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
Tuesday, October 19, 1993
BRIEFER: Michael McCurry
Subject Page
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Secretary's 10/20 Address to Nat'l Foreign Policy
Conference for Senior Business Executives ....1-2
Cancellation of Daily Briefings October 20-27 ..1,2
HAITI
Sanctions/Naval Blockade:
-- Countries Contributing Ships ...............2
-- Purpose of Sanctions/Interdiction ..........2,4-5
-- US vs. UN vs. OAS Sanctions ................3-4
-- US Discussions with Other Countries ........7
-- Frozen Assets ..............................8
-- Possible Tightening of Sanctions ...........12
-- Contact with the Dominican Republic re
Contraband .................................12
Implementation of Governor's Island Accord:
-- Departure of Cedras ........................2-3
-- UN/US Discussions with Military Leaders/
Aristide (Changes/Amnesty/Etc.) ............3,4,5
-- Timetable ..................................3
-- Adjustment to Accords ......................3-4
US Immigration Policy/"Operation Able Manner"/
In-Country Processing ........................5-7
Prospects for New Flood of Boat People .........7
RUSSIA
Dumping of Nuclear Waste .......................9
SOMALIA
Possible Visit by Secretary General ............9
Ambassador Oakley's Discussions in Region ......9-10
Discussions with Parties re US Military Deploy-
ments/Training Flights .......................10
Commission to Determine Responsibility for
Deaths of Pakistani Troops ...................10-11
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
Letter from Secretary to Serb President ........11
GEORGIA
Foreign Minister's Meeting at Department .......11-12
(###)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #142
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1993, 12:48 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. McCURRY: Good afternoon, everybody.
I think, as many of you know, the Secretary is addressing the
National Foreign Policy Conference for Senior Business Executives
tomorrow morning prior to his departure on a trip. That's a fascinating
session of a number of business leaders from around the country who will
be here to hear about the impact of our foreign policy on their market
opportunities and business opportunities abroad and how we can work more
cooperatively with them in promoting our economic interests as we
conduct American diplomacy. I think it will be an interesting day-long
conference tomorrow, and the Secretary is kicking things off with those
remarks at 9:l0. He will take questions. And then following that event
he will be leaving, as I said, for his trip.
Since we're not in town for the next week, there will be no
regular press briefing at the Department tomorrow -- and, in fact, no
briefing then until October 28, although our Press Officers will be
available with answers to your questions during that period. And, of
course, we will be reachable as we are on our journey as well.
So with those housekeeping matters, any questions you might
have?
Q On that, will you make some effort to bring a tape of the
Q&A with you on the plane so that either a transcript or a tape could be
made available since --
MR. McCURRY: We will. That's a good point, Ralph. I'll see
if I can bring at least a tape recording so you've got anything that
comes up, since some of you will already be out at Andrews in the
morning.
Q Another housekeeping question? Some of my colleagues who
are not going on the trip have asked if you would reconsider the idea of
not holding a briefing for a week here. They point out that it's
difficult to get answers to questions until late in the afternoon and
that often guidances are not done until late in the afternoon because
there's no pressure of a noon briefing.
MR. McCURRY: Yes. We'll see.
Q I wonder if you'd reconsider that and give it some more
thought, please?
MR. McCURRY: We will. We'll reconsider that and think about
how we take steps during the week to make sure you can get prompt
answers to questions. I'm not sure that we'll be able to conduct a
briefing, but at least we'll be able to take steps to make sure you can
get answers as you need them.
Q Could you bring us up to date on Haiti: (a) on the
status of the embargo; and (b) whether you think that Aristide's cabinet
should be negotiable, whether the regime now in power should have a say
in the formation of a new cabinet?
MR. McCURRY: Well, let me do the update first and then get to
the status of things.
There are U.S. and Canadian ships that are now off the Haitian
coast. Argentina, France, and the Netherlands have also agreed to send
ships. And I understand, just prior to coming out here, the United
Kingdom also plans to send a vessel.
The sanctions did go into effect last night. As of a short
while ago, there had been no interdictions reported.
My understanding is the Pentagon is going to go through some
of the operational details of their deployment in connection with the
sanctions enforcement at their briefing today.
Now, on the political questions and the political issues,
again these sanctions are designed to bring pressure to bear on the
parties themselves to see that the Governors Island Accords are followed
through with. That is exactly the purpose of the sanctions themselves.
And those Accords were the result of lengthy negotiations in which the
parties discussed the political future of Haiti and made certain
commitments that now must be honored. That remains our position.
Q Is some sort of negotiation going on leading to perhaps
the departure of Cedras and his allies?
MR. McCURRY: Well, the departure of Cedras and other changes
are certainly those things that are addressed in the Governors Island
Accord. There continue to be discussions back and forth, but I again
would stress that the Governors Island Accord is the document that
represents commitments made by those parties and those commitments do
need to be honored.
Q As a practical matter, Mike, some of the commitments in
the Governors Island Accord have been overtaken by events. They
couldn't be honored, even if everybody involved wanted to honor them.
Is there some discussion -- the discussion that you say is under way
back and forth now -- over revising the Governors Island Accord
timetable and perhaps some of the substance of it?
MR. McCURRY: I think the thing that has changed clearly is
the timetable -- the commitments as to what people would do, what's
necessary for the promulgation of a democratic government, and the
commitments that are made by the parties as they look ahead. They will
still be very much the same issues that the parties will have to deal
with. I think there is obviously some question of timing now because
the October 30 deadline looms, and I think that's all part of what the
dialogue can address.
But, again, the fundamentals remain very much the same: the
return of President Aristide, the commitments made by the military and
the police officials who have indicated they would participate and
cooperate with the restoration of democracy and live up to their
commitments, and then the framework for the promulgation of a government
as it's outlined.
Q Mike, what George and I are trying to get at is: In the
process of -- to use your word -- discussing the changes, the timetable
changes that are necessary forced by events, are you also discussing
changes in any of the substance of the Governors Island Accord -- that
is, would there be some changes in how the cabinet is decided, how the
change of presidencies goes about, and so on?
MR. McCURRY: Well, I think that the current conditions there
-- I mean, the current structure for the transformation and the
restoration of democracy is something that clearly is going to be of
concern to the parties themselves; and they can address any adjustments
that they feel are necessary in the Governors Island Accord. But that
is the framework that is on the books and negotiated now that represents
the best hope for the return and restoration of democracy.
Q Who's engaged in the negotiations? Who's representing
who, at what level?
MR. McCURRY: Well, I think Ambassador Pezzullo has been there
recently and then returned here to Washington this past weekend. I
think they remain in close contact with Special Envoy Dante Caputo, who
remains there, I believe, under the auspices of the United Nations'
continuing dialogue.
Q With Cedras?
MR. McCURRY: They are in discussion with Cedras and obviously
with Prime Minister Malval and others as well.
Q Well, Mike, in fact, that leads to the question I had in
mind. Could you go into a little bit the relationship between the U.S.
actions -- some of which are unilateral -- and what is really a U.N.
operation? Or is it? It gets a little complicated. The U.S. has its
own sanctions, and --
MR. McCURRY: I had the --
Q Well, we're trying to keep the U.N. at a distance.
MR. McCURRY: No, I don't believe that is at all accurate.
These are U.N.-imposed sanctions that relate to petroleum, petroleum
products, certain weapons and materiel covered under Resolution 837.
There is, in addition to that, an OAS embargo that is somewhat more
extensive, adopted by the OAS days ago. On top of that, there are
additional unilateral actions that the United States has announced --
that the President announced -- that relate to freezing of certain
assets, certain other restrictions on travel.
All of these billed together work in tandem with each other to
create the kind of pressure on the parties that we think will convince
them that they've got to return to the Governors Island Accords to see
their effective implementation.
Q But if Americans ever go ashore, if that ever becomes
possible, they still go ashore under a U.N. -- to fulfill a U.N.
mission?
MR. McCURRY: I'm not going to speculate about people going
ashore.
Yes?
Q I have two things. Are American representatives down
there talking to Cedras or any of those people and, in turn, Aristide
and his people about what Cedras wants -- that is, a general amnesty
from parliament? Is that one of the demands that could be met -- one of
his demands that could be met -- and that we're discussing?
MR. McCURRY: Well, general amnesty was declared by President
Aristide. General Cedras now raises the point that he would like to see
parliament ratify that.
All of these issues have been under discussion, I understand,
at least between the U.N. Special Envoy and the parties. I'm not
certain when our last contact was with General Cedras. Obviously we
remain in close contact with Prime Minister Malval, both through our
diplomatic representatives there and through Ambassador Pezzullo.
Q Could you check on that?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know whether it's being negotiated.
Q Mike, the other thing I would like to know: I understood
that the embargo, in its earlier incarnation, was effective -- so
effective that it led to the Governors Island Accords. Can you tell me
the reason for the ships that are there?
MR. McCURRY: I'm sorry, say again?
Q Why the need for ships, when the first embargo without
ships was successful?
MR. McCURRY: Well, there were no incidents in which the
enforcement of the earlier sanctions required an interdiction. That
doesn't necessarily mean there wouldn't be a necessity for interdictions
as you look ahead and with the imposition of these sanctions. And
that's the point.
Q Were there violations with the earlier embargo?
MR. McCURRY: I'm not aware of any. I understand that there
were few attempts, if any, to actually violate the terms of the embargo.
But certainly an effective sanctions- enforcement mechanism requires the
deployment of these vessels that are now off Haiti to carry out the
deployment.
Q But, Mike, aren't these U.S. ships there to enforce the
U.N. sanctions? Isn't that really what's going on?
MR. McCURRY: They are there participating in a fairly broad
sanctions-enforcement regime that includes not only the U.N. sanctions
but also, as I mentioned, the OAS sanctions. Now other nation states
are meeting their own obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolution
837 as they define their obligations, as they deploy their own vessels
in the region.
Q But this is a U.S. role that -- what -- was worked out
cooperatively with other U.N. members?
MR. McCURRY: Worked out cooperatively; and, of course, given
the deployment of other vessels from other navies in these waters, there
will be close coordination as they look to any effort to interdict ships
in the days ahead.
Q What are the standing orders now of the American ships,
anyway, of what happens when and if some boat people come by?
MR. McCURRY: If and when?
Q Some boat people come by?
MR. McCURRY: The action then switches from U.S. naval vessels
to U.S. Coast Guard vessels because it's the Coast Guard, through
"Operation Able Manner," which has been in the region and enforcing the
President's policies as they relate to immigration.
The U.S. Coast Guard will continue to interdict any attempted
migrants or any boats containing those who are attempting to migrate.
There's a sizable task force of ships and aircraft in the international
waters off Haiti. They will be working, actually, in close cooperation
with the naval vessels, even as the naval vessels operate within the
territorial waters of Haiti.
Again, the purpose of "Operation Able Manner" and the efforts
by the Coast Guard is to ensure the safety of Haitian migrants who may
risk their own lives by attempting to leave Haiti in unsafe, under-
equipped and overloaded boats.
Q Can I just follow that up? In the past I understood that
when they were picked up, routinely they were taken back to Port-au-
Prince. Now, with violence becoming more general, does this then follow
that they have a better-founded fear of persecution and therefore have a
better excuse for not being taken back?
MR. McCURRY: No. I think, as the President indicated, our
policies, as they relate to immigration, will not change. The
interdiction and repatriation as it is currently structured under
"Operation Able Manner" will continue.
I will say that, unlike the period in 1992 when there were
large numbers of people attempting to migrate, since January 15 of this
year I think there have been just over 1,000 individuals who have
attempted to leave Haiti by boat and who have been interdicted on the
open seas and then repatriated.
I think, as some of you know, we have put a great stress on
our in-country processing facilities and our attempt to deal with these
cases within Haiti. What we say is, if there is a legitimate concern
about political issues resulting in a request for asylum or a request
for refugee status, the proper way to address those concerns is to set
up procedures within Haiti so that those cases can be processed. It is
very important to say that that effort continues; the Port-au-Prince
facility that processes cases continues to receive applications of
around 70 a day. They will continue that effort to analyze individual
cases as applications are made. Of course, this is something we work
closely with the INS on.
Q Although that is the policy, are you in fact continuing
to repatriate people? And are you continuing to return people who are
already in this country when you find that there is reason to return
them to Haiti?
MR. McCURRY: My understanding is that there has been no
change in the policy. The President has defined that we process these
cases, of course, in Haiti where possible. Those cases that were
already here in the United States, when it was found that repatriation
was the outcome of the case, we will proceed to repatriate.
Q You said that the Coast Guard will be working very
closely with the naval operation. You've got a new -- some might
describe it more hostile -- situation in the waters off the coast of
Haiti now than you had only two days ago. Will Coast Guard ships
require an escort back to Port-au-Prince if they're carrying repatriated
refugees?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know the answer to that. I don't want
to speculate on the answer to that. But I will say, obviously, because
those vessels are in these waters, they will cooperate very closely.
There will be close cooperation between the Coast Guard and the U.S.
Navy.
Q Michael, the Secretary of State and the President have
both said that one of the national interests of the United States
involved here is making sure that there isn't a new exodus of refugees
from Haiti. Have you seen, in the last couple of days, any indication
of boat-building activity or anything that would lead you to believe
that that is in fact about to happen?
MR. McCURRY: We have seen no recent increase in the number of
applicants. As I say, we are receiving about 70 a day at the port of --
Q Not applicants. People ready to just take to the seas.
MR. McCURRY: I am told that they have not; they're obviously
monitoring this carefully. There are some limits in what I can describe
for you, but I can they have not detected any rapid increase in the type
of activity that would suggest there would be a large out-migration any
time soon.
Again, I want to stress that we continue to believe that the
processing program that we provide provides a safer alternative for
Haitians who are wishing to seek refugee status. It's far preferable
that they work through that process than to risk their lives in a very
long and dangerous sea voyage which could take an enormous toll of
lives.
Q Can I come back for a second to the discussion of the
sanctions? A few minutes ago you talked about other nation states
meeting their obligations in connection with the embargo, and so on.
Are other nation states joining the United States in the assets portion,
the unilateral U.S. assets portion, of the sanctions?
MR. McCURRY: It was our intent to seek cooperation from other
countries as they administer the program of assets freeze, for the
obvious reason that it then is much more likely that the effect of that
sanction is more widely felt on the parties that it's aimed at.
I think there has been some cooperation indicated from some
countries. I can't detail that for you because I don't have that here.
But we have been working with other countries to help them understand
the scope of our action and the individuals on whom it is targeted.
Q And can you address the question that we've talked about
for some time already, but now you've moved forward in the sense that
you've had these talks with the other nations, and so on. Can you
address the question of whether assets which had been blocked for some
time and then were unblocked by the United States, allowing kind of an
opportunity for people to move them around and now the sanctions
reimposed, are there any assets left over which the United States has
actually been able to exercise any control, or is the assets freeze in
effect a symbolic gesture, trying to get the other nations to actually
freeze them?
MR. McCURRY: As you know, this program just came into effect
as a result of the President's announcement yesterday. We do feel that
in a large number of cases, since these are clearly sanctions that are
targeted on individuals, in a large number of cases, our assets freeze
will prove to be an effective mechanism to bring pressure. It will be a
far more effective mechanism if we gain the cooperation of other
countries, especially in some other cases where what you're suggesting
with your question may in fact be the outcome of certain financial
portfolios or assets.
But I would stress it is not entirely symbolic. We think that
we do have the means to use this unilateral imposition of an assets
freeze to bring pressure to bear on individuals who can help change the
course of history in Haiti.
Q Did you ever provide an estimate of what the original
assets freeze actually froze, and what --
MR. McCURRY: We did not because the scope of the original --
when we talked about this, I think last week, we didn't want to indicate
at that time what we saw to be the scope of the assets freeze that we
had offered.
I understand that they did at the White House offer up some
information on that yesterday. I don't know how elaborate it was, but
I'll go back and see if we can get some additional information on that.
Q A couple more on this thing. When you say "in a large
number of cases," it's more than symbolic. I thought the number of
cases involved in general was fairly small, the number of people
involved.
MR. McCURRY: It's my understanding that the effect of these
assets as they are developed and as they unfold will be much broader
than those that were suggested at the time we imposed similar sanctions
earlier.
Q Maybe this is for the next briefing, but has the U.S.
said anything to the Russians about the radioactive dumping off Japan?
Or will the Secretary say it?
MR. McCURRY: I think you know I responded to that yesterday.
Q Oh, I didn't know.
MR. McCURRY: Yes, I did. We discussed the issue yesterday.
I'm not certain -- we maybe will have someone in a moment who can help
us with the second part of the question, whether we've raised that. It
certainly is something that we have monitored. We have looked at the
general issue as it relates to obligations under the London Convention
of 1972. But I'll hold the question back for someone who may be able to
help you a little more directly.
Q Can we go to Somalia for a second?
MR. McCURRY: Yes.
Q The United States has been attempting to get Boutros-
Ghali not to go to Mogadishu. Have you been successful in that?
MR. McCURRY: I don't think he has gone, but I don't have any
update on his travel schedule.
Q Is he still planning to go?
MR. McCURRY: Not that I'm aware of.
Q Where is Bob Oakley, and what is he doing, and what
progress has he made in trying to contact all the parties?
MR. McCURRY: Ambassador Oakley returned to Washington over
the weekend after a successful round of visits with the Ethiopians, the
Eritreans, discussions with others. I think he feels confident that he
has made some progress on several issues, one dealing directly with the
parties in Somalia as they seek to create institutions and structures
that will help them curb violence and begin to seek a national
reconciliation.
Then on other questions, an important question: how to
establish some independent effort or an independent commission that
would be based in the region that would seek to get very concrete
judgments on who was responsible for the attack June 5 that led to the
death of 24 Pakistani peacekeepers, as required by the U.N.
Q Did Oakley discuss at all in his very successful talks
the question of deployment of U.S. Rangers with any of the people that
he met with?
MR. McCURRY: Not that I'm aware of. I think he was talking
to them about -- his discussions centered on the political dialogue, the
political track. I'm sure he probably talked about security
arrangements in Mogadishu.
But you're driving, at with your question: Was there any
deal? That's a question that's been dealt with by the White House
already today, and you know there is not.
Q I don't remember asking about that, but my question was
whether the U.S. has discussed with the parties on the ground the
deployment of U.S. forces in Somalia. And your answer was --
MR. McCURRY: I'm reasonably sure that in conversations
they've talked about military deployments in Mogadishu. I don't know if
they've talked about operational units within a U.S. deployment.
Q So in the same way that they discuss issues such as
Boutros-Ghali's travels or organizing commissions or conferences to deal
with the attack on the Pakistanis, would they also discuss things such
as the U.S. use of training flights and training attacks over Mogadishu,
and that sort of thing?
MR. McCURRY: I don't have any way of knowing whether they
talked to that level of detail. Those were certainly, I would say, not
the thrust of the conversations.
Q Would you take the question whether the United States
representative in Somalia discussed with the only other people that
we're talking with in Somalia and with those in the region, whether he's
discussed deployments of U.S. forces?
MR. McCURRY: Whether he has discussed deployments? I will
take it.
Q You may choose to say there's no deal, but if they
discussed it I think we ought to know that they discussed it.
MR. McCURRY: All right. I'll see if I can get an answer,
yes.
Q The U.S. seems to be putting a lot of emphasis on this
independent commission now. Has the U.S. made a commitment to the
United Nations that if this independent commission -- whoever this
independent commission finds is responsible for the death of the
Pakistanis, the U.S. will go after that person? Or is the U.S.
commitment to going after whoever is responsible finished? I mean, have
you only suspended that commitment, or are you finished with it? You're
not going to help them find whoever is responsible?
MR. McCURRY: Which question of those are you asking? What's
the question?
Q I was trying to ask it as clearly as possible. Let me
rephrase it. The U.S. now says that it no longer is looking for Mohamed
Aideed or whoever is responsible for killing the Pakistanis and has
instead put a lot of emphasis on forming an independent commission to
determine guilt.
MR. McCURRY: To help hold those who are accountable,
accountable.
Q Okay. So will the U.S. be prepared, when that commission
reveals its findings, to go after whoever it fingers?
MR. McCURRY: I think the question is: What attempts will be
made to prosecute those who may be judged to be responsible? And I
think that's a question that the United Nations is going to have to
address. As it stands currently, the Security Council has a resolution
that's clear about bringing those to justice who are responsible for the
June 5 attack; and again it's probably within the province of the United
Nations to address, if they in fact establish an independent commission,
(1) what the role of the United Nations in that commission is [and] (2)
what processes would arise from the work of the commission to prosecute
those who are responsible.
I think as a general proposition, the United States feels very
strongly, given the loss of life of our own peacekeepers in Somalia,
that those responsible for these events do need to be brought to
justice.
I'd like to, if it's all right with everyone here, with our
indulgence maybe end a little early today so we can bring some of our
special guests on for a background session. Any other questions?
Q All right. But if there's anything in response to that
last warning on Bosnia, could you provide it for us on paper, if you
will, if you can?
MR. McCURRY: Anything new on Bosnia?
Q Well, you had a clear warning yesterday. I wondered if
it had any impact.
MR. McCURRY: It was delivered to Milosevic; and message
conveyed, message received and message understood, I am told.
Q And just one more item: The Secretary is meeting with
the Foreign Minister of Georgia today. Is there a message that the
United States -- a particular message the U.S. is delivering or
expecting to receive at this point? Do you have any --
MR. McCURRY: I think the Deputy Secretary will be having that
meeting today, and I think the purpose is to get a much clearer
understanding of what is happening on the ground in Georgia, what the
views are of President Shevardnadze as he looks at the recent fighting
and the strife that continues there and is likely to continue in the
days ahead.
Q Is there discussion of additional aid? I know some aid
has gone in the last week or so.
MR. McCURRY: I'll have to check on that, Ralph.
Q Back on Haiti for a moment, please, before you finish.
Is the United States considering discussing, drafting a new resolution
which would even further tighten sanctions on Haiti at the U.N.?
MR. McCURRY: Not that I am aware of, Bud, but I'll check and
see if there -- they were talking about resolutions on enforcement and
perhaps an additional effort to address enforcement. But I can check on
that and see if there's anything on that.
Q Same general subject: The Dominican Republic has been a
source of a lot of contraband ever since the beginning. Is anything
being done to tighten up that border?
MR. McCURRY: That is something of concern that we will
discuss, I think, with the Dominican Republic and something that I think
that they have addressed on their own as well. But I can check and see
further on this.
Q Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:15 p.m.)
(###)