative restrictions do exist
that have been enacted by Congress, and we will find out more about it.
Q Mike, since we're going to have this other guy, maybe we
could change the subject. The South African Ambassador this morning
said that he has been led to believe that the Administration is going to
lift the -- or make a declaration that would void the Gramm Amendment to
the Bretton Woods agreement. Is he correct?
MR. McCURRY: We covered a little bit of that the other day.
I think I indicated in response to the question the other day that we
were awaiting the definitive call at that point from the ANC itself for
the lifting of sanctions which would then allow us to explore the impact
of the Gramm Amendment. I'll go back and check the answer that we gave
the other day, but I think we indicated that we would in fact be
exploring that question once we receive the official request from the
ANC that the international community lift sanctions.
Q And is he correct in saying that it won't require any
action by Congress but simply a certification or a declaration by the
Administration?
MR. McCURRY: That was my understanding, but that's something
that we'll look at carefully and make sure that's absolutely correct;
but that was the understanding we had the other day.
Q Can we turn briefly to Somalia and the deteriorating
situation there. Is there concern here in Washington that perhaps
things are getting out of hand, and that the views of some of the
Senators expressed over the last several days may, in fact, be turning
out to be true?
MR. McCURRY: We certainly are aware of the vote last night in
the Senate. Of course, it was non-binding, it was a Sense-of-Congress
resolution; but it does reflect concern that members of Congress have.
Ultimately, we believe very much that Congress and the
American people support the basic goal of our policy in Somalia which,
again, is to ensure that Somalia does not return to the anarchy which
claimed more than 300,000 lives and which put at risk millions of lives.
That is the purpose of the mission that is underway now, and I think
that is well understood. The concerns that have been voiced by members
of Congress and by others are legitimate concerns that must be addressed
as well; and I think, as you know from Secretary Aspin's speech the
other day, those are concerns that have been addressed directly by the
Administration.
Q What are America's strategic interests -- vital strategic
interests in Somalia?
MR. McCURRY: The interests that are at stake in Somalia are
those that have been defined by the United Nations as it has developed a
program or an effort under UNOSOM, under Chapter VII of the United
Nations Charter. We are a participant in that effort, and our interests
are connected to the will of the international community as reflected in
the United Nations Security Council resolutions that have been approved
on the matter.
Q So what are America's vital strategic interests? You
haven't answered that. What you said is we have a share of interest in
a Chapter VII operation in Somalia, but those are not America's vital
strategic interests?
MR. McCURRY: No, they are not. I am going to punt on the
question, to be candid about it. I'll want to think about that
question. I'll want to talk about that question with the Secretary of
State and make sure that I have an answer that reflects exactly what
senior officials in the Administration would want to have said on that.
Q Mike, does the Administration have an accurate civilian
casualty count on the attack yesterday?
MR. McCURRY: We have got information that has been relayed to
us by UNOSOM. I think that you have also seen the UNOSOM figures. We
are also developing our own report. We don't have that report complete
yet.
I can relay to you the information that we have seen from
UNOSOM, but we are taking steps to get our own information separately
from the UNOSOM accounts so that we understand exactly the nature of the
incident that occurred at about 3:30 yesterday.
Q Doesn't it seem odd to you that after the United States
forces have been there and have been reinforced -- and today I guess we
have 5,600 troops there -- that a Spokesman of the State Department
can't just reel off what our vital strategic interests are in Somalia?
MR. McCURRY: I can tell you a lot about our interests. Our
interests are in saving lives, first and foremost. That's the reason
why the United States committed substantial presence of troops there to
save lives. We had a humanitarian purpose which has been largely
fulfilled. The famine has ended. The crop has been restored, and the
people are being fed now. There's some hope that, in terms of
humanitarian conditions, there could be a return to normalcy. That is
an important humanitarian interest to the United States to advance that
kind of effort, not only in Somalia but in other places around the
world.
In the case of the UNOSOM mission and the military action
which is underway now, that is designed to end the anarchy which puts at
risk exactly that humanitarian effort. Again, that is consistent with
our own interests. I don't want to define "vital strategic national
interests," because that is a very, very precise formulation, as you
know, Jack, and that's something that I don't think we just casually do
here at the podium. That's something we would want to prepare a very
precise answer to.
Q It may well be that, as some people in the Administration
have acknowledged, the U.S. does not have vital strategic interests in
Somalia. It has humanitarian interests and it has broad political
interests, but it has no vital strategic interests. Is that not a
possibility?
MR. McCURRY: When I've heard senior officials of this
Administration describe "vital strategic interests of the United States"
in the past, it has generally involved the safety of U.S. citizens, our
domestic borders, the threat of nuclear war, the kinds of things that we
think of when we think of vital strategic interests. That's why I'm not
casually going to answer a question like that without thinking about it
a great deal. I think you can understand that. I hope you understand
that.
Q In connection with your announcement on the APEC
credentials, do you have information about who are invited and who are
coming for the leadership conference?
MR. McCURRY: I was going to try to duck that. It's a good
question, I know. To be very candid about it, we felt we needed to
alert you to the arrangements that are being made to credential press
there in advance of us really being able to describe to you with the
precision we would like exactly who will be coming, who has been
invited, and who we expect to attend. We expect to have that
information very shortly. It involves some questions that need to be
worked out diplomatically, and they haven't all been worked out yet.
Q Michael, to go back to Somalia. You just said that the
American people understand perfectly what the U.S. is doing in Somalia,
but it seems that the Somali people are not understanding very clearly
what the U.N. is doing there. How do you explain that the U.N. can be
confronted by a huge mob of children and women apparently and then it
results in incidents which are extremely bloody?
MR. McCURRY: Because I think it is clear that Aideed has
influence over -- Aideed and his faction have some influence over parts
of the population in southern Mogadishu. That is not necessarily
reflective of the opinion that exists broadly throughout Somalia.
That's why we have encouraged people to look at that very carefully to
ensure that they understand the improvements that have taken place in
the countryside and to get out in the countryside and talk to citizens,
to those who are working with citizens -- the NGOs and others -- who
really are keen on having people understand in the world that there has
been significant improvement in their conditions.
We're dealing with, as you know, a faction that has the
ability to disrupt civil authority in a part of Mogadishu. You are all
very aware of the concern that we have, that the international community
has, and you now see dramatic evidence of their ability to disrupt and
thwart a peacekeeping mission.
It is regrettable that women and children are amongst those
who are included in demonstrations who then become part of these
actions. It is regrettable, if not abhorrent, that there would be
people who would take advantage of the presence of women and children to
conduct attacks against U.N. peacekeepers.
Q A couple of weeks ago you said that Aideed put himself
out of any type of political settlement and he was not someone that you
can engage a dialogue with. In view of what you just said, that he's
still carrying a lot influence, especially in Mogadishu, do you think it
is about time to try a new approach to Aideed instead of searching for
him?
MR. McCURRY: There's been nothing about his behavior to date
in Mogadishu that indicates he is someone who wants reasonably to enter
into a dialogue about bringing peace and relief to people who
desperately need it.
Q Do you feel progress is being made in dealing with Aideed
in a military fashion, and how long is the U.S. prepared indefinitely to
continue on this urban guerrilla warfare?
MR. McCURRY: I'll leave it to the Pentagon to describe how
they're dealing with him militarily. They're in a much better position
to assess what their own view is of his movements and activities within
Mogadishu. It is clear he continues to pose a great threat to the
UNOSOM mission and that, for very good reasons, the world community is
determined they need to deal with him very directly.
Q Mike, how would you respond to people who say that
willful killing of women and children and other non-combatants by
soldiers is a violation of the -- is a war crimes violation of the
Geneva Convention?
MR. McCURRY: In the absence of very specific information
about what happened in the incident yesterday in Mogadishu, that's a
hypothetical question that you can't really answer satisfactorily. We
have sketchy information. We have some reports from UNOSOM, and we are
seeking ourselves because of our own very real concern to make sure that
we understand exactly what the facts are in that incident; but there
have been confirmed instances in the past of elements of Aideed's clan
using women and children to shield their own military activity against
U.N. peacekeepers.
Q Why don't you command the UNOSOM forces to use tear gas
or water guns to disburse the crowd? The UNOSOM spokesman yesterday
said the reason why they shot with the helicopter was to prevent the
approaching huge crowd -- huge angry crowd. So for the purpose of
preventing the approach of the huge angry crowd, you can use tear gas or
water gun to save the children and innocent life.
MR. McCURRY: As I've told you, we are gathering more facts on
this incident itself. It would not be my place here, absent our own
full report on this situation, to second guess those who were on the
ground during this action, so I don't think I should address that
question.
Q Mike, does the U.S. Government completely foreclose
speaking with Aideed -- coming together in some way?
MR. McCURRY: We don't foreclose speaking to him once he's
behind bars. (Laughter) As I said before, we don't have any reason at
this point to suspect that a dialogue with him would prove to be
fruitful. He has not demonstrated any willingness to cooperate in a
humanitarian effort in his own country designed to save the lives of his
citizens in his own country.
Q Michael, but it's clear that Aideed is a political
reality that must be taken into account and that not talking to him is
apparently as much dangerous than talking to him.
MR. McCURRY: I would reiterate what I said before. There are
several things that he himself could do to demonstrate that it would be
useful to have some type of dialogue with him, none of which he has
done. The most important of those is to tell elements of his clan to
cease and desist the violence that is killing those who have been sent
in the name of peace by the United Nations to help restore peace and
civil authority to his land.
Q Could we move -- I'm sorry, but maybe we could go to
briefing two.
MR. McCURRY: I'd be more than happy to.
Q Just one real quickie. Would it be possible to get the
exact time that the invitation was delivered to PLO headquarters and the
name of the person who delivered it?
MR. McCURRY: We will. I've seen some of that information
moving out of Tunis on the wires already, but I'll be glad to check
further.
Q Another subject?
MR. McCURRY: One last one.
Q Has the Secretary received a letter from Senator Bob Dole
about the State Department files issue, and has he responded to the
Senator?
MR. McCURRY: He has received the letter. I believe it was
received sometime yesterday. The Secretary has not responded to the
letter because the letter poses four questions and asks for the
Secretary to answer those questions. The Secretary, frankly, cannot
answer those questions because he does not know the answer to all those
questions. It's for that reason, precisely, that the Department has
referred the matter to the Inspector General; and the Inspection General
will assist the Secretary in understanding the situation so that answers
can be provided to Senator Dole and to Senator McConnell. Senator Dole,
by the way, signed the letter as the Republican Leader of the Senate,
and we will respond accordingly.
Q The Secretary has not responded even to tell Senator Dole
that he doesn't know the answers to those questions but is trying to
find them out?
MR. McCURRY: That, I don't know. Normally, a letter that
comes from high-ranking members of Congress -- any member of Congress
gets very prompt treatment by our Legislative Affairs staff. I'll check
and see. They frequently, when a letter like this comes, will telephone
in advance the fact that a response is forthcoming and if they're
working on a response. That's normal procedure. So we may have very
well been in contact with the offices of the two Senators; but, again, I
would stress to you that they're posing questions to the Secretary that
the Secretary just simply cannot answer.
Q Do you have something to say about Bob Gallucci's visit
to South Korea?
MR. McCURRY: I don't other than what we said last night, that
he will meet with South Korean officials in Seoul September 10 and 11.
They will discuss a variety of matters of mutual concern, including
bilateral and multilateral efforts to resolve the North Korea nuclear
issue.
(Press briefing concluded at 1:35 p.m.)
(###)