931013 Daily Press Briefing  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, October 13, 1993

                            BRIEFER:  Michael McCurry

Subject                                               Page

DEPARTMENT
Dedication of National Foreign Affairs Training
  Center/New Focus of Training .................      1-3
--  Secretary's Speech .........................      1-3
Background Briefing Today on New Budget Approach      3

HAITI
Sanctions ......................................      3-9
--  Discussions at UN/Impact/Duration ..........      3-6,9
--  Assets Freeze of Haitian Leaders ...........      5-7
--  Previous Sanctions/Conditions for Lifting ..      5-6
Implementation of Governor's Island Accord .....      6-11
Threats against Journalists ....................      11
US Immigration Policy ..........................      11
US Contacts ....................................      12
Support for US Policy to Restore Democracy .....      12-13
Situation Update ...............................      13

SOMALIA
Ambassador Oakley's Diplomatic Discussions .....      13
--  Efforts to Secure Release of US Detainee ...      13

(###)



                       DEPARTMENT OF STATE
                       DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

                                                  DPC #139

             WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1993, 12:51 P.M.
              (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)


         MR. McCURRY:  Good afternoon everybody.  Before I get to your 
questions, I'd actually like to start with some good news.  The good 
news is something I think that you're aware of already but I'd like to 
highlight it for you and actually put in a little appeal for you to 
check into something that I think is very significant for the 
Department, for our country and for the conduct of diplomacy.

           As you know, at 3:00 this afternoon the Secretary of State, 
along with four of his most recent colleagues, will be dedicating our 
new National Foreign Affairs Training Center in Arlington.  I'd like to 
talk about that for a second because I think it's significant and I'd 
like to encourage all of you, if not today, in the coming weeks, to 
really check in on this general subject and take a look at what's going 
on.

           I'll describe for you the event today, which is a dedication, 
as something that's really much more than the dedication of new bricks 
and mortar.  What we are doing through the creation of this facility is 
really changing the way the United States Government approaches the 
training of diplomats.

           As you know, a kind of recurrent theme within this 
Administration is reinventing government.  I think it's literally true 
to say we are reinventing the way that we train the diplomats of the 
future as we inaugurate a new training facility for the Department of 
State and for the United States Government.

           Many of you know that there is an entity known as the Foreign 
Service Institute.  The Foreign Service Institute has promulgated an 
agenda for change that really describes in many ways how we will begin 
to take the work of training diplomats and turn that into a strategy for 
global competitiveness and really creating a new diplomacy for global 
competitiveness, taking our diplomats and putting them on the frontline 
in the effort to promote our interests, especially our economic 
interests, abroad.

           I don't want to pre-empt the Secretary's speech, but I think 
he will describe in some detail today the importance of this new 
paradigm, as you look at the question of training, and  highlight the 
importance of this dedication.  I encourage as many of you as can to go 
to the dedication today; but if not, to visit the facility in the weeks 
ahead.  I think you'll find a very extraordinary thing has happened at 
the site of the old Arlington Hall Station, the U.S. Army facility in 
Arlington.  They have built an architecturally splendid facility.  
They've done it the right way, and they've created something that I 
think is really interesting from an architectural and visual 
perspective.  But they've more importantly created a facility that will 
allow 15,000-plus people to go through training in the course of a year; 
a facility that's got 600 rooms, 250 classrooms, and something that I 
think is very interesting, a jail cell -- which I encourage all of you 
to go and spend some time in which would probably do some of you some 
good -- a jail cell and a sample consular facility.  As we train 
consular officials who are going to have to deal with Americans abroad 
who are incarcerated or people who are applying for visas to come to the 
United States, they literally have a facility that allows people to 
learn by doing.

           I think it's very, very exciting, and I really do encourage 
all of you to see if you can do some reporting on that.

           Now, the Secretary's remarks at the dedication today are 
important for another reason:  because he is going to describe, using 
the setting of this new facility, how we allocate resources for 
international affairs.  I will tell you the remarks he makes might not 
instantly look newsworthy to you but they are important for another 
reason.  They reflect a lot of very serious thinking that has gone on in 
this building over the course of recent weeks and that will continue in 
the weeks ahead as we fashion our budget submission for FY-1995.

           There is an effort on the part of this Administration to 
rethink the way we address the National Foreign Affairs budget so that 
it reflects America's security interest abroad.  How do you define that?  
How do you shape the Federal Budget so that it reflects the commitments 
that the President of the United States has outlined and that others in 
the Administration have outlined?  I think you'll hear the Secretary say 
today that this nation as a whole, as a portion of its Federal Budget, 
doesn't spend a lot on diplomacy; but preventative diplomacy can yield 
the greatest resource results and help free up resources that might be 
used to address urgent domestic needs.  I think he will make that 
argument today in his remarks; but I'll you, he made that case very 
directly yesterday at the White House in a session that he had with OMB 
officials, with Dr. Wharton, the Deputy Secretary, and Under Secretary 
Lynne Davis.

           This is an important effort on the part of this 
Administration to really begin rethinking how we go about budgeting for 
the conduct of diplomacy and international affairs.

           In light of the importance of that general subject, we are 
going to have a Background briefing today for those of you who are 
interested, following the dedication of the new National Foreign Affairs 
Training Center, here at 4:30 with a senior Administration official that 
will give you, not in any elaborate detail, but give you at least a 
snapshot of our thinking as it's evolving on these budget resource 
issues.  This will not be a formal budget briefing.  We're not going to 
be talking numbers; but I think our senior Administration official will 
be in a position to outline for you some of the thinking that's emerging 
about how we should be approaching budget issues generally.

           So with that extended sermon, I will go to your questions.

           Q    Will Christopher's remarks be piped in today?

           MR. McCURRY:  I don't think we're able to pipe his remarks in 
here, but we will have an advance text available after the briefing.

           Q    Can you bring us up to date on the situation in Haiti?

           MR. McCURRY:  I think you're aware of some of the work that 
has been going on there.  We have been both assessing the situation as 
it relates to the environment in Port-au-Prince, and then also taking 
steps at the Security Council in New York to reimpose the sanctions that 
were suspended at the time the Governor's Island accords went through.

           My understanding is that the sanctions package that is 
developing today at the United Nations follows very closely those 
sanctions that were imposed by U.N. Security Council Resolution 841 
relating to bans on equipment, services, and oil-based supplies.  In 
addition to that, they're looking at the question of how they can apply 
an assets freeze to the accounts of certain individuals within the 
police and the military who are responsible for what we believe is a 
potential breakdown in the implementation of the Governor's Island 
accords.

           My understanding is that later this afternoon the Security 
Council could very well take up that resolution, so I'd direct you to 
the debate in New York at the Security Council this afternoon to see 
what kind of progress they make on the sanctions themselves.  It is 
certainly our expectation  that we would receive support from the 
international community for the immediate imposition of sanctions.

           Q    The oil embargo would be reimposed, you said 
specifically?

           MR. McCURRY:  My understanding is that the package that 
emerges on sanctions follows closely the previously imposed sanctions 
that were adopted in late August by the Security Council.

           Q    What does the United States know about any attempt by 
the military rulers of Haiti to have stockpiled oil in the interim?

           MR. McCURRY:  I don't know that we have a thorough 
assessment, or I don't have one here I can share with you.  I think, in 
general, our sense is that the Haitian economy exists on monthly 
supplies of oil and petroleum products.  At the moment, they probably 
have about a 3-month reserve; but that's a calculation that I can 
double-check and make sure that that's accurate.

           Q    Can you give us a little idea of the thinking within the 
State Department, within the Administration, about sanctions that hurt 
the people of Haiti as well as hurt the people who you feel have blocked 
the return of democracy?  Like the oil embargo -- why are you doing 
that?

           MR. McCURRY:  Some of you may have seen Ambassador Albright 
this morning on a morning television interview describe sanctions as a 
very blunt instrument, that they are something that cannot, in fact, -- 
that they are the tool that is available to the world community to bring 
pressure to bear on a government or a nation that is not complying with 
agreed-upon standards or agreed-upon accords that have been adopted as a 
result of negotiations, as is in the case of Haiti.

           It is a blunt instrument, and it is not always effective in 
bringing pressure to bear on those who are responsible.  There are steps 
within the sanctions -- when the Security Council last addressed the 
question of sanctions on Haiti in 841, they took some very specific 
steps to try to ameliorate the effects of an oil embargo on individual 
Haitian citizens.  For example, they said you would be able to import 
small quantities of cooking fuel.  These are the types of things that 
would help take care of the effects of an oil-related sanction on 
individual citizens who are not responsible for the behavior of those 
who are interrupting these accords.

           There is no doubt an argument that the people of Haiti will 
be asked to pay for the actions of these authorities in the military and 
in the police who are now disrupting the return and restoration of 
democracy.  That's a consequence of  their action.  It needs to be made 
very clear that the burden of those consequences rests squarely on those 
who are responsible for thwarting the implementation of the Governor's 
Island accords.

           Q    Mike, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the previous 
embargo on oil-related equipment?  Are we now talking about a real oil 
embargo?

           MR. McCURRY:  I can't recall exactly how they phrased the 
sanction as it was expressed in 841, but I believe it related to oil and 
oil supplies.  My understanding was that it was a fairly total embargo 
on oil and petroleum products.

           Q    Mike, what happened -- maybe I missed it also -- but did 
you ever get a summary of any sort about the assets that might remain 
after having had the sanctions lifted and now being reimposed?

           MR. McCURRY:  I got a little bit of information on it that 
wasn't conclusive enough to share.  For reasons I can't describe for you 
here but I can maybe answer for you later, it was our sense that we 
wouldn't necessarily put that out now.  Most of the information we had 
related to the effect of U.S. unilaterally imposed sanctions on assets.  
Our goal here is, of course, to create some support within the world 
community for sanctions; but I can tell you a little more on that later.

           Q    Before we leave that subject, are you able to address 
the more general question of having had sanctions on assets and having 
lifted them and now trying to reimpose them, is the U.S. confident that 
reimposing them now will have some concrete effect --

           MR. McCURRY:  Yes.

           Q    -- or has the cat been let out of the bag?

           MR. McCURRY:  We feel reimposing sanctions would have several 
effects.  We can (1) restrict the travel of certain individuals who seem 
to enjoy travel; (2) we can put a freeze on bank accounts and assets -- 
and, again, it would be important to involve a larger community of 
nations in that effort; and then (3) we can also take a look at some 
other ways that we can address processing of visas and things like that 
that would have an effect.

           We can also discuss the scope of these sanctions or these 
targeted sanctions and who they are directed upon and who they would 
affect in a way that we think would bring real pressure to bear on those 
who are responsible for this disruption in the Governor's Island 
process.

           Q    Has the assets freeze being considered at the U.N, or 
being formulated -- is that modeled after the U.S. unilateral one -- 
unilateral asset freeze?

           MR. McCURRY:  The sanctions that were adopted back in August 
were modeled on the OAS-imposed sanctions and also some aspects of the 
U.S. sanctions that had been imposed unilaterally shortly before the 
U.N. took the action.

           Q    Including the assets freeze element of it?  That's 
really the part that was a very sharp instrument at getting at the 
particular coup types.

           MR. McCURRY:  The sanctions that had been adopted before by 
the United Nations were modeled, in part, on some of the steps that the 
United States had taken unilaterally; and, as I said, what they're 
looking at now is going back to that package of sanctions that, in a 
sense, had been held in abeyance as the Governor's Island accord moved 
forward and see if -- in a sense, reimpose those same sanctions.  That's 
my understanding of where the debate is; but, again, as I say, this is 
unfolding today in New York so you do need to watch how the debate goes.

           Q    Can you elaborate more on the conditions under which 
sanctions would be lifted?  There was talk yesterday about assuring 
security and living up to commitments.  Had sanctions not been lifted 
earlier, you might not be in the mess that you're in now.

           MR. McCURRY:  Our view is that sanctions should remain in 
effect until the international community is convinced that the 
Governor's Island process is being complied with in good faith.  That's 
the same standard that existed for the suspension of sanctions before 
and that would be the one that we believe should remain in effect now.

           Q    But then they turned around and did not exhibit good 
faith after the sanctions were already put aside.

           MR. McCURRY:  As you recall, under the Governor's Island 
accords, there were nine specific steps and some of those steps began to 
take place and they were moving forward. It was only recently -- and 
fairly recently -- that we began to see behavior that would indicate 
that there was not a good faith implementation of the accords.  So, 
again, it's seeing that that agreement is fully implemented, as it was 
negotiated by General Cedras and President Aristide.

           Q    Mike, the U.S. Government and others have been talking 
for months, since last July, as I recall, about freezing bank accounts 
-- in other words, giving the holders of those bank accounts sufficient 
warning to move their assets elsewhere, to some Swiss numbered bank 
account.  Do you have --

           MR. McCURRY:  Which is why I keep saying that involving a 
wider community of nations in this sanction will be helpful, clearly.

           Q    Do you have any confidence, though, that the money is 
still there in sufficient quantity to deter anybody from doing what 
they're doing now?

           MR. McCURRY:  I don't have enough information to answer that.  
I don't know how assets may have been transferred between accounts; but 
again, as I say, that's one of the reasons why it's important that this 
be addressed as a matter of urgency by the world community so that other 
nations would participate in the implementation and enforcement of such 
sanctions.

           Q    Can you release the names of some of these families?

           MR. McCURRY:  I can't.  My recollection at the time that we 
imposed unilateral sanctions, the most we ever said was we had 
identified 38 people.  That's my recall at this point.  I'll double-
check that number; but I think we said we had identified 38 people that 
we believed would be subject to the sanctions that had been imposed 
unilaterally by the United States.

           As to the scope of the sanctions we're talking about now -- 
who they would affect, which families they would affect -- that's not 
something that I want to get into.

           Q    How many of those are civilians and how many military?

           MR. McCURRY:  I don't know the answer to that in the prior 
case, and I don't want to speculate on it prospectively in advance of 
sanctions actually being enacted.

           Q    One of the points of the Governor's Island accords is 
that Cedras and Francois leave.  Is that one of the conditions now for 
-- would the United States want that as one of the conditions for the 
lifting of sanctions?

           MR. McCURRY:  As I say, prior to lifting any sanctions -- 
sanctions should remain in effect until the international community is 
convinced that the Governor's Island process is being complied with.  
What's required in the Governor's Island accord is that:  (1) General 
Cedras step down, and (2) that President Aristide be in a position to 
appoint a new Chief of Police.  Those are specified within the 
Governor's Island accords, and certainly sanctions will need to remain 
in effect until we're satisfied that those steps are being implemented.

           Q    But the Governor's Island accord --

           Q    But do you mean the sanctions -- the U.S. now thinks -- 
as distinct from what it thought in the past, the U.S. now thinks the 
sanctions should remain in effect until  Aristide returns, until 
democracy is restored, because that's also in the accords, and it was 
not a condition for lifting of the sanctions the last time.

           MR. McCURRY:  We have said before within -- the condition for 
lifting the sanctions, I believe, was certification by the U.N. 
Secretary General that the Governor's Island accords were being 
implemented in good faith.  What we're saying now is that we want to see 
that the process is being complied with in good faith, and clearly there 
are things that both General Cedras and Colonel Francois could do that 
would indicate that they are complying with the accord in good faith.

           Q    Does it have to wait for October 30 for Aristide to 
return as well, which is also part of the agreement; or are you 
essentially saying the sanctions stay in effect until Cedras and 
Francois leave, that that's the next step in the accords, and then they 
can be lifted again.

           MR. McCURRY:  We're talking about a short period of time in 
which there would have to be an assessment.  It would be hard to say, 
but the point would be that if sanctions are put into effect by the 
United Nations today, they would remain in effect until there's 
confidence within the Security Council itself that the process of 
restoring democracy is going to be fulfilled; and that obviously 
includes the return of President Aristide.

           Q    But, Mike, those are the conditions that had been 
imposed earlier; but then, as you know, the --

           MR. McCURRY:  As I said, progress was made towards 
implementing those accords, and that recently we saw problems --

           Q    But there was a debate between the United States and 
others and President Aristide as to what constituted progress; and 
Aristide finally agreed that progress would be the appointment of Malval 
and the creation of a parliament, not the leaving of office of Cedras or 
Francois.

           What I'm trying to find out is if the United States now is in 
favor of tightening that so that the two people we're now blaming for 
the current problems, Cedras and Francois, would be gone, or at least on 
their way out before these sanctions would be lifted.

           MR. McCURRY:  We are saying that the sanctions need to be in 
place until we're confident that the process is being implemented, and 
I've defined for you how the Governor's Island accords affects General 
Cedras and how it could conceivably affect Colonel Francois.  I don't 
know that I can be any clearer than I was.

           Q    Well, it could be a little clearer as to how confident 
would you be if Cedras and Francois are still there but have promised to 
get out, let us say.

           MR. McCURRY:  That's so hypothetical.  If they're still there 
in a way that is clear that they are not following through on the 
requirements of the Governor's Island accords, then sanctions would have 
to remain in effect clearly.

           Q    Why are you unwilling to say that they'd have to leave 
before sanctions would be lifted?

           MR. McCURRY:  Because the Governor's Island accords says what 
I just described.  It's got specific requirements placed on General 
Cedras, and it requires the President to appoint a new Chief of Police.

           Q    This morning Aristide said in a statement that one of 
the things he would like to see, and he believes that President Clinton 
wants to see, is for Raoul Cedras and Michel Francois to leave, as 
required.  Is that --

           MR. McCURRY:  To leave, as required -- that is a shorthand 
way of describing what is required of them in the Governor's Island 
accords.  We share that view.

           Q    Was it a mistake to lift the sanctions when they were 
lifted, now?

           MR. McCURRY:  No.  When they were lifted, as required by the 
Security Council resolution, as required in fact by the Governor's 
Island accord itself, they were lifted when there was demonstrated 
progress towards the implementation of the accords.  As I say, it's only 
recently, within a matter of the last days, that we've seen that those 
who have made commitments as a result of that accord are now apparently 
not willing to follow through on those commitments.  I think that's been 
a changed situation, and the response of the world community has been 
appropriate accordingly.

           Mark.

           Q    What are this government's objections to a blockade, as 
has been suggested by some of Aristide's supporters?

           MR. McCURRY:  I don't know that we favor or oppose a 
blockade.  I just don't believe that that's currently the subject of the 
discussions at the U.N. in New York, where the focus of the discussion 
of sanctions has been.  I am not aware that we have taken a position on 
a blockade.

           Q    Unless and until there is progress in implementing the 
Governor's Island accords, does the United States now think that it is 
not advisable for President Aristide to return?

           MR. McCURRY:  I don't know that we have rendered advice on 
his return.  We have said that the return of President Aristide by the 
end of this month, as required in the  accord, is something we attach 
very great importance to; but I don't know that we have rendered advice 
on whether or not he should return, given circumstances on the ground.

           Again, back to the accord itself, there is a process that's 
defined that leads to the return of President Aristide; and at the 
moment the question is about the willingness of those who have made 
commitments to follow through on their commitments as expressed in that 
accord.

           Q    Are you revoking some of the visas that you reinstated 
in July?

           MR. McCURRY:  I don't know that there's been any action yet 
on individual visa cases.  That would be pending a decision by the 
United Nations today as it addresses the matter.

           Q    But, Mike, are there any steps the U.S. can take or has 
perhaps already taken on its own without waiting for United Nations 
action?

           MR. McCURRY:  I am not aware of any steps that we have taken 
unilaterally at this point.  The answer, Ralph, is yes, there could be 
steps that we would take, as we have in the past; but at the moment we 
are working to see if we can broaden the effect of these likely 
sanctions by seeing that they are endorsed by the world community.

           Q    Mike, just to clarify, is it correct to say then that 
the Administration does not favor lifting the sanctions until Cedras and 
Francois have stepped down and Aristide is back on the island?

           MR. McCURRY:  How many more times can I say it?  It's the 
position that sanctions should remain in effect until the international 
community is convinced that the Governor's Island process is being 
complied with in good faith.

           Q    But there's a hazy area there.  You're throwing it into 
the interpretation of the international community when there's two 
substantive things that you're calling for.

           MR. McCURRY:  Those are in the accord itself.  

           Q    Right.  The accord is calling for.

           MR. McCURRY:  The accord itself includes the return of 
President Aristide and the disposition of General Cedras and the 
position of Chief of Police.  Those are specifically addressed, and I 
think at this point it is sufficient to say that the good-faith 
implementation of this accord will be to the conclusion of the accord, 
which is the return of President Aristide.

           Q    But those are all sort of nebulous terms:  good faith 
implementation --

           MR. McCURRY:  I don't know how to be -- that's about as 
specific as you can be.

           Q    Well, I just wonder whether the United States would 
believe that it's --

           MR. McCURRY:  I mean, the other thing is that we're talking 
about -- this is a process that unfolds between now and October 30.

           Q    Is there an October 15 deadline for Cedras to step down?

           MR. McCURRY:   I have seen that referred to.  I don't believe 
that --

           Q    Or is it the approval of the Senate?

           MR. McCURRY:  I have seen that referred to.  To my knowledge 
that's not something that's specified in the Governor's Island accord 
itself.  I think it is something that is subsequent action, perhaps by 
the Haitian Parliament.  I'm not certain of that.  I'm looking for help 
if anyone is more knowledgeable.

           Q    There have been some attacks on journalists and threats.  
Have you issued any statements about that?

           MR. McCURRY:  We did.  Yesterday we said that, of course, is 
of very great concern to us.  I know we are trying to get an update on a 
television crew yesterday.  We may have posted something on that 
yesterday.  I'm not sure if we did or not.  In any event, the United 
States regards as a matter of grave concern any threats to harass or 
intimidate members of the working press who are there to report freely 
and openly on a story of international significance.

           Q    Mike, this may be the wrong place to ask, but there's a 
dozen or so Army Special Operations types in Haiti.  Do you have any 
idea what they're doing there?

           MR. McCURRY:  I won't confirm or deny that there are any 
Special Operations units anywhere.

           Q    In view of the increased threat of these attache forces 
and others like that, has there been any change in policy on Haitian 
immigration or the granting of asylum for people?  I know a lot of 
people have been getting killed lately, and perhaps now the United 
States would lower the barriers for the application of asylum.  Any 
change?

           MR. McCURRY:  I'm not aware of any change in our immigration 
policies as they relate to Haiti.  Those are questions that are 
considered on a case-by-case basis.  I will say, as you've heard the 
President and Secretary of State say, that one reason that this matter 
is of vital interest to the United States is because of the likelihood 
that deteriorating economic conditions or deteriorating political 
condition in Haiti would lead to the type of exodus that would certainly 
be of very real and direct concern to the United States.

           Q    Mike, has Charge Huddleston had any further meetings 
today with Haitian officials?

           MR. McCURRY:  I don't know the answer, Ralph.  She may very 
well have.  I just can't recall.

           Q    I'm just trying to determine whether there's a theater 
of action here that's taking place any place other than at the U.N.  It 
sounds like basically the theater is at the U.N. right now.

           MR. McCURRY:  I think it is today.  I think that certainly 
our diplomatic efforts in Haiti are very important, and we'll most 
likely be addressing again in the next couple of days.  There are 
certain meetings and steps there as well, but at the moment our focus is 
on the United Nations.

           Q    Have you heard back from Mr. Cedras since yesterday's -- 
since the delivery of the strong message you described yesterday?

           MR. McCURRY:  I'm not aware of any further contact with him.  
I haven't seen any report of further contact with him.  We did not 
yesterday choose to characterize his response; but I think many of you 
saw Senator Gramm's remarks which we certainly say -- he gave an 
accurate presentation of the flavor of that conversation.

           Q    Mike, how do you deal with the problem on the Hill?  How 
is the Administration -- or what is the problem?  Why are there so many 
defections among Democrats, so much criticism, some suggestions -- some 
veiled, some rather sarcastic -- that this isn't really a credible 
peacekeeping operation, that it's an excuse to bring troops into Haiti.  
Why is the Administration having trouble selling the Haiti policy to its 
own Democrats on the Hill, let alone Republicans?

           MR. McCURRY:  I'm not aware of any -- I don't know what 
you're talking about.

           Q    Do you think there's support for the plan to assist 
democracy in Haiti?

           MR. McCURRY:  I think there is broad-scale support for the 
President's desire, strongly stated, to see a restoration of democracy 
in Haiti, not only because it's in the best interests of the people of 
Haiti, but because it is also in the interests of the United States of 
America.  I think there is widespread support for that view.  

           I think there was widespread support within the United States 
Congress -- and I've seen many members of Congress speaking out on this 
within the last several days -- for a  policy that would seek to see the 
peaceful restoration of democracy rather than the forced restoration of 
democracy by the use of military force.

           It was a conscious decision on the part of the United States 
and the world community to pursue an effort to build peace in Haiti, and 
I think that that policy has had widespread support.

           Q    Speaking of widespread support, can you tell us what the 
status of negotiations is in Somalia at this point?  Has Ambassador 
Oakley --

           Q    Can I do one final question on Haiti first?

           Q    Sure.

           Q    Do you have any reports of unrest in the countryside or 
what the status is today in Port-au-Prince?

           MR. McCURRY:  You know, I did.  I thought I did.  Situation 
in Port-au-Prince:  The port was closed all day yesterday.  In the port 
area there apparently was reduced commercial activity.  There were some 
armed thugs responsible, it appears, for occasional small arms fire.  
Beyond that, that's the only report I had.  I didn't have anything from 
the countryside outside of Port-au-Prince.

           Q    My question on Somalia is whether Ambassador Oakley's 
instructions or initiatives on dealing with Aideed have changed at all 
today?  Has he had a meeting with Aideed?  Has he asked for a meeting?  
Has Aideed asked for a meeting?

           MR. McCURRY:  He has not met with Aideed.  His meetings were 
very much as he described them to the pool of reporters who met with him 
in Mogadishu earlier today.  He gave, I think, a fairly extensive 
accounting of some of the discussions he's had in recent days, where he 
is in those conversations and discussions and what he thinks of the 
progress that he's been making.  I don't have much to add to what 
Ambassador Oakley has said on the record this morning himself.

           Lee.

           Q    What's the latest on Mr. Durant, the downed American 
pilot?

           MR. McCURRY:  The latest is exactly as described by 
Ambassador Oakley.

           Q    Thank you.

           MR. McCURRY:  Thank you.

           (The briefing concluded at 1:24 p.m.)

(###)

To the top of this page