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
Thursday, September 16, 1993
BRIEFER: Michael McCurry
Subject Page
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Secretary to Speak at Columbia University on
Monday .......................................1-2
No Regular Press Briefing on Monday ............1
US to Host APEC Senior Officials Meeting
in Honolulu September 22-24 ..................2
JORDAN
US Release of FY93 Security Funds ..............2-4
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
Implementation of Declaration of Principles ....4-5
-- Funding/US Planning/Efforts ................4-5
Bilateral Negotiations/US Contacts with Parties 4-10
-- US Contacts with Syria/PLO .................4-8,11
Boycott of Israel ..............................8-9
US Presses Review of UN Resolutions re: Israel/
Middle East .................................. 8-9
Secretary's Meeting with Egyptian FM ...........9
SOMALIA
Admiral Howe's Consultations at UN/Washington ..5,11-12
GEORGIA
Fighting/US Efforts to Resolve Conflict ........12-13
Report of Russian Ultimatum ....................12
State of Emergency .............................14
DEPARTMENT
Ambassador Talbott's Trip to Asia/Europe .......13-16
-- Visit to Turkmenistan Terminated Early .....13,15
-- US Concern for Human Rights/Democracy ......13-14
ANGOLA
UN Oil/Arms Embargo re: UNITA's Progress in
Peace Talks ..................................16-18
HAITI
US Concern re: Formation of Government ........17
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
Status of Selection of War Crimes Prosecutor ...17-18
Status of Negotiations .........................17-18
(###)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #129
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1993, 12:55 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. McCURRY: Good afternoon everybody. I've got two
housekeeping announcements. The first is to tell you that Secretary of
State Christopher will visit New York City on Monday, September 20. He
will deliver an address and engage in a question and answer session at a
forum jointly sponsored by Columbia University's School of International
and Public Affairs and the Council on Foreign Relations.
The event will be held at the Low Memorial Library at Columbia.
The Secretary's speech is scheduled to begin at 12:00 noon. We've got
some information on contact points, if you're interested. There will be
a Q&A session at this event, and we are trying to work out through
technological wizardry the ability to pipe the sound in here, but we
can't guarantee that yet. We are working on it.
Q Will there be a text -- an advanced text?
MR. McCURRY: We will work on getting an advanced text. It may
change during the weekend, so it might not be available until very early
Monday.
Q And what's this talk about?
MR. McCURRY: Generally I'd describe it as picking up on some
of the events in the Middle East recently and then describing in a
larger sense some of the global questions that confront the United
States; I'd say the Middle East with maybe a larger global perspective,
in addition. Is that enough of a hint?
Q You're still working on it?
MR. McCURRY: We're still working on that, in other words.
Q Is it likely we'll have a briefing that day here?
MR. McCURRY: There will be no briefing on Monday due to the
Secretary's speech.
The second is just to tell you that --
Q More on that one. From whom will he take questions?
MR. McCURRY: This is a group put together by Columbia
University and the Council of Foreign Relations. It's a ticketed event
and a fairly august group of people in the foreign policy community, I
am told. We shall see; right.
Q Another elitist audience, right?
MR. McCURRY: There will be students. They've also included
students from the university. Let's hear it for the students.
Second, the United States will host the Fourth Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation Senior Officials meeting in Honolulu next week,
September 22-24. That is a gathering that's designed to lay the
groundwork and prepare the agenda for the upcoming APEC Ministerial that
will be held in Seattle in November. We wanted to alert you to that.
There's a longer statement about APEC and about some of the preparations
going on for the APEC Ministerial that will be available in the Press
Room after the briefing.
Q Do you strongly advise those of us who cover the State
Department regularly to be there to cover that meeting?
MR. McCURRY: I think it's very, very important given the
Clinton Administration's focus on the new Pacific community and reaching
out to the Asian world that all journalists make every effort to stay
closely tuned to these important breaking developments as they occur. I
would strongly urge news organizations to consider sending their most
knowledgable correspondents to Honolulu to make sure that everything
about this very historic and important gathering is kind of recorded for
prosperity's sake.
Q We'll see if it works! (Laughter)
MR. McCURRY: Don't count on it. (Laughter) And with those
two announcements, your questions.
Q Could you explain the rationale for releasing the security
assistance funds to Jordan?
MR. McCURRY: As you know, we have released -- in March, the
Secretary decided to release the FY-92 security assistance funds to
Jordan. The President has now announced that he intends to waive the
restrictions that exist on the FY-93 security assistance funds.
I think that the sense of the United States at this time is
that there are steps the United States can take to further the peace
process. We believe that this decision by the President will certainly
further not only the interests we have in seeing the peace process
advance, but also seeing to it that the Government of Jordan considers
some of the requirements that we have placed upon them as they look at
things like the types of military assistance -- foreign military
financing programs -- and training programs that we have developed.
We've actually suggested to them, through a number of our
exchanges, that there are steps that they can take to take these funds
and use them effectively. We felt at this time it was a good gesture
and an important gesture.
Q How much money is involved?
MR. McCURRY: There is $30 million involved in this transfer.
That breaks down as $15 million in Economic Support Funds; $9 million in
Foreign Military Financing Funds; $500,000 in IMET funding -- military
training funding; and then another $5.5 million in other centrally
funded programs such as the Middle East Regional Cooperation and
multilateral peace process projects.
There are ways in which some of this money can be used as part
of the empowerment funding that will be necessary to carry through on
the recently signed agreements. But the large part of this assistance
is obviously security assistance.
Q How could it be used?
Q On how and what?
MR. McCURRY: The additional $5.5 million that will go as part
of this larger group of $30 million are funds that would be available
that could be used, conceivably, to finance some of the joint venture
projects and others that would be developed down the road on both the
West Bank and in the Jericho area. That's something that would have to
be worked out. That would be part of a larger development concept for
the region itself.
Q Why would Jordan put money into Jericho?
MR. McCURRY: I'm not saying they necessarily would. I'm
saying that this is money that would be available as part of the effort
to put together the economic resources necessary to carry forward on the
deal itself.
Q So would the United States withdraw money from what it has
assigned to Jordan and put it into the early empowerment fund?
MR. McCURRY: No, no. I'm saying these resources might
conceivably make their way into the international multilateral efforts
that will help carry forward on the agreements.
Q Are you encouraging Jordan to contribute?
MR. McCURRY: We've encouraged governments throughout the
region to contribute.
Q For example, does this include funds for training of the
Palestinian police force by the Jordanians?
MR. McCURRY: That I don't know. I don't have that.
Q The EC said that they're going to put up $590 million over
the next six years. Can you give us more details on what the U.S. is
going to put up? And are we asking them to put that money into the
early empowerment fund, or are they going to give it directly to the
parties?
MR. McCURRY: I think you probably all know that the Secretary
has asked Deputy Secretary Wharton to bring together a group here in the
Department and some other agencies as well to look at these kinds of
questions. They are, in fact, coming up with a larger strategy on how
to handle not only economic issues but some of the political issues
arising from the agreement as well. I think we'll say more about that
very shortly. They are looking at various options, various ideas on how
they bring together the type of international resources necessary to
make good on the recently-signed accords. I would stay tuned to that
closely.
Q Does the U.S. have a view on how money should be funneled
to the region? Are we trying to encourage governments to channel it all
through the early empowerment fund or are we setting up some kind of
umbrella organization to organize this?
MR. McCURRY: We're talking about those ideas now. I don't
know that we have concluded what the best vehicle would be.
Q President Clinton yesterday spoke on the phone with Assad
of Syria. Are there any plans to sweeten Syria's position in the peace
process?
MR. McCURRY: I'm not aware of anything related to that call.
I think the President -- I'd ask you to check at the White House for
further clarification. My understanding is that the President had a
general discussion with President Assad about the importance of the
peace process itself, the importance of redoubling support for the peace
process. I think he made it clear that the enemies of the peace process
itself need to know that all the parties in the region are going to make
the recent agreements work and are not going to be deterred from
pursuing progress on other tracks. But I don't have anything specific
on any carrots or anything like that.
Q Mike, just going back to the U.S. funding and/or the
committee issue again. When you say you expect more on that shortly, is
the group expected to come up with some recommendation soon enough for
the Secretary to announce them on Monday? Or is that too shortly?
MR. McCURRY: Boy, that would be wonderful if that could
happen, but I don't know for certain that that could --
Q So not that shortly?
MR. McCURRY: Yes. They are working. They're working very
quickly on exactly those questions, though. They're planning pretty
aggressively.
Q Admiral Howe is back in the United States, at the U.N.
today, and will be making some appearances here next week and over the
weekend. Was he brought back to be reprimanded because of the situation
in Somalia?
MR. McCURRY: No. My understanding is he's back here for what
are called routine periodic consultations that he has in New York with
the U.N. peacekeeping department. He'll also be here in Washington to
meet with Executive and Legislative officials about the peacekeeping
efforts in Somalia itself.
I don't have any indication that his visit here is in
connection with any change in the structure of the command in Somalia.
Q Was this routine, periodic consultation suddenly hurried
up because of the situation last week and the outcry in Congress?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know the answer to that. He's here, I
think, for these meetings with the U.N., and they've made additional
requests to have some meetings here; but the U.N. would know best the
purpose of his consultations with their officials there in New York?
Q Does the United States still retain full confidence in
Admiral Howe as the U.N. Commander in Somalia?
MR. McCURRY: Yes.
Q Michael, can I go back to the Middle East -- one question?
Rabin said, I think yesterday, that a peace agreement -- that is,
progress towards a peace agreement with Lebanon was possible within nine
months. Is the U.S. Government concerned that Syria is slowing down any
kind of improvement in the relations between Lebanon and Israel? Is
the government seeing Syria as an obstacle to any kind of peace progress
between Lebanon and Israel?
MR. McCURRY: I wouldn't describe the view that we have in that
way. I think that we see enormous complexities in how all the various
tracks of this comprehensive peace process fit together. We, of course,
have suggested to you often that they are interrelated and that what
happens in one track does have an impact on another track. I do think
that we feel that, in many ways, it is important for there to be
progress in the Palestinian track so that there can be progress in the
Syrian track as well.
I think, what we have communicated to the Syrian
representatives is our strong sense that there is a momentum behind the
peace process at this point. There's a need to go forward at the pace
that the parties themselves determine is proper; but it would be our
preference to make, in the search for a comprehensive peace in the
region, to make progress as quickly as possible, and we have
communicated that.
Q Is the U.S. Government making any effort to try to delink
or disconnect, disentangle the Lebanese-Israeli track on the one hand
and the Syrian-Israeli track on the other hand?
MR. McCURRY: They are separate issues in each of these tracks.
But as I just said, they are interrelated and there's probably more
linkages at work in that track in some ways than in some of the other
tracks. But we understand the way the issues interrelate, and we've
approached the discussions with the parties in that sense.
Q Mike, are you waiting for a signal now of some sort, or
perhaps have already had it from Prime Minister Rabin, as to when to
press on vigorously toward the next agreement on another front, perhaps
the Syrian front or perhaps the Lebanese front?
MR. McCURRY: We won't need, in a sense, a signal because we
remain in very close contact with the parties. We'll be discussing that
type of issue with them regularly.
Q Well, but you just said that the U.S. view is that there's
momentum here and that you would like to move as quickly as possible on
the other fronts. Does that reflect a -- does that position on your
part reflect the continuing consultation with the Israelis at this
point?
MR. McCURRY: As a general sense, it does, yes. As general
sense -- the desire to make sure that you keep the momentum going, it
does reflect conversations we've had with the parties, including the
Israelis. I would caution you against assuming that we've had
conversations with them about specific timing or we're in a position to
saying anything publicly about specific timing or sequences at this
point.
Q Just to follow up on that, has there been any discussion
-- has the Secretary made up his mind or is he approaching a decision on
how he thinks he might most usefully play a role and his next steps,
such as going to the region or perhaps being in touch with the other
parties in other ways?
MR. McCURRY: He's thought about it a lot. I think he's
discussed it with the parties themselves. I think he's made it clear
that he will remain an active intermediary and a full partner in the
process. That may conceivably require him to travel to the region. It
may require him to be more actively involved in the process here in
Washington. But he stands ready to do what the parties think can help
best in achieving a successful outcome to the negotiations.
Q Is there an invitation to the Syrian Foreign Minister to
come to Washington when the Syrian Foreign Minister is in the United
States for the U.N. General Assembly session?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know the answer to that. I've seen
speculation to that effect. I don't know that there has, in fact, been
an invitation extended.
Q Has there been any discussion with Syria recently -- let's
say this week -- on the issue of the terrorism list?
MR. McCURRY: Not that I'm aware of.
Q Have the Israelis informed -- or the PLO -- informed the
U.S. government that the Israelis and the PLO are setting up joint
committees in Tunis to deal with some of the detail work?
MR. McCURRY: I'm sorry, Jim. Have they informed --
Q Have they informed the U.S. Government that they intend to
set up joint working committees in Tunis to deal with the detail work of
the Declaration of Principles?
MR. McCURRY: It was our understanding that they would do so
based on the meetings we had with the parties here at the time of the
signing on Monday, but I don't know that they have formally notified us
that they've now structured those meetings. They were intending to meet
directly themselves to discuss that, I believe.
Q How will the U.S. Government keep itself informed?
MR. McCURRY: The same way we do now, with having very close
consultation with the parties themselves and being actively apprised of
the progress they're making. Of course, one question that then arises
is, how do we keep in closer contact with the PLO representatives?
That's part of a larger question of how we structure our next steps in
our participation. I don't have an answer for you at this point.
Q Do we have a representative in Tunis?
MR. McCURRY: We have diplomatic representatives in Tunis.
Q I mean, at the talks?
MR. McCURRY: We have diplomatic representatives there. I
don't know the degree to which they would be participating in any types
of committee meetings or things like that.
Q Can you say anything on what role, if any, the U.S. is
playing in encouraging other Arab states to normalize relations with
Israel? And also, just give for us who the Secretary has been in
contact with in the last day or two?
MR. McCURRY: I forgot to check on the Secretary's contacts.
He's been working on a number of things here in the Department the last
couple of days. I'll check and see if there's anything I can usefully
report to you on his contacts.
I'd describe the overall work we're doing now in reaching out
to other nations to be focused on sort of four major goals or major
objectives.
One, we are, of course, encouraging parties to support the
agreement that's been reached by the PLO and Israel. We're taking a lot
of steps to encourage other governments to be supportive of that accord,
both politically and financially.
Two, we are urging the parties to end the Arab boycott of
Israel, and we'll be following that up on a diplomatic track.
We are encouraging countries to normalize their relations with
Israel.
And then, as I think some of you know, we are working at the
United Nations to eliminate unhelpful language that exists in U.N.
resolutions as it relates to the Middle East and to Israel specifically.
Q What unhelpful language are you referring to?
MR. McCURRY: There have been, over the past several years --
actually, over quite some time -- a series of resolutions that the
United States has often vehemently objected to that really, in our view,
say unfortunate things about the State of Israel; and that also, we
feel, have contributed to antagonisms in the region that have thwarted
peace.
We think, given the events on Monday, now is a good time to
revisit the language in those resolutions and to work to see if some of
those resolutions can be taken off the book or could be, in effect,
suspended.
Q Does the United States plan to put that forward at the
next session of the General Assembly?
MR. McCURRY: We are discussing with a lot of our U.N.
colleagues now how to put it forward, and I expect that we would begin
to move on that as the General Assembly gathers; yes.
Q You said you would be following up diplomatically on
ending the Arab boycott. What specific plans are there to follow up
diplomatically?
MR. McCURRY: I think to raise the issue diplomatically with
some countries in the region. I think you know we've already had
diplomatic contact with various parties in the Middle East. We'll be
following up on that contact, perhaps in some cases at a higher level,
in pressing the issue accordingly.
Q Mike, my impression of the remarks before his meeting with
Foreign Minister Moussa yesterday or the day before -- I've forgotten
which -- was that he didn't seem to be particularly interested in
actively encouraging an end to the boycott at that moment. He kind of
made comments about how the United States always has urged the Arabs to
lift the boycott; but Egypt, after all, was the country that proposed
it.
It would seem that if the U.S. were taking an active effort
right now to have it lifted, that the U.S. would want to urge Egypt,
specifically, to announce an end or perhaps encourage an end. Did he do
that in the meeting with Foreign Minister Moussa?
MR. McCURRY: I believe they did touch on the issue, but I
don't know to what degree. I don't want to single out any country in
the region as being one that we will focus these efforts on. We will be
raising it generally throughout the region.
Q It's President Mubarak who proposed the initiative --
maybe a year and a half ago -- under which the boycott would be lifted,
and the U.S. strongly supported President Mubarak's initiative. Is the
U.S. asking Egypt now -- as part of what you said was an effort to
encourage the end of the boycott -- asking Egypt to pursue that
initiative more vigorously?
MR. McCURRY: We will be following up with them on that
initiative.
Q Mike, when you say we've had contact with various
countries in the region, can you just specify -- my memory is bad --
which ones you are focusing on? When you say "at a higher level," does
that mean President Clinton gives them a call rather than Secretary of
State Christopher?
MR. McCURRY: I can't provide you any detail on the specific
countries or the level of contact at this time.
Q But is the contact that you refer to currently a Foreign
Minister-level contact?
MR. McCURRY: I think it has diplomatic representatives at
posts abroad. The question would be: Would it advance to a higher
level of contact?
Q New subject.
Q No, finish up on Rabin's declaration. I know it's not
new, but it comes at a very important time. Basically, he's offering
peace and withdrawal from Lebanon within nine months. There was no
response from the Lebanese Government. Do you think that the Lebanese
are missing an opportunity here?
MR. McCURRY: I think that we need to wait and see how and if
they respond. There hasn't been a response forthcoming yet, but the
parties will address that themselves.
I think there are clearly, as we've said over and over, there
are enormous opportunities here that need to be seized on all tracks.
Q Can I just finish up on Somalia before we go to another
subject?
Q One last one on the Middle East. On Monday night, Israeli
Television broadcast an interview with President Clinton in which he
said that the United States would be prepared to take a new look at the
level of military technology that the United States has been delivering
to Israel. In other words, to lower whatever restrictions there are.
Do you know specifically what is involved there?
MR. McCURRY: I do not know specifically. I'm aware of the
President's remarks. I know that he was referring to technological
enhancements that would make sure that they have access to cutting-edge
technology relating to their security, but I am not aware of the
specific types of systems that the President was referring to.
Q Could you check and find out maybe if he was talking about
the Arrow anti-missile system, for example?
MR. McCURRY: I will check and see if there's anything we can
provide at this time on it, yes.
Q And one on the PLO thing. I'm not quite sure on the basis
of what you said earlier what you meant. Has the Secretary designated
some kind of individual to stay in touch with the PLO, or is the U.S.-
PLO dialogue at the moment -- maybe for bureaucratic reasons -- non-
existent? Is there someone who is in touch with the PLO on a daily
basis, or whatever?
MR. McCURRY: I think at the moment, in the aftermath of the
decision by the President to resume the dialogue, a lot of this is being
coordinated by Ambassador Dennis Ross, obviously. He's been the one who
has been in direct contact. Because the delegation was here in
Washington, there were numerous contacts during their visit here, both
in person and by phone. How to follow up on that and how we nurture
that dialogue is something that Ambassador Ross is still looking at.
But it would be under his -- it would be the work of his shop as Special
Middle East Coordinator to pursue that dialogue.
Q Was the PLO invited to leave a representative in
Washington from the delegation that was here to stay in touch with
Ambassador Ross?
MR. McCURRY: Not that I'm aware of, no.
Q Mike, you had this incident in Somalia last week in which
women and children were shot. There were a number of casualties. A
great furor about the United States' actions in that. Suddenly, Admiral
Howe comes back to the United States and holds a press conference in New
York; begins going around to the Hill and doing the talk shows and what
have you.
All of this sounds like damage control. Is that what's going
on?
MR. McCURRY: I think it is an effort by Admiral Howe to try to
remind the world community of the positive work that's being done by the
United Nations in Somalia. We focus, correctly so, I think, on violent
incidents that disrupt security in south Mogadishu, but because of that
we sometimes miss part of the larger story, which is the success of the
U.N. relief effort in Somalia, and the return of structures and civil
institutions to large parts of the countryside outside south Mogadishu.
I think there's most likely a well-reasoned effort on the part of
Admiral Howe as the envoy to try to describe the larger purposes and the
interesting work that the mission itself is doing.
So I imagine that is what he is doing. Now, if you would call
it "damage control," it's because the part of the story that is the one
that commands the most attention, because it is of the most concern
legitimately to people who have sons and daughters in the region, is the
violence and the episodes of fighting in south Mogadishu.
Q So in plain English, it is damage control.
MR. McCURRY: It's putting a better foot forward. I mean,
there are positive parts of this mission that I think people need to
understand more clearly. They've saved -- you've heard the Secretary
and others refer to this often -- the United States entered this effort
after nearly 300,000 people had lost their lives, and by being there and
by doing the work that has been done, we've probably prevented millions
from dying. The work to restore the countryside, to end the famine, and
then to see that there are institutions there so that the Somali people
can continue to prosper after the United Nations leaves, is something
that is an important part of that UNOSOM mission.
We tend to focus so much on the fighting, and I think there's
just an effort to make sure that people understand that there are other
parts to the story as well.
Q New subject. Do you have a comment on the situation in
Georgia? What's your assessment?
MR. McCURRY: On the resignation and then non-resignation of
President Shevardnadze.
Q And the intensifying fighting and Russian comments on the
situation.
MR. McCURRY: That has been a very great concern to us. We
have expressed our concern directly to parties in the region. I think,
as you know, we're working with others in the region who participate as
part of the CSCE Minsk Group in trying to find ways to bring the parties
fighting into a negotiation that would result in a cessation of
hostilities.
I don't have any particular thing at the moment. I think some
of you know that Ambassador Talbott has been making his way around the
region, not to Georgia in particular. We have had contact. We have
followed the situation in Georgia very closely. I think our
understanding of the situation is that President Shevardnadze is now in
a direct dialogue with leaders within the Parliament to determine how
they resolve some of the issues that were outstanding at the time that
he gave them his resignation.
Q Abkhaz rebels have now encircled, I believe, Tbilisi, and
the Russian Government has issued some sort of ultimatum there. Have
you any comment on that?
MR. McCURRY: I was not aware that the Russians had issued an
ultimatum. That is news to me. But I did know that there were reports
of an outbreak of fighting in Abkhazia.
The cease-fire agreement that was reached at Sochi, July 27, is
the one that we think can bring the parties together to conclude a
peaceful settlement, and that's the one that we have encouraged the
parties to pursue as they address the fighting.
Q Are there any U.S. personnel involved in security for
Shevardnadze?
MR. McCURRY: I don't have anything for you on that.
Q Further on Ambassador Talbott's trip, he seems to have run
into some trouble in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan -- Turkmenistan, I guess
it was. Can you talk a little bit about that?
MR. McCURRY: Yes. I've got a kind of a rundown on where he's
been and some of his travels. I would report to you as a general
proposition that his trip has gone very, very well. He has been already
to Latvia. They're actually making a detour to Brussels, and he will be
in Brussels tomorrow to meet with NATO and EC officials.
I was trying to reconstruct exactly where he went. I'm not
sure I have that precisely, but Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are the
interesting cases.
I am told that in the case of Uzbekistan, he had had a very
long and frank conversation with President Karimov when they were there.
Contrary to press reports, his delegation did not depart Uzbekistan
early. They had to cancel, I think, a press availability or some
remarks at the airport in order to keep a flight plan that they had
filed prior, and that there may have been some misinterpretation as a
result of that.
In the case of Turkmenistan, that was a somewhat different
situation. Strobe [Talbott] did cut his visit there short. That
happened after, I believe, four human rights activists in Turkmenistan
were detained. That required Ambassador Talbott to shorten his visit,
so that he only met at the time of that visit with President Niyazov.
Q Mike, did he refuse to sign aid agreements with these two
countries because of their human rights violations?
MR. McCURRY: He discussed with them the aid programs that we
have to Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. I think in the case of -- we now
provide some $73 million in technical and humanitarian assistance to
Turkmenistan and $17 million to Uzbekistan.
I believe he told those he had dialogue with that we would
consider a variety of factors in developing these assistance programs
and carrying them forward, and they would include, among other
questions, the political, economic and strategic issues that the country
was facing, the progress it had been making on democratic and economic
reform, and the level of its compliance with international obligations
on human rights. So I think he did suggest to them, surely, that that
would be a factor in our aid decisions.
Q But was there any expectation that they would sign
agreements when he was there in both capitals, and did they not sign
those agreements because of continued concerns on human rights?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know that there was an expectation that
they would sign specific agreements, because I think, as you know,
Congress is still considering the overall assistance package that would
make funds available to the NIS states, including the NIS states other
than Russia. So I'm not aware that there was any expectation there
would be announcements on funding for assistance. I think the
Ambassador made it clear that the types of issues he encountered along
the way would be exactly those that would be a factor in our
determination of aid levels.
Q Mike, you've described Ambassador Talbott's ongoing
campaign in behalf of human rights and democracy, but I didn't hear you
say anything about Shevardnadze's plans to impose martial law. Do you
have anything on that?
MR. McCURRY: On his plans to impose martial law? I don't have
anything on that.
Q Was that not the -- what he put before Parliament -- why
he initially quit?
MR. McCURRY: I had not seen it described as "martial law" in
places. My understanding from the reports I had seen is that he had
asked the Parliament to suspend his activities for a period of three
months to allow him to carry forward on certain economic and political
issues that he considered vital to the country. I wasn't aware that it
was being described as "martial law."
Q A state of emergency?
MR. McCURRY: I think he, himself, described it as a state of
emergency, because it was requiring that action by Parliament, and that
is something -- as I said earlier in response to a question -- that is a
situation that we're monitoring very carefully.
Q Does the U.S. support the suspension of Parliamentary
activities in Georgia or anywhere else where there is a parliament?
MR. McCURRY: We always are very careful in supporting the
institutions of democratic rule that allow people to express freely
their judgments through their elected representatives.
Q So have you told Mr. Shevarnadze that?
MR. McCURRY: He's aware of that, because that's a longstanding
feature of U.S. policy.
Q Can I come back to Central Asia for a minute. You
characterized his trip there -- he went to, I believe, all those five
Central Asian republics -- as a good visit. What was good about it? It
didn't seem that terrific in Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan.
MR. McCURRY: A couple of other places he visited -- in the
Kyrgyz Republic, the delegation had good discussions with President
Akayev, parliamentarians and members of the opposition on political and
economic reform efforts.
In Kazakhstan, the Talbott delegation had good talks with
President Nazarbayev and senior officials to discuss economic
development, reform efforts and security issues.
The delegation also had very serious discussions with Tajik
President Rakhmanov on the need for political reconciliation within
Tajikistan. President Rakhmanov indicated that he was willing to work
with international organizations to bring peace to Tajikistan.
So there were some things coming out of that trip that he
assessed as being positive.
Q But the bottom line, Mike, is that Talbott goes there, he
intends to meet with some dissidents. They are either locked up or
prevented from going to meet with him, and all we can say to these guys
is, gee, you better watch out or we might actually cut off the aid some
time way off in the future?
MR. McCURRY: I'll have to check. It may have been the
Ambassador's first trip and the first high-ranking visit, and it was
suspended abruptly because of this. That's a very strong diplomatic
protest, as you know, and we're talking about one incident that occurred
-- one incident in a trip that has occurred with stops in ten countries.
So on balance, we're saying that that obviously was a moment that was
not satisfactory, but on balance it was a trip --
Q Well, it was a bad situation in Turkmenistan, I mean --
but Uzbekistan also was not great. I mean, they did detain people
there, even though Strobe didn't walk out of Uzbekistan.
Q The bottom line is that the American taxpayers are still
pumping aid into the pockets of these rulers who do this, and we can't
seem to stir ourselves to say anything about it.
MR. McCURRY: Not necessarily. As I just suggested, exactly
that type of behavior is one of the things we would consider in making
that type of assistance determinations.
Q What's the status of the situation with Kazakhstan on
security issues right now? What's the status of the nuclear
dismantlement operation and agreement thereupon?
MR. McCURRY: I haven't seen anything recently on it, Ralph. I
can check and see.
Q Well, he's coming here next week, I think -- either next
week or the week after. I think it's next week. I would think if he
were coming, the U.S. maybe ought to have some pretty good ideas about
why --
MR. McCURRY: If he's coming, we probably will be getting some
guidance on that, and I'll share it with you when I get it.
Q Do you have anything on U.S. diplomatic contacts with the
UNITA rebels? Any comment on their rejection on offers for peace talks?
MR. McCURRY: Yes. First, to go back, I think most people are
aware of the action at the United Nations last night -- the imposition
of an oil and arms embargo by the United Nations, effective in ten days,
if there is not a cease-fire reached in that time. It's very clearly --
the way the embargo will work -- it's very clearly done to disadvantage
Savimbi.
I'd say that these sanctions approved by the Security Council
are tough. UNITA has ten days to demonstrate through actions that its
talk of peace is sincere. We expect them to establish a cease-fire in
place, come to the negotiating table for genuine negotiations and make
real and sincere progress in the peace process in the next ten days. If
UNITA actions do not support its rhetoric, these actions will be applied
and more will follow.
Q Can we come back to the nuclear issue just quickly. The
Russian military has been saying this week that Ukraine is now in full
control of the nuclear facilities on its territory. Does the United
States share that assessment, and how does that change it?
MR. McCURRY: I don't have an assessment I can share with you.
I know that we have been in discussion with them on those issues. I'll
see if I can get some more on that.
Q On North Korea, there was a report yesterday from the
South Korean news agency that Pyongyang apparently has installed missile
launchers around the suspected nuclear sites. What do you know about
that?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know anything. I haven't seen anything
about that that I can share.
Q That you can share?
MR. McCURRY: Actually, I haven't seen anything on it, period.
Q Do you have anything on Haiti? President Aristide says
that, in effect, a second coup has taken place in Haiti simply because
the ministers of the new government have not been allowed to carry out
their functions.
MR. McCURRY: We have, as you know, expressed our concern in
recent days about the ability of the new constitutional government to
form itself and to begin carrying out the functions it is responsible
for -- I know the Governor's Island Accord -- but that concern holds as
we work closely with them through the United Nations representative and
our own representative in Haiti to see that the accords themselves are
implemented.
Q As the Security Council reconvenes, do you have any idea
who we're going to be supporting in terms of a prosecutor for the war
crimes trial in the former Yugoslavia, and is Bassiouni -- have we
essentially dropped him as a candidate?
MR. McCURRY: I know that we have had numerous meetings and
consultations at the United Nations on the issue of a prosecutor. Our
interest is in seeing that an effective and qualified prosecutor is
named quickly, so that the prosecution under the War Crimes Resolution
can begin.
I don't have any comment on the candidates who are seeking the
office of prosecutor or our preferences. It's clearly something that's
been discussed a great deal at the United Nations. I just don't have
anything.
Q Yesterday, Assistant Secretary of State Oxman in hearings
before Congress said that -- he stated that the conflict there is not
going to be settled by military intervention from outside. Is that a
new policy development with regard to this Administration? Does it rule
out any kind of outside intervention at all?
MR. McCURRY: No. I mean, it's a view consistent with what
we've said for some time, that outside military intervention was not
going to allow the parties to reach a political settlement and would not
be available to help the parties reach a political settlement.
Q Mike, just coming back to the war crimes thing for a
second. You said the U.S. wants to do it as quickly as possible. The
U.S. favors, then, having the war crimes prosecutions begin under U.N.
supervision, even while the negotiations are continuing toward a
settlement in Bosnia. Is that correct?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know that we've taken a view on that
question. We've said that the prosecution should proceed, and they
should proceed with vigor. We have not linked that to any questions
relating to the negotiations in Geneva.
Q Right. You have not linked them, so that in the U.S.
view, if the two things went on at the same time, that would be okay.
They're not connected.
MR. McCURRY: We have not linked those two questions.
Q Mike, going back to Angola, you said, I think, that if the
UNITA people don't return to the peace table, other actions will follow.
What precisely did you mean?
MR. McCURRY: I don't have specifics that I will do. I mean, I
don't have a specific list of things. There are other things that we
will consider and announce if they become necessary.
Q What is the status of the Geneva negotiations?
MR. McCURRY: President Izetbegovic had met with the Bosnian
Serb parliamentary chief yesterday to discuss the cease-fire, and, of
course, they met with the Croatians to discuss the cease-fire.
Lord Owen, based on the fact that they were in active dialogue
on a cease-fire, felt that it might be possible, we understand, to bring
the parties back into negotiation in Sarajevo, most likely some time
next week. That's the latest information we have.
Q Thank you.
MR. McCURRY: You're welcome.
(The briefing concluded at 1:39 p.m.) (###)