Return to: Index of 1993 Daily Briefings || Electronic Research Collections Index || ERC Homepage
Note: This Electronic Research Collection (ERC) is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the US State Department homepage.
US DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
Wednesday, September 22, 1993
BRIEFER: Michael McCurry
Subject Page
ANNOUNCEMENT
Secretary To Testify before Senate Judiciary
Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration and
Refugee Affairs September 23 .................1
-- No Daily Press Briefing September 23 .......1
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
US To Host Donors Conference on October 1 ......1-9,16
-- Invitation List ............................1-3,6-9
-- Pledge by US/Others/Source of Funds ........3,5-8,16
Secretary's Meetings with Counterparts .........2,5
UN
Secretary's Meetings at General Assembly .......2,5
US Review of Role in Int'l Peacekeeping ........15
RUSSIA
Yeltsin Dissolves Parliament/Calls Elections ...9-13,16-17
-- Secretary's Activities/Contacts/Other
Official Contacts ........................9-10,16-17
-- Support by US/Other Countries ..............9-10
US Aid .........................................11-13
SOMALIA
Arrest of Aideed Aide/Disposition of Case ......14-15
Departure of UNOSOM/US Forces ..................15
SOUTH AFRICA
Status of Sanctions ............................16
(###)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #132
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1993, 1:08 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. McCURRY: Good afternoon everybody. I have one very short
announcement. This is a reminder that Secretary Christopher will be
testifying before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Affairs of
the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow afternoon. That will be at 2:30
in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The subject will be
the FY-1994 Refugee Assistance Programs and Admissions Programs.
Because of that appearance, we will not be having a regular briefing
here tomorrow. With that announcement, I'll take any questions that you
might have.
Q How is planning going for the Donor's Conference?
MR. McCURRY: There's a significant amount of planning
underway. Why don't I tell you a little bit about where we are? Some
of you may have heard Assistant Secretary Djerejian speaking at noon
today; but I believe that he intended to announce that we have sent
invitations from Secretary Christopher and from Secretary Bentsen to a
variety of countries that we've asked to participate in the Conference
to Support Middle East Peace.
The conference will take place here at the Department on
October 1, next Friday. The conference will be held under the aegis of
the Steering Group for the multilateral peace negotiations. Members of
the Steering Group for the multilaterals, I think as many of you know,
are the United States and Russia, who will serve as co-sponsors; the
European Community; Japan; Canada; Israel; the Palestinians; Jordan;
Egypt; Saudi Arabia, which I believe represents the GCC states; and
Tunisia, which represents the Maghreb states.
The World Bank will also be participating in the conference.
The United Nations and Norway have also been invited to send
representatives. Other countries have also been invited on the basis
that they'll be willing and able to make a substantial material
contribution beyond current programs that they now fund in the region.
We are just in the process of delivering those invitations
today, so I don't have any information yet on acceptances, but we will
give that to you as we learn more. There will be a preparatory meeting
of senior advisors from the principal contributing countries here on
Monday. I think a lot of the details of the conference itself will
begin to come together next week while we're up in New York.
It will obviously be the Secretary's intent to return from New
York, where he'll be attending the U.N. General Assembly Meetings,
probably Thursday evening so he can participate in the sessions here on
Friday. So I would describe the planning underway for this session as
being quite extensive, involving clearly our partners over at the
Treasury Department who are playing a very key role in fashioning the
agenda and some of the various aspects of the discussions that will
occur. We look forward to what we hope will be a productive and
successful meeting.
Q How many invitations have gone out?
MR. McCURRY: I don't have a total count. As I say, we are
being somewhat flexible. Our desire here is to be inclusive and bring
people together who have an interest in participating who can make a
genuine contribution to the proceedings itself. And, again, that will
be evaluated as we continue to spread word of the conference itself to
others in the world community.
Q Are you trying to get Syria and Lebanon to change their
mind about participating to that group?
MR. McCURRY: The Secretary will be stressing the importance
of this conference and the follow-up work that's being done on the
Declaration of Principles when he meets with his counterpart Foreign
Ministers next week and I believe early the following week. I know he
plans to have some contact with Foreign Minister Shara; I believe if not
next week during the U.N. sessions perhaps early next week. In working
out the details of that meeting, there may be an opportunity to discuss
the importance of the conference itself.
Q When you say early next week, does the Secretary now have
plans to go back up to New York after this?
MR. McCURRY: No. I think Foreign Minister Shara -- my
understanding is if we meet with him the following week, that would be
here in Washington, probably early in the week. I think the most likely
date is Tuesday, I believe.
Q Will this meeting on the first be the actual pledging
session, or will people just get a general idea of the dimension of the
problem?
MR. McCURRY: I think it will be a combination of both.
Obviously, there will be assessments of the overall need. Many of the
countries, who will be participating, we hope, who will send
representatives, have already indicated their willingness to render
material assistance as has the United States. So I suspect there will
be a combination of both pledges from countries that are participating
and then also a thorough assessment of what the likely needs are as you
look ahead five and ten years.
Q Does the Secretary have any cumulative total in mind for
what he would like to see?
MR. McCURRY: On Monday last, he referred, in his speech, to
the World Bank's assessment that a $3 billion need over ten years has
been assessed. I think one thing that will be discussed during the
course of this conference is other estimates that have been made. I
think that's the one that is the best estimate we have at this point and
it's one that points to a need that needs to be addressed over a 10-year
period.
Mary.
Q Mike, do you anticipate that there will be any
discussions at this conference about oversight over all these funds that
are suddenly going to go pouring into the territories?
MR. McCURRY: I think that will not only be a significant part
of this discussion, but has been a very significant part of the
discussions leading up to this conference because we are talking about a
substantial sum of money one way or another; and making sure that the
institutions and the structures are available to spend this money
effectively so that the money is well invested is a keen concern of the
United States and certainly of others in the world community who will
likely participate in this conference. That's something that we have,
as you know, stressed to the parties themselves; that the importance of
establishing those institutions, doing the work required in the
Declaration, is fundamentally important to seeing that the resources
available can be effective in delivering immediate changes on the ground
in the region.
Q Will the U.S. be seeking a pledge from Israel?
MR. McCURRY: We have had discussions with them. I don't know
the answer to whether or not we will seek a pledge from them. They
certainly have made clear to us that they are more than interested in
working in partnership, as required in the Declaration, to see to it
that the transformation called for in the Declaration is a successful
one.
Ralph.
Q At what level will this conference be held? And is it a
one-day affair or a one-morning affair or an afternoon affair? Do you
expect it to go on over the weekend?
MR. McCURRY: I believe it will be a one-day affair. I think
it will probably conclude by mid-afternoon on that Friday. We will hear
more from the countries who have been invited on the level of their
representation. Certainly, Secretary Christopher will be participating
in at least part of the sessions as they're held here.
Q Traditionally, there was never any meeting on a Friday
either during the bilateral or multilateral conference in the peace
process. Are you sure that the Muslim countries can participate to such
a conference on a Friday?
MR. McCURRY: I believe that there had been some discussions
about that prior to the invitations being sent and October 1 being set
as the date. Part of the concern here is that everyone is under a very
rigorous scheduling during that week because of the meetings that are
being held in New York. This did seem to be a date that would meet the
need to move quickly to establish the importance of this work.
Q Mike, as a way to build on the momentum you expect to
generate out of this conference, would you expect the Secretary to go to
the region afterwards?
MR. McCURRY: I don't have anything new on any plans. We
don't have anything firm on any travel plans by the Secretary. The
importance of these meetings, the follow-up bilateral meetings with the
Foreign Ministers, that's where we're concentrating our attention right
now. If we have any information on travel, we'll make that available at
a later date.
Q Mike, at the conference -- the donor conference -- is it
your anticipation that other issues will be discussed? Is this going to
be another multilateral session which includes a pledging conference, or
is this essentially limited to this one issue?
MR. McCURRY: The agenda itself will very much concentrate on
the issues related to providing the economic resources to empower this
agreement to see that it goes forward successfully.
Now, with that many people present, the likelihood that they
will touch on other issues related to the peace process and, given that
this is being held under the aegis of the multilateral Steering Group,
the opportunity for some side discussions of other multilateral issues
is something I would not rule out. But the principal work of this
conference is aimed very much at the issue of economic empowerment.
Q You said that the Secretary is planning to meet with
Foreign Minister Shara of Syria. Is there any plan to meet with Faris
Buwayz from Lebanon?
MR. McCURRY: Yes. He also has plans -- sometime within the
context, either during or just after the U.N. session -- to meet with
Foreign Minister Buwayz. He will also obviously be meeting with Foreign
Minister Peres and I expect with Foreign Minister Majali of Jordan, too.
Q On a somewhat slightly related logistical thing -- in
light of the change in the Secretary's plans for dealing with the U.N.,
will he go any earlier on Sunday? Will there be any substantive
activities on Sunday?
MR. McCURRY: Ralph, I'm not aware of any other plans
involving going up early. There are some things under consideration for
Sunday that might affect the time that the Secretary would go up to New
York on Sunday. We're obviously having to do some changing in the
schedule and moving things around. We're going to try to get some folks
who will come down and give you a good briefing on where we are at the
moment on our planning for the schedule next week so you can begin
making your plans accordingly. If we can get that done today, we will
get it done today. But, certainly, by tomorrow we'll at least give you
a sketch of what we think is developing as the schedule for the week so
you'll have a better opportunity to plan.
Q Just to follow that and perhaps shift the subject a
little bit -- is the message that the President is going to deliver
Monday at the U.N. being changed in any way as a result of what happened
yesterday in Moscow?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know. I haven't seen the latest or
current draft. I don't know what the thinking on the speech is. I
think there are certainly a number of events going on in the world that
the President might likely account for in the speech, but I'd really
leave it up to the White House to tell you more about how their planning
is coming together for his speech Monday.
Q Mike, you mentioned the World Bank figure is $3 billion
over ten years. How much is the United States shooting for for the
first year?
MR. McCURRY: What we have said already is the commitment the
Secretary indicated the other day -- the $250 million two-year package
that he announced on Monday.
Q That's the American contribution -- but the overall
figure for the first year?
MR. McCURRY: Of how we assess the need? I've seen it
referred to in various ways. One document has described it at roughly
$300 million a year, but I think that's just dividing the overall
assessment.
There was an earlier World Bank assessment, or a World Bank
paper that indicated, I believe, that the need over a 5-year period was
somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.8 billion, which broke down, I
believe, to $300 million in operating costs -- which I would see as
perhaps the start-up costs to put in some of the institutions and
structures they're talking about -- and then an additional $1.3 billion
in capitalization costs that would involve infrastructure improvements,
facilities, and things that would presumably need to be constructed.
But, I think, they're probably in the best position to give you a
breakdown on their assessment. That's the way I recall the figures.
Q Mike, the Administration has said that it would like to
get the $250 million over two years by reprogramming money in the
foreign aid budgets. Have you decided where you're going to reprogram
money from, or is that all under review right now?
MR. McCURRY: No. They, clearly, did some very fast work to
put together the package that the Secretary was in a position to
announce on Monday. They did have to think about that question, but I
don't have a detail on how they put together all of the elements of the
package itself. It was done consistent with some of our conversations
already with members of Congress about the FY-93 and FY-94 budget
picture.
Q Mike, coming back to an earlier question, you were asked
about meetings with Shara and with Lebanon. Did the U.S. send
invitations to Syria and Lebanon to attend the donor conference?
MR. McCURRY: Not that I'm aware of.**
** Note: Later corrected to indicate Syria and Lebanon were invited to
the conference.
Q Why not? You don't want them to come?
MR. McCURRY: No. As I say, we did it in the context of the
multilateral groups working on the Palestinian issue directly. Again,
our desire is not to exclude anyone. But I think our criteria is aimed
at who is in the best position to provide significant financial
resources that can help move the work of the conference forward.
Q But the U.S. has always -- or at least up until now
anyway -- has consistently encouraged Syria and others who are not
participating in those multilateral sessions to do so. This, it seems
to me, would have been a perfect opportunity to offer another
opportunity for the Syrians to come in. Even if they can't make a
financial contribution, wouldn't you welcome their political support?
MR. McCURRY: I'm not aware of any impediment that we would
place in the way of participation by those countries if they were
interested.
Q Mike, going back to my colleague's question here about
where the money is coming here, could you take it and find out so that
we actually have a breakdown and we can look at the figures that were
already presented to Congress and see where the money is coming from?
MR. McCURRY: I'll take it. The likelihood that anyone wants
to be real forthcoming in telling how they mash together budget figures
is a fairly dubious proposition.
Q Sorry, it's a legit question. If some country is not now
going to get a certain amount of money that it was going to get because
of this, it's up to us to find out and for them to know.
Q That's right. It's a legitimate question, and we will
legitimately pursue an answer.
Q Is it true to say that the decision is not to go for a
supplemental come early next year, rather to reprogram? They don't want
to add to the budget, they just want to ...
MR. McCURRY: I think it's pretty clear that the desire is to
do that within the existing constraints of the budget process. This is
not a time in which it's easy to ask Congress to consider additional
budgetary appropriations, and it's something that we feel in this case
we can get the money we need over this two-year period from the
resources that we've got available. That's something that we've been in
close consultation with Congress on.
Q Michael, we have heard pledges from Japan, from the U.S.,
from the EC. We've not heard pledges from the Arab countries yet. Are
you trying to get some specific figures -- pledges -- from those
countries before the donor conference?
MR. McCURRY: We've certainly been in contact with those
governments about the importance of being supportive of this conference
and of the effort to raise resources, yes. I don't want to comment on
any assistance that might be rendered by any state. I think it's really
up to them to make that type of announcement or to indicate at the time
of the conference that they intend to participate.
Q Can you characterize their general response in doing
this.
MR. McCURRY: In general, there has been a great deal of
enthusiasm in the region and amongst those that we've invited for the
idea of the conference. I think people recognize there's a great deal
of work that needs to be done.
Q But aren't you kind of worried, or at least concerned,
that the Saudis or the Kuwaitis are not willing to help their
Palestinian brothers?
MR. McCURRY: That hasn't been ruled out. Of course, they'll
come to the conference. We'll see.
Q Did you say whether Jordan was coming?
MR. McCURRY: No, I did not. They were not in -- I'm sorry,
they were because under the multilaterals, their participation with the
Palestinians in that process. They are on the Steering Group, so they
are included under the auspices of the Steering Group that's putting
together the conference.
Q Would you expect Chairman Arafat to come to this
conference?
MR. McCURRY: I'm not expecting him. I'm not aware of any
plans for him to attend.
Q You said the Palestinians. Has the nature of the
Palestinian delegation to which the invitations were issued changed? Or
will the same rules apply as have been applied to the multilaterals
until now?
MR. McCURRY: Again, it will be up to the parties to determine
the composition of their delegations attending the conference itself.
Q What address did you send the invitation to?
MR. McCURRY: That's a good question. I don't know how they
extended the invitation or from whence it went and to whom it was
addressed.
Q Would you find out?
MR. McCURRY: I will find that out.
Q Would he be welcome if he chose to come?
MR. McCURRY: I think that anyone who wants to contribute to
the success of the conference, subject to the work outlined by the
multilateral Steering Group, would certainly be welcome.
Q I have two questions. One, is Abdel Alla on the list of
people to come since he was the key man on the Oslo negotiations and
he's the observer to the multilaterals?
MR. McCURRY: As I say, we have not had responses to the
invitations so I can't tell you anything about the composition of
individual delegations.
Q A follow-up to that. As to the observers that we've seen
on all these delegations -- Palestinian observers like Nabil Shaath and
Abu Allah and others -- is their status going to change now?
MR. McCURRY: That really will be something that the
delegations themselves will have to address. In a variety of ways, as
the dialogue has continued between the United States and the PLO, you've
seen some indications that there might be changes; but really, again,
that's up to them to address because they have to tell you more about
the composition of their delegations, the roles that individuals play.
Q New subject?
MR. McCURRY: New subject.
Q Can you give us sort of an update on what Christopher has
done today with regard to the situation in Russia? Has there been any
contact with Minister Kozyrev today or others in Russia perhaps?
MR. McCURRY: He is, of course, as are many in the United
States Government, following the developments there intensely. He
received his customary briefing on the situation this morning. He held
a meeting, a gathering, the weekly meeting of the Assistant Secretaries
this morning and asked Ambassador Strobe Talbott to provide a fairly
detailed and comprehensive situation report which provided our most up-
to-date information to the Assistant Secretary group.
He has had a conversation about the events in Russia this
morning with Foreign Minister Kinkel of Germany, and he may have by now
been in contact with Foreign Minister Kozyrev. His intent was to have a
call at some point this afternoon, interrupting the proceedings going on
at Dumbarton House where the Secretary is, of course, meeting with
Foreign Minister Hurd, and there was a very obvious likelihood that they
would be discussing the events in Russia at that session as well.
Q Is there an effort, either through the State Department
or the White House, to bring some other allies on board with public
support for what's happened?
MR. McCURRY: Yes. I'm sorry, say the question again.
Q Is there an effort --
MR. McCURRY: I'll have to go back and eat my words in a
minute here.
Q Is there an effort underway either through Secretary
Christopher or through the White House to bring on board some of the
other allies with public support for Yeltsin?
MR. McCURRY: I think there has been an effort to be in
contact with other governments to assess how they're responding. I'd
say, as the Secretary said earlier this afternoon, that we have been
gratified with the response that has come from our allies and friends in
Europe and elsewhere. Many of them are responding in a way very
consistent with the United States response yesterday; and I feel that
certainly, as the Secretary said, that's been one indication of the
level of support for the process of reform in Russia: the fact that
within the world community there has been a largely positive response to
these developments.
I want to go back and correct... I'm handed a note that the
NEA bureau has provided that Syria and Lebanon have been invited to the
conference. They were not indicated on the list that I had, but they
have been invited. Someone listens. It's very good.
Q That's right. They're up there listening.
MR. McCURRY: Yes.
Q At the risk of asking you a question that somebody may
have asked you yesterday, and forgive me if I am: Does the Secretary
have a sense that his senior aides are somehow letting him down -- that
Dennis Ross let him get blindsided by the PLO-Israel secret dialogue,
and that Strobe Talbott let him get blindsided by the constitutional
coup in Russia? And that somehow these people who are supposed to be
such experts are not keeping him properly informed and are not giving
him a heads-up on these rather earth-shaking events that change the
entire political map seemingly every week?
MR. McCURRY: No. (Laughter) Next question.
Q Was that question asked yesterday? Michael, do you want
to elaborate?
MR. McCURRY: Do I want to elaborate that? No. That's just a
wildly speculative theory. I mean, I'm not aware of anyone who
predicted either the events yesterday in Russia, except to say that it's
obviously a situation that we have monitored carefully. Strobe was in
Moscow just a short while ago. I think the urgency of the political
situation there is something readily apparent to them, to our Embassy
there which has been reporting regularly on it; and I think that we feel
like we had a pretty good assessment and as it turned out a fairly
accurate assessment of the political situation in Russia.
As to the other issue and the detail on the conversations that
have occurred, we've, as the Secretary has told you, had very good
information and readouts on things going on in the Oslo track from the
Israelis, from the Norwegians and others. I think the premise and the
overall direction of the question is just badly flawed.
Q Mike, just to follow. There were news reports last week,
though, that Russia -- that Yeltsin might dissolve the parliament. Did
Strobe Talbott have any information, any inkling that was going to
happen?
MR. McCURRY: I think, as I say, we had a good, accurate
assessment of what the political situation was. I don't think we knew
that Boris Yeltsin was going to go on television at a time certain
yesterday and make the announcements that he made.
Q But did he raise the possibility? Did he tell anybody
that --
MR. McCURRY: I think the contest of political forces within
Russia, the actions of the key players in that drama, is something that
we have been assessing and monitoring for some time; and it was the
basis upon which we had a fairly accurate read on the political
situation in the country.
Q Is it clear that Yeltsin has the support of the military
and the security forces?
MR. McCURRY: Their own statements on that issue have been
fairly clear, and that's obviously a situation that we continue to watch
carefully.
Q Do you --
MR. McCURRY: We have no reason to dispute the public
statements that have been made by Minister Grachev and other officials
within the government, no.
Q Mike, is there anything that we can do in the interim
period before elections? I mean, what are the practical implications
for American foreign policy? Are we in a kind of a holding pattern now,
and just waiting to see what happens?
MR. McCURRY: No, I don't think we're -- we're not at all in a
holding pattern. I think ironically in some sense the question of our
own material support for the transformation of Russia's political
economy was very much before the United States Congress as these events
did unfold and as they continue to unfold; and, as the Secretary
indicated yesterday, completing Congressional action on that package
now, giving support to reform and democracy in Russia, can make a very
powerful and important statement at exactly this moment. That's
something that we certainly hope the Congress will continue to consider
and act accordingly on the request that has been submitted.
Q Mike, wouldn't the Administration be at all concerned
about giving that much money to a government that might not be in power
in a few months?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know whether Ambassador Talbott has
addressed this publicly or whether any of the people doing the
backgrounding for you have addressed this, but it's a very important
point to make that we are in support of the process of reform in
Russia. We are in support of the reformers; and you see across the
country numerous places where reform is taking root, market economies
are emerging, and efforts are being made to transform Russian society
itself.
Now, that's where we can be of assistance. Much of the
package of assistance that the United States is considering now and
attempting to put forward is aimed at that process of reform at the
grass roots. The fact is you've heard us talk about that package often.
One of its key features is that it does not necessarily have to go
through Moscow to get to the places at the grass roots where it can make
a difference. I think that's one of the reasons, among many, why we
continue to press the need to provide the type of aid that can make a
difference in the lives of the Russian people.
Q So as far as the Administration is concerned, the Russian
aid package is not married to the political future of Boris Yeltsin?
MR. McCURRY: No. The package is married to the proposition
of reform and the need to give it assistance urgently.
Dan.
Q In any of the conversations officials have had with
Russian counterparts, has it been made clear that between now and the
elections that President Yeltsin will implement monetary and fiscal
reforms as called for by the IMF for the next round of aid that is due
Russia?
MR. McCURRY: The best information we have of that is from the
President, who discussed these matters with President Yeltsin yesterday;
but in addition to extending support to President Yeltsin, as you know,
President Clinton also asked for certain assurances that certain things
would happen, that reform would continue to be on track in Russia.
I doubt very much they discussed things at the level of detail
that your question implies, but I think the thrust of the assurances
sought by the President were that the reform process itself and the move
toward market economies and to economic liberalization would continue on
course in Russia.
Q Strobe Talbott and Larry Summers have been in Moscow in
recent weeks. Is it their understanding that reforms are going to go
underway now, or is the Administration willing to tolerate laxity until
after the elections on the grounds that sharp, shock treatment-type
reforms might undermine Yeltsin's support in the coming elections?
MR. McCURRY: I think that their assessment is the one that
they provided: that these events relate in part to the need that
Yeltsin feels to gain a greater hold on the reform process itself so
they can move forward. Frankly, as you know, some of the reforms, some
of the liberalization required in the economic reforms advanced by the
Yeltsin Government had been stymied in effect, and I think the
assessment is that they were taking steps to try to move those reforms
forward.
As to how fast they can push for certain things, what they can
ask of the Russian people as this transformation occurs, that's not
something we can dictate at this point. That's something that surely
will enter into the picture as an election campaign unfolds in Russia,
and I can't comment for you at this time on how that will be addressed.
As far as the United States, given our concerns, we have
placed a very high premium on their ability to make the kind of
transformations necessary for both international lending through
international financial institutions and then to demonstrate progress
towards reform that would then warrant the types of assistance levels
that we are currently pressing Congress to consider.
Q Mike, but we have influence in the IMF. If Yeltsin does
seize control of the central bank or make some adjustments to monetary
policy, will we in the IMF take the position that the next $1.5 billion
should go, even though for all intents and purposes there will be two
people claiming to be the President of Russia until after the election
or --
MR. McCURRY: That is a real speculative point. I don't want
to get into what position we're going to take at IMF lending conferences
in advance of addressing those issues.
Q But, Mike, part of that question is not speculative, and
that is regardless of what the U.S. public position is, the fact is that
there are -- it is not clear who the President of Russia is right now.
There certainly are at least two people who claim to be President, and
is there anything in the aid package --
MR. McCURRY: I doubt that even an international financial
institute would doubt which of the two make a stronger case.
Q But that's not the issue. The issue is the American
people are being asked and many other people around the world are being
asked to give their stamp of approval to many billions of dollars of
assistance to go to a country in whom right now there are at least two
people claiming to be President.
Is there any provision in the assistance package or in the
Administration's view should there be some way of making sure that none
of the money goes until it's clear who's running Russia?
MR. McCURRY: First, it's clear who's running Russia. Boris
Yeltsin is the democratically elected President, and he is clearly the
President of Russia. Second, in answer to the earlier question, I would
restate, so much of this assistance package is directed at the process
of reform at the grass roots for exactly the reason that it then, you
know, in a sense doesn't get tied up in Moscow politics as it gets to
the countryside to make a difference.
We are empowering the process of political and economic reform
in Russia, not individual people who are members of a government. We
are assisting the Russian people make this transformation happen, and
that's the important thing to remember, I think.
Q Michael, does the Embassy in Moscow have any contact with
General Rutskoi?
MR. McCURRY: They have not had contact with him in the last
24 hours I am told.
Q Mike, do you know when and how the text of Ambassador
Albright's speech would be available tomorrow?
MR. McCURRY: I don't. I will try to find out from Mr. Rubin
up in New York how they make that available. I know they were making
changes in the draft, but it will be available in advance, I am told.
Q Can you give us some sort of guidance on what the U.S.
feels in the Somalia case? The U.N. has now arrested one of the aides
to Aideed. What is the U.S. recommendation for what ought to happen to
that man? Should he be on trial? Should he be held indefinitely?
Should he --
MR. McCURRY: I don't know whether we have made any
recommendations to the United Nations authorities in Mogadishu about
processing. I have to step back from that question. There's a larger
question there about judicial and penal institutions within Somalia.
That's something that I think is going to be addressed in short order by
the U.N. Security Council, which is preparing a resolution on that
subject that should be acted upon within the next several days; but the
importance of establishing procedures to bring individuals to trial so
they can be punished for crimes and held accountable for the misery that
they've inflicted on the Somali people is something that is a very
direct concern of the United Nations itself.
Q Is he still in the custody of the Rangers? I mean, the
U.S. Army?
MR. McCURRY: I am not aware of the current arrangements for
his incarceration.
Q And under what law is he being held? Whose law?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know the answer to that. I can find
out. I'll try to find out. He was being pursued -- the pursuit and
apprehension of him was clearly at the direction of the United Nations,
as reflected in the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions, so it's
a matter of international law in one respect. How he is currently being
detained and incarcerated is something I'll try to find out more about.
Q Can you take the question of what the U.S. is likely to
recommend in terms of this man's judicial future? What venue he will be
tossed into or what jail he is being held in and what is likely to
happen to him?
MR. McCURRY: I'll find out what I can about how legal
proceedings will proceed in his case.
Q Related to that, National Security Adviser Lake yesterday
indicated or implied that U.S. troops might not be there that much
longer. What sort of time frame is he thinking about or the
Administration thinking about? There have been a lot of references to
when U.S. troops might or might not be pulled out but never any sort of
time frame.
MR. McCURRY: I direct you first to the resolution I just
mentioned as being currently circulating at the United Nations and what
it might say about the duration of the UNOSOM mission. I think that
they are pointing ahead towards a date, I believe, in the spring of
1995.
We have indicated that in the case of the Quick Reaction
Forces, our desire is to return them to the United States as soon as
possible; and then the remainder of the U.S. contingent still present, I
think you've heard others in the Department talk about our drawdown
timetable which would proceed over the course of the coming year.
Q Michael, do you have any remark on a report put together
by a Professor at American University of the request of Admiral Howe on
the way things were conducted in Somalia and being very critical of
Glaspie -- Ambassador Glaspie. Are you aware of that report?
MR. McCURRY: I'm not aware of that report, no. I'll try to
find out more about it.
Q Mike, on Somalia. What's the current status of the
discussion or the debate over PRD-13?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know that -- why is that related to
Somalia?
Q If you don't want to relate it to Somalia, don't. What
is the current status of the debate over PRD-13?
MR. McCURRY: I think there's, in my understanding, a
Presidential review on the subject generally of peacekeeping that is
under consideration, as it has been for some time, and to my knowledge
has not been forwarded to the President.
Q Mike, do you have anything today, any details on what's
going to happen with Mandela? If he on Tuesday gives the go-ahead to
lift sanctions, then what will the U.S. do?
MR. McCURRY: There are certain things that are expected to
happen and certain responses that may then occur. I kind of prefer to
leave it to see if things happen as they are scheduled to happen. We
have said in the past, of course, that should there be a call by Mr.
Mandela for a lifting of sanctions, we then are in a position to proceed
to do certain things; and we'll see if that occurs, but that certainly
would be the expectation.
Q Now, doesn't he have an award here on Friday or a major
speech -- the same time as the Middle East thing, on October 1?
MR. McCURRY: I'm sorry.
Q Isn't he due to have something here at the State
Department October 1?
MR. McCURRY: I don't have firm information about his travel
schedule.
Q It's going to be a fun day.
Q I have two quick questions which you'd have to take on
the donors conference. The Palestinians are saying that the amount the
United States has dedicated to this -- about $75 million a year in
actual cash -- happens to match the exact amount the U.S. Government
pays out to Israel for the deposit situation on Israeli aid. Israeli
aid is deposited at the beginning of the year, and she earns interest on
it.
That is unique, and the Palestinians are saying maybe the
United States is simply going to stop giving Israel her aid ahead of
time. Would you take the question on that, and is that where you're
getting the money for the aid to Palestine?
MR. McCURRY: I don't think it would be profitable to take the
question. I don't think we would get much of an answer on that
question. That's not something that's under consideration, as far as I
know.
Q A follow-up on Rutskoi: Is there any policy reason why
the United States would not contact him directly, given the fact that he
claims to be President?
MR. McCURRY: The reason is that we made clear yesterday that
we recognize a single individual as President and a competing claim from
someone else is not something that we would recognize.
Q So you're not going to deal with him.
MR. McCURRY: We could not deal with him in his capacity as a
self-proclaimed President, because we acknowledge that someone else is
President.
Q Well, couldn't you be dealing with other people?
There's a precedent, of course. There's a large precedent for keeping
your ears and eyes open to things going on in other countries; and in
fact the Administration was criticized, the previous one, for not paying
enough attention to Yeltsin and his people while they pinned their hopes
to Gorbachev. You may have the wrong horse here, no?
MR. McCURRY: I think through our Embassy in Moscow we have a
variety of good and strong contacts with a range of people within
Russian society, Russian political culture; but this is a specific
question about diplomatic contact with an individual at this time who
indicates that he is the President, and we say he is not and so that
wouldn't be a profitable point of contact.
Q You do stay in contact with opposition leaders all around
the world --
MR. McCURRY: Of course,
Q -- including people --
MR. McCURRY: Including in Russia.
Q -- including Russia and including people outside
countries who claim various sorts of rights as -- leadership rights and
things like that. So you would continue to remain in contact with
Rutskoi from the point of view of maintaining your contacts with
Yeltsin's opposition, wouldn't you?
MR. McCURRY: That's a hypothetical question that doesn't make
a lot of sense in the context that we're in right now. Rutskoi has made
-- there's been a dramatic change in the status he proclaims for
himself, and so that would change the nature of the type of contact.
Q So you're -- I'm sorry to pursue this, but the answer to
Mark's question is there's a U.S. policy at the moment that says no U.S.
diplomats will be in touch with this man who claims to be the President
of Russia, is that correct?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know if there is a policy written down
somewhere that says we've decided we will not have contact with Rutskoi,
but as a practical effect, we have not had contact with him, and we
don't plan contact with him.
Q Thank you.
MR. McCURRY: You're welcome.
(The briefing concluded at 1:50 p.m.)
(###)
To the top of this page