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.

                                  BRIEFER:  Michael McCurry

Subject                                                Page

AFGHANISTAN, Fighting ...................................1

European Peace Plan, Owen-Stoltenberg Process ...........1-3
Strangulation of Sarajevo, Relief .......................3
Winterization  -- Capabilities and Efforts ..............3-4
-- Assessment of Conditions, Risk .......................4-5
Tuzla Airport Reopening .................................5
UN Investigation of Peacekeepers' Behavior ..............5
UN War Crimes Commission, Tribunal ......................5-6

Boutros-Ghali Remarks on U.S. Participation .............6
Oakley  -- Whereabouts, Activities, Briefing ............7

Secretary's Mtg with UN SecGen Boutros-Ghali ............6-7
IG Investigation of File Retrieval Incident
-- Status, Characterization, Delivery to DOJ.............7-12
-- Briefing Congress on Report ..........................8, 11

Deputy Secretary of State
-- Replacement Candidates, Selection Process ............15-19
-- Wharton Resignation, Press Leaks .....................15-17
-- Restructuring Position Requirements ..................19-20
Ambassadorial Appointments: Solarz, Djerejian ...........17-18

Harvard Study, Relief, Effect of Sanctions ..............12-14
Blockade; Assets Freeze and Participation ...............14-15

U.S. Official's Comments on Kashmir .....................15, 22

U.S. Ambassador, Kashmir, U.S. Relations ................17-18

Elections ...............................................20
Reported Agreement with Israel ..........................20

Violence in West Bank, Rabin Mtg w/ Settlers ............20-21

Syria Pres. Assad Conditions, Lifting Iraqi Sanctions ...21-22

Iraqi Officials Visit Damascus ..........................22

START Ratification, Kravchuk Visit to U.S. ..............22


                       DEPARTMENT OF STATE
                       DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

                                                      DPC #147

              TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1993, 1:04 P. M.

         MR. McCURRY:  Good afternoon, everybody.  I don't have any 
prepared statements to share with you, so I'd be happy to take your 

          Q    Do you have something on the fierce fighting in 
Afghanistan and whether Americans are in trouble?

          MR. McCURRY:  I don't.  I saw some press accounts of that 
earlier, and we're attempting to get some more information on that, but 
we'll be checking on that later.

          Q    Mike, where does the United States stand on this new 
peace plan that the Europeans apparently are looking at for Bosnia, 
where they would -- apparently the French and the Germans have proposed 
trading -- having the Serbs give up some land in promise for lifting the 

          MR. McCURRY:  I think there are a number of discussions that 
the European Community is clearly having -- you're seeing that reflected 
in reports coming out of their discussions on the subject of Bosnia.  We 
have been in close contact with our allies on those subjects.  I'm not 
aware that there have been any decisions taken or any conclusive 
decisions on how to address the problems in Bosnia.

          I think that there are a variety of ideas that have been put 
forward not only by the French but by others.  They will be considered 
in the context of discussions within the United Nations between the EC 
mediators and those who have been participating, and I don't think 
there's anything that has, at this point, been put forward as a plan for 
adoption by the North Atlantic Council or anything that would represent 
a final document upon which there could be action.

          Q    But this idea in particular, trading land for lifting 
sanctions, is this something that the United States believes has some 
merit to it?

          MR. McCURRY:  I'm not aware of any change in our view of the 
sanctions -- the importance of the sanctions in bringing pressure to 
bear on the Serbs and on the Bosnian Serbs to honor their commitments as 
defined by the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions.

          Q    So is it fair to say that the United States is unwilling 
to consider this proposal?

          MR. McCURRY:  I'd say that we are interested in anything that 
would help move the peace process forward, that would help bring about a 
settlement by the parties so that they could begin to address the 
humanitarian conditions that need attention quickly by the world 
community.  But I don't think at this point a discussion of sanctions or 
lifting sanctions is something that the United States is enthusiastic 

          Q    Mike, what's happened to the Vance-Owen process anyway?  
Is it dead?

          Q    Vance-Stoltenberg, whatever you all are calling it now -- 
are there any plans to get it going again?

          MR. McCURRY:  I think that there have been various 
conversations between Mr. Stoltenberg, Lord Owen and others.  They 
remain in close contact with some of our diplomats who have been working 
on the problem.

          The effort has been focused on how to bring about some 
political dialogue that could result in a dialogue that would bring the 
parties together to review the settlement that was in place at the time 
when the parties themselves rejected the last agreement.

          At the moment they are not at a point where I think that they 
have put forward anything that would represent a definitive plan for the 
future of Bosnia.  That's something that we continue to believe is 
necessary, obviously; but it's not something that has been put forward 
in any formal way at any negotiating table.

          The parties themselves have shown and demonstrated that they 
are not, at this point, prepared or willing to go back into a 
negotiating process, even though they've been encouraged to do so by the 
United States and by others.

          Q    A quick follow-up.  Has Christopher been involved at all 
in any diplomacy trying to get this thing going again, or is he --

          MR. McCURRY:  He has had discussions.  I don't know how 
recently.  He has had discussions with European allies as  recently as 
several weeks ago, but I'm not aware of anything in the last several 

          Q    Michael, in the meantime, how would you judge the issue 
of strangulation of Sarajevo and other places?  You know there's very 
heavy shelling in Sarajevo.

          MR. McCURRY:  There have been assessments from time to time.  
We provide on a weekly basis our assessment of humanitarian conditions 
in Bosnia, central Bosnia and elsewhere around the safe areas.  We share 
that information with our allies.  It is something that has been 
discussed within the context of the lead-up to meetings early next month 
within the North Atlantic Council, and it's also the subject of 
discussions that the Secretary has regularly with others.  The subject 
came up yesterday in the Secretary's meeting with the U.N. Secretary 

          Q    But would you say there is more or less strangulation for 
them today than three, four, five days ago, or a week ago?

          MR. McCURRY:  I don't have anything here today that would 
measure the conditions and compare them to conditions a week ago.  I'd 
say on balance there have been some improvements in the situation in 
Sarajevo.  There's a water system that looks like it's now being tested, 
ready to come on line, that will be very critical.  There have been some 
repairs to the infrastructure.  There have been some repairs to gas 
lines.  There is concern about the availability of gas within Sarajevo 
for the coming winter.

          The humanitarian relief effort continues full force.  There 
are numerous air drops every single night in areas in which convoys 
cannot operate.  There have been some problems with getting relief 
through by land, by convoy, to some of the safe areas because of 
sporadic fighting and banditry in central Bosnia.

          But as a general proposition, the relief organizations and the 
UNHCR in particular are able to deliver supplies.  They experience 
difficulties, and the difficulties are associated with ongoing fighting 
between the parties.

          Q    Do you feel now that the international community is fully 
prepared to handle the humanitarian aspect of this through the winter?

          MR. McCURRY:  They have through a considerable amount of 
effort put in place some stockpiles that will carry them through at 
least part of the winter.  They're certainly not prepared to cope with 
all of the needs that they will face in the coming winter.  But they 
have regularly in recent days been adding to their normal daily relief 
activity which consists of both convoys and air drops -- efforts aimed 
at winterization --  supplies like plastic sheeting and plywood and 
things that can contribute to protecting citizens during the winter.

          They have very carefully added to their effort and sort of 
added on top of their existing effort so-called winterization flights, 
and that will make a big difference this winter.  But by no means could 
anyone say that they're going to have everything they need to make it 
through the winter.  And, of course, the thing that they need first and 
foremost is a cease-fire and some agreement by the parties to enter into 
a political settlement that will allow these humanitarian efforts to 
continue without being disrupted by acts of violence, acts of war.

          Q    But, Michael, is there any kind of assessment within the 
Administration now that you're not going to face a humanitarian disaster 
this winter, that there won't be widespread starvation or widespread 
flows of refugees; that basically the situation is tenable, that people 
are going to make it through to the spring?

          MR. McCURRY:  You've heard some -- you've probably seen some 
people within the Bosnian Government who suggest that they will be able 
to make it through to spring.  I think our own assessment by those who 
have been present, who have evaluated this -- as you know, Counselor 
Wirth was there just recently.  They face a very difficult winter ahead, 
and the capacity of the U.N.-sponsored relief effort will be strained.  
There is just no doubt about that in our judgment.

          Q    A year ago the United Nations -- or the U.S. Government a 
year ago, going into winter, estimated that tens of thousands of people 
would die during the winter, not necessarily from combat but from other 
things.  Is there any parallel effort on the part of the government to 
estimate the magnitude of the potential disaster?

          MR. McCURRY:  There has been a fairly exhaustive analysis of 
the humanitarian conditions.  I haven't seen any numbers on projected 
deaths or anything like that, although one point that has been made 
regularly in our analysis is that the condition of the civilian 
population this winter compared to last winter has deteriorated because 
of declining nutrition and outbreaks of disease and illness.

          So it is a situation which we acknowledge is dire.  For 
exactly that reason, it's one that we have addressed with a great deal 
of urgency, both in what we are conveying to the region in our own 
supplies of relief and then how we are looking at additional suggestions 
on things that could be done to improve the humanitarian situation in 
the coming weeks.

          Q    Would you take the question as to whether or not there is 
an estimate of how many people are at risk going into  this winter?  
Either the CIA or the State Department or the Pentagon, someone is 
probably trying to make that calculation.

          MR. McCURRY:  Yes, I think they have.  I will take the 
question, because I think I have seen some things that reflect what they 
think the overall at-risk population is based on their current 
understanding of the refugee situation and the dislocation of certain 
populations.  But I'll certainly see if I can attach a number to it.

          Q    Mike, would the U.S. be willing to help open the airport 
at Tuzla, which is something that has been talked about, to try and 
reach people in Central Bosnia?  Was that discussed yesterday at the 
meeting with Boutros?

          MR. McCURRY:  I don't know if it was discussed at the meeting 
that the Secretary had yesterday.  It is a subject that has been under 
discussion within the government.  I don't know that there's been a 
decision made on what it would take or whether we'd be in a position to 
assist with that.

          Q    Mike, do you have an update on the progress of the 
investigation into this Serb brothel the U.N. forces allegedly 

          MR. McCURRY:  I don't have any update.  I can see if we can 
get one from the United Nations.  They indicated to us they were going 
to make a prompt and thorough investigation of the matter, and I haven't 
seen anything back indicating that they've reached any results.

          Q    Could you keep us posted, please?  I would appreciate it.

          MR. McCURRY:  I will.

          Q    Mike, on this area, whatever happened to the genocide 
commission that was supposed to be formed by the United Nations and go 
about investigating all of the atrocities against the Muslims and others 
in Bosnia?

          MR. McCURRY:  They have assembled a data base, I think as some 
of you know, at DePaul University under the Chairman of the U.N. 
Commission on Experts, Cherif Bassiouni.  The Commission has been 
proceeding with its investigations.  They've looked at the attack on 
Dubrovnik.  They've looked at allegations that rape was used as an 
instrument of terror.  They've looked at a variety of other questions 
associated with ethnic cleansing.

          They have had some problems, I think as some of you know, with 
excavating a mass grave near Vukovar, an effort that was disrupted, I 
think, because of fighting, largely prompted by Krajina Serbs.

          The work of that Commission on Experts will now transfer over 
to the Tribunal and will be conveyed to the work of the Chief 
Prosecutor, who was just recently named -- Ramon Escovar Salom -- and I 
think you all know, the disposition of the United States Government, the 
work of that Tribunal is something that we consider imperative, and 
we've indicated that we will certainly be using our own diplomatic 
pressure to see to it that the work of the prosecutor and the Tribunal 
itself continues and proceeds quickly and without hindrance.

          Q    Do you have the timetable for the convening of the 
Tribunal to begin the actual work?

          MR. McCURRY:  My understanding is that they have begun 
meeting.  The judges themselves on the Tribunal have started meeting 
this month to begin to review procedures that will be used during the 
investigations and the inquiry.  The prosecutor, of course, has just 
been named, so I don't know what process they're using to begin to bring 
to justice those who the Commission will seek to try or seek to bring 
before the bar of international justice.

          But they are, I think, prepared to, by the end of the year at 
least, have in place the formal procedures.  And administrative 
guidelines for the operation of the Tribunal itself will be necessary 
before they can begin to move on specific cases.

          Q    Michael, on another subject, the meeting between the 
Secretary and Boutros-Ghali.  Could you give us a little more of a 
readout?  Boutros-Ghali gave a speech last night in which he seemed to 
be alluding to the United States leaving Somalia, and that you should 
only get involved in ethnic conflicts if you intend to stay the course.  
Did the Secretary General convey that to the Secretary of State and say 
that there's a problem with the U.S. leaving?

          MR. McCURRY:  Not that I'm aware of.  You're interpreting 
remarks.  I haven't had a chance to read his remarks or see a text of 
his remarks, but I've seen some accounts of it, and I'm not sure he said 
exactly that.  But I will tell you that the Secretary General met with 
Secretary Christopher and Ambassador Albright late yesterday afternoon.  
They discussed a variety of issues facing the United Nations, including 
Haiti, Bosnia and Somalia; how to pursue our common interests there.

          On each of those areas, I think they had a very frank and 
candid discussion.  They're dealing with some difficult issues that both 
the United States and the United Nations are managing.  I think the 
Secretary made clear the U.S. view on a number of questions that the 
Secretary General had, and they discussed a range of things associated 
with each of those three problems.

          Those are the only three that I'm aware they got into, 
although I think someone else did indicate to me they might have 
discussed briefly funding issues for the United Nations.

          Q    On Somalia, is Oakley back in this country?

          MR. McCURRY:  I believe he is back.  He came back this past 
weekend.  No, I'm sorry, he came back Friday night.  He has been on the 
Hill briefing members of Congress and had a long discussion with the 
Secretary this morning on just some of his perceptions on his recent 
trips, some of the things I think he feels need to occur next as they 
build on the effort to reach some type of process for national 
reconciliation in Somalia.

          Q    Did he have the impression that he got anywhere?

          MR. McCURRY:  Yes.

          Q    Does he have the impression he got anywhere?

          MR. McCURRY:  Yes.  I think he felt they made some progress, 
and that there were some things happening and things that might happen 
that were encouraging about the willingness of the parties to enter into 
a dialogue.  But he would be the first to indicate that they are not at 
a point where they can claim that the job is done.

          Q    Would you consider making him available to the press?

          MR. McCURRY:  I will consider that.  I was reluctant to do 
that until he had had an opportunity to brief members of Congress and 
members of the Administration, but my understanding is as of today that 
may be done.  So I'll see if that's possible to do.

          Q    On another subject, can you tell us the status of the 
investigation into the personnel files of some previous members of this 
Department and what's happening now?

          MR. McCURRY:  Yes.  The Inspector General has completed his 
inquiry.  He forwarded a summary of his findings to the Public Integrity 
Section of the Justice Department around midnight last night or to an 
official of the Justice Department.

          It's inappropriate at this time for me to discuss the results 
of the inquiry since it's now pending at the Justice Department.  Of 
course, the Justice Department has the authority to decide whether or 
not to accept a case for prosecution.  If they decline to prosecute, the 
Inspector General would then send an administrative report on the 
findings to the Secretary of State.  And at that point, I think, once 
that process has been concluded, the Congress would be briefed, and my 
understanding is it would also be possible  at that point to comment 
publicly on the results of the Inspector General's inquiry.

          The Secretary himself has not been briefed on the contents of 
the report.  He will be briefed at some point this afternoon, I 

          Q    Mike, though, the fact that it has been sent to the 
Justice Department, is that evidence that there is some interest on the 
part of the IG that this should be prosecuted further?

          MR. McCURRY:  I am not certain of their procedures.  I don't 
know whether they would customarily refer something automatically to the 
Justice Department or not, but I --

          Q    They certainly didn't the last time.

          MR. McCURRY:  It would be within the province of the Justice 
Department to then decide whether or not there was something that they 
wished to pursue with a formal prosecution.

          Q    Is there any aspect of your public statement on this 
issue which you made when it was first revealed in the press that you 
would like to comment on now?  You had a characterization of what you 
believed was happening at the time that this was first revealed.  Do you 
stand by that characterization?

          MR. McCURRY:  I'm not aware of anything that has disputed that 
account, but again we have not had -- to my knowledge, no one in the 
Department, outside of the Inspector General's office, has been briefed 
on the contents of this report by the Inspector General.  So I can't 
tell you whether there's anything at odds.

          I am confident that what we said before is on the money, but 
we'll see more when we see the report.

          Q    Do you know if members of Congress were briefed on the 

          MR. McCURRY:  No.  We have remained in contact with members of 
Congress on the status of this inquiry, because it has been of great 
concern to them.  And, contrary to some people who suggested otherwise, 
the Secretary has responded directly to members of Congress who have 
asked about the status of the inquiry and he's explained exactly what 
happened -- that within 24 hours of the first information being made 
available to us in the form of an article in the newspaper, we had 
referred this matter to the Inspector General, and now it's gone to the 
Justice Department, which is the proper place to determine whether or 
not there are sufficient matters here that warrant prosecution.

          Q    Can you explain why the sense of extreme urgency that 
this was transmitted to the Justice Department at midnight last night?  
I mean, is there some sense of urgency here that is eluding us?

          MR. McCURRY:  I don't know why that was happening.  I think 
that there was a desire to get this to the Justice Department some time 
during the day yesterday, but I don't know why it took so long.

          Q    Is there a legal deadline?

          MR. McCURRY:  No, I'm not aware of any deadline, but I would 
ask you to contact the Inspector General, because he would be in a 
better position to --

          Q    We should contact the Inspector General?  

          Q    Do you think he'll talk to us, do you?

          Q    Call the Inspector General's office and get him to talk 
about this report, you're suggesting?

          MR. McCURRY:  You don't think that's possible?  That's not 
going to happen?

          Q    I don't think it works that way.  We'll call the CIA -- 
we'd have a better chance (laughter).

          MR. McCURRY:  We are --

          Q    Maybe they'll have a report on the Inspector General.

          MR. McCURRY:  They probably would not have a lot to say 
publicly on it because of the seriousness of the matter and the 
seriousness with which it has been referred -- being referred to the 
Department of Justice says something about the seriousness of the 

          Q    I'm not against disclosure, Mike, but I still have to ask 
you what I think is a responsible question.  Names have surfaced, and 
obviously these names were provided to a newspaper.  Is there any 
concern within the building about putting out names of people before 
there's even judgment whether to proceed?

          MR. McCURRY:  As I told you, the Secretary has not been 
briefed on the contents of this report.  To my knowledge, none of the 
senior officers of the Department know what is in this report.  If, in 
fact, what's been reported in newspapers comes from those who have been 
conducting the inquiry, I think it raises exactly the same questions 
that the inquiry was looking into to begin with.  But that's a matter 
that others would have to look at.

          I have no reason to believe that any of the information that 
any of the specific individuals mentioned in some of the news accounts 
today are specifically referred to in the Inspector General's report.  
It may just be inaccurate reporting, so I don't know how to --

          Q    You have no reason to believe those names are in the 
report, you're saying?

          MR. McCURRY:  I have no knowledge of what's in the report.

          Q    Since you are the Spokesman for the State Department, 
could you take a question on why the urgency to transmit this document 
in the middle of the night on an inquiry which has sort of been --

          Q    Quiescent.

          Q    Yes.

          MR. McCURRY:  Okay.  I'll take a question and see if I can 
find out.  It's a matter that I think consistently people have said they 
were addressing deliberately and with some sense of urgency, and clearly 
it was something that Congress expected the Department to address with 
some degree of urgency.  So I will see if there's anything beyond that 
that can be said.

          Q    Mike, the Inspector General -- this Inspector General was 
the same Inspector General who looked into the matter of the Clinton 
passport files in the last Administration.  Of course, these two things 
are closely related.

          Now, when he made his last inquiry --

          MR. McCURRY:  Why are they closely related?

          Q    Well, because they involved the same activities.

          MR. McCURRY:  How can you assure me of that?  I don't know 
whether that's true or not.

          Q    Well, but potentially both the White House Liaison Office 
-- let's put it that way -- and when the incoming White House Liaison 
Office decided to look into the activities of the outgoing White House 
Liaison Office, this whole thing seemed to have occurred, and you 
thought it was serious enough to put an IG on it.  So anyway --

          MR. McCURRY:  I thought you were more familiar with the 
contents of the report.  I haven't seen it.

          Q    No, I certainly am not.  Let me ask this.  In his first 
inquiry, he did not find -- in other words, the Bush  Administration 
White House Liaison Office -- he recommended administrative steps within 
the Department.  He did not take it to the Justice Department.  He did 
not find, apparently, sufficient evidence to do so.  In this case he 
has, which suggests that he has found something more serious in this 
case than he did in the previous case.  Can you address that?

          MR. McCURRY:  No.

          Q    Wait a minute.  It's possible you may know whether he was 
under instruction.  I don't know how independent the IG is, but could he 
-- this is a new Administration.  Could this Administration have said at 
the outset, whatever you come up with, send a summary to the Justice 

          MR. McCURRY:  No.  I'd say to the contrary.  When this matter 
appeared in print, it was referred immediately to the Inspector General.  
There has been no effort on the part of anyone within this 
Administration to instruct the Inspector General on how to conduct and 
how to proceed with that inquiry.  So that's one reason why I can't 
comment on how this process or how the report itself compares to 
something that may have been done in a previous Administration, because 
I don't know what the contents of the document are.

          Q    There has been no progress report from the Inspector 
General to the Secretary of State to at least warn him that material was 
about to be turned over to the Justice Department about  State 
Department employees?

          MR. McCURRY:  I wouldn't say that.  I think the fact that they 
were nearing the conclusion of this process and preparing an inquiry is, 
in fact, something that Sherman Funk shared with members of the Senate 
last week and was read into the Congressional Record at the end of last 
week during the Senate debate on the five nominees that were being held, 
at the request of Senator McConnell.

          So I wouldn't say we hadn't had an update on it.  I think that 
Mr. Funk, in fact, provided something of an update in the letter that he 
transmitted to Congress.

          Q    So Funk is communicating with the Secretary by talking to 
Congress and testimony?

          MR. McCURRY:  I think that we have probably been -- I don't 
know to what extent the Secretary has been kept apprised of the 
progress.  I do know that he has not had a formal briefing on the 
subject matter of the inquiry or on any of the conclusions that have 
been reached in the summary, and that will occur later today.

          Q    Question:  Can you take the question on whether or not he 
was informed by Funk that things were going to the Hill?  Was there 
communication between Funk and the Secretary on -- perhaps not the final 
report, but that things were nearing a head, Mr. Secretary, etc.?

          MR. McCURRY:  At the end of last week, that was known because 
it was said publicly by Sherman Funk, but I'll find out at what point 
the Secretary may or may not have been alerted to that by the Inspector 

          Q    Adding to that:  If the Secretary knew that Funk was 
sending it to the Justice Department in the middle of the night last 

          MR. McCURRY:  Yes.

          Q    To the Justice Department?

          MR. McCURRY:  Okay.  If we knew that the matter was being 
referred to the Justice Department.

          Q    Not the Justice Department; if he knew?

          MR. McCURRY:  Yes.

          Q    Another subject.

          MR. McCURRY:  Another subject.

          Q    There's a report today, out of Harvard apparently, on the 
child mortality rates in Haiti?  What's your --

          MR. McCURRY:  Professor Chen's study?

          Q    Right.

          MR. McCURRY:  First, I think what I'll do is I'll discuss the 
study a little bit and then I want to talk about what we're doing to 
ameliorate some of the effects on the people of Haiti.

          We have not seen the study.  The only thing that we have seen 
so far, I think, is the account in the Times.  I don't think that the 
study itself has been released to the public yet, so it's not something 
that we were expected to be familiar with at this point.

          We are very interested in the study.  We're interested in both 
the methodology of how they built and extrapolated the data out of the 
case study they looked at.  My understanding is that we would be more 
than willing, and we'll probably seek an opportunity to either meet with 
Dr. Chen or learn more about the study itself.

          I want to then turn to what we know ourselves based on our 
observations and those we work with in Haiti about some of the 
humanitarian conditions that exist.

          We monitor conditions through 38 different centers in Haiti 
that assist with the distribution of humanitarian and medical relief to 
the population there.  They are in a position to help get us information 
and share with us information of what they think conditions are.

          We maintain, I think as you also know, a fairly extensive 
humanitarian program in Haiti.  We provide certainly more than any other 
donor in the international community to relief efforts in Haiti.  Our 
food reaches approximately 680,000 people daily.  That's up 
significantly, up almost a third since last summer.  Our health services 
reach about two million people.  In the fiscal year that just concluded, 
the value of the food and medical relief that we've provided totaled $57 

          There have been some blockages in the distribution of that 
aid, it is certain; because, for one thing, the strikes that have been 
imposed by the military leadership in Haiti.  But by and large our 
assessment is that the aid has been getting through.  We work through 
relief organizations that have experience in operating in Haiti -- 
Catholic relief services, CARE, the Adventist Development and Relief 
Agency.  Those organizations had done advance planning and do have 
sufficient fuel.  Despite the blockade and sort of despite the U.N. 
order embargo on fuel supplies, they had sufficient fuel supplies to 
help ensure that food and medical relief reaches its destination.

          Whether or not that can continue will depend on the 
effectiveness of the sanctions themselves because, hopefully, the 
sanctions will bring their pressure to bear so that the parties will 
move back to implementation of the Governor's Island accords.  But 
should that not happen, we would make it clear that we hold the military 
responsible for seeing that humanitarian organizations are not impeded 
from delivering their assistance to the Haitian people.

          I guess the way to sum this all up is that sanctions do bring 
pressure in a rather blunt way.  We have acknowledged that in the past.  
But, in the end, what Haiti needs first and foremost is not sanctions 
and not pressure from the international community.  What they need is an 
agreement by those who have participated in the Governor's Island 
process, to bring about a restoration of democracy.  And at that point, 
as all of you know, the full benefits that the international community 
has said would be available, totalling perhaps as much as a billion 
dollars over five years, would be available to address the conditions of 
a poor underdeveloped country that clearly suffers not only because of 
sanctions but because of poor economic conditions.

          Q    Mike, does the Department question this study -- I 
suppose the handling of it in the media today -- last night and today -- 
because it is based purely on extrapolation from a rather small study in 
one town in Haiti?  Do you find their conclusions at all supportable?

          MR. McCURRY:  I just told you a lot about what we know is the 
reality of the situation on the ground, because we do not want to be in 
a position of disputing the methodology of a news account based on a 
report by a respected Harvard University Center.  That's not our purpose 
here.  We have our own work that we're doing on the ground there with 
people, and we are certainly anxious to learn more about both the 
methodology of this report and how they built their findings, based on 
an extrapolation -- apparently, an extrapolation involving a case study 
within a rural section of Haiti.  But it is something we want to learn 
more about.  At the same time, we continue, I think, rather impressive 
efforts on the ground to address exactly the type of situations that the 
report examined.

          Q    But he's spelling out a humanitarian disaster in Haiti.  
Do you see, from your many observations, anything like this?

          MR. McCURRY:  We don't.  We see considerable deprivation and a 
population suffering because of economic conditions associated with the 
health of the Haitian economy.  Again, that is not something that is 
attributable to sanctions that are two weeks old.  That's something 
attributable to the history of economic progress and economic 
development in Haiti itself.  And it's a reminder, I would think, to the 
authorities in the military in Haiti that the benefits of economic 
assistance from the international community are available once the 
Governor's Island process is fully implemented and once democracy is 
restored to Haiti.

          Hopefully, it's a reminder to them that the serious conditions 
their populations face can be addressed by the action that the 
international community is attempting to pressure them into following.


          Q    Mike, is the Administration still disinclined to go ahead 
with a full blockade?  The President sort of left it open-ended on 
Sunday, saying we have two paths that we can go down.  (Inaudible) 
evidence like this?

          MR. McCURRY:  He has not ruled it in or out.  At the moment 
the path we are on is the one that we've described in past here -- 
implementing the sanctions that were ordered by the OAS and the United 
Nations and then also working some of the unilateral steps that we're 
taking to internationalize with with other countries.

          Q    Do you have any further evidence that other countries are 
following the steps that the U.S. is taking -- asset freezes and --

          MR. McCURRY:  I haven't had anything as recent as the several 
days.  I think the situation is pretty much the same as we left it when 
we discussed it last week.

          Q    Have other countries joined the U.S. effort?

          MR. McCURRY:  I don't know the count at this point.  There 
weren't many, I would acknowledge.

          Q    An American official held a briefing in Islamabad 
yesterday, saying that Pakistan and India had agreed to demilitarize the 
(inaudible).  Would you comment on that?  And is it a prelude to a major 
Kashmir solution?

          MR. McCURRY:  I'm sorry, I was not aware of that briefing.  
I'll try to get some more information on it and see if we have anything 
additional to say beyond what was said.


          Q    Have you got any idea of when a new Deputy Secretary of 
State will be appointed?  And can you tell us what sort of person you're 
looking for?

          MR. McCURRY:  I'm not doing the looking, but I will tell you 
that the Secretary will start that process soon.  In fact, he's already 
beginning to reach out and discuss with a number of people within the 
foreign policy community, including some of his predecessors the type of 
person that he should be looking for.

          I think his intent is to proceed very deliberately because 
it's an extremely important appointment.  It's one that's not only his 
own appointment.  It's obviously something that he will be referring for 
action by the President since it is a Presidential appointment.

          But I think the Secretary is determined to find someone who 
has got a wide range of foreign policy experience, a sophisticated 
understanding of the Department itself, and someone who can contribute 
in a very critical way to his senior team -- in a sense, build on some 
of the things that Cliff Wharton brought to the job and maybe bring some 
other things as well that reflect the way the job has evolved as we've 
gone through the first couple of months of service here.

          Q    Michael, on that same subject, a two-part question.  
First of all, are we to take it from this that the Secretary -- was the 
Secretary not involved in the selection of Cliff Wharton as his Number 
Two?  And the second part of that  question is, Dr. Wharton, in his 
letter, spoke with some bitterness of anonymous leaks, presumably, 
within the Administration.  This is an Administration that has prided 
itself on the collegiality of its foreign policy team.

          Is the Secretary at all alarmed or concerned?  Does he share 
Dr. Wharton's view that he was, in effect, forced out by anonymous leaks 
from his colleagues?  And is he doing anything about that?

          MR. McCURRY:  I think the Secretary very much regrets leaks of 
inaccurate information, yes.

          Q    How about accurate information?

          Q    Wait, wait, wait.  It was a two-part question.

          MR. McCURRY:  It was about a five-part question, and I picked 
the part I wanted to answer.

          Q    Part one was, was the Secretary not involved in choosing 
Dr. Wharton as his Number Two originally?

          MR. McCURRY:  Of course, he was involved.

          Q    You make it sound like, this time he's going to be 
involved.  The last time he didn't get the man he wanted.

          MR. McCURRY:  No, I didn't.  If I conveyed that, that was 
wholly inaccurate.  I wouldn't ask anybody to assume that.  I described 
the process that he will be using to pick it.  I wasn't here and didn't 
help the Secretary participate in the personnel selections initially 
when they came into office.  But I understand that this Secretary was 
very centrally involved in building that team from the outset as he was, 
obviously, in building the Administration's entire team at the Cabinet 

          Q    And the second part, you didn't really answer.  I asked 
if the Secretary shared Dr. Wharton's concerns that there are anonymous 
leaks.  He actually went so far as to say that he thought it might 
prevent others from serving in the government, these leaks that had 
brought him down.

          MR. McCURRY:  I think that the Secretary -- I haven't asked 
him this, and I will ask him to assess his feeling on it.  But just 
knowing how he feels generally on personnel matters and sensitive 
matters like this, I would say he does share concern about unauthorized 
leaks of information that sometimes are inaccurate and sometimes 
misportray facts and reality.

          I know that you all labor, as best you can, to try to get to 
the bottom of things, but sometimes inaccurate information does appear 
and it can be damaging in many ways and in some cases damaging 
personally to the reputations of very highly qualified people.

          Q    Mike, can you say who --

          MR. McCURRY:  By the way, I would make this point, because I 
want everyone to be sensitive to this as well:  We've talked earlier in 
this briefing about a very sensitive investigation that apparently now 
is going to go to the U.S. Justice Department and there are names 
identified in the newspapers today.  As far as I'm aware, nobody at a 
decision-making level in the government is aware of whether or not these 
particular individuals are, in fact, being investigated by law 
enforcement officials.  I think it's something that I would hope you 
would be cautious about as you seek to report on this.

          Q    Mike, can you say who among the Secretary's predecessors 
he's talked to?  Was it Vance, Baker, and Eagleburger?

          MR. McCURRY:  I don't know who, in particular.  He just told 
me he would be reaching out to some of his predecessors.

          Q    He will be?

          MR. McCURRY:  I think he's beginning that process.  I don't 
know that he's made any particular calls yet, but I think he's going to 
discuss the position itself and the type of person that he should be 
considering with a variety of people, not only them.

          Q    Mike, is there any kind of a timetable for filling this 
job which, presumably, you don't want to leave hanging very long?

          MR. McCURRY:  It's not a fixed timetable.  It's clearly 
something that he feels the need to act on promptly.  I don't know that 
he's set for himself any set timetable.

          Q    Mike, talking of appointments, Steve Solarz has said in 
published interviews that he's getting the run-around at the State 
Department.  He's even alleged that there is sort of a hidden hand 
that's trying to scuttle his appointment and that stories are being 
planted in various newspapers.  Why has he been left hanging for like 
four or five months now?

          MR. McCURRY:  I can't answer that for you.  There's a 
background investigation which normally precedes nomination.  That 
background investigation, in the case of Mr. Solarz, has not been 
complete.  Standing here, I do not know why; but it's not normally the 
Department's practice to comment on background investigations, in any 

          Whether or not there is something that the Justice Department 
can tell you about this is something I think that the Justice Department 
would have to address.

          Q    But why hasn't he been even informed of any 
investigation?  He says he has just been left hanging, he is in limbo.  
He has not even been told that there is a background investigation on.

          MR. McCURRY:  I'm sure that he's aware that there is a 
background investigation being conducted.  That's fairly normal 
procedure for a Presidential appointment.  I can't answer the question 
of why he has not been told anything by those who conduct background 
checks, which I believe is the FBI.

          Q    One moment.  A follow-up.  Since Mr. Pickering left, 
India has not had an ambassador for like six or seven months.  Is this a 
reflection of the insignificance the U.S. places on India?

          MR. McCURRY:  Certainly not.  The United States -- as you know 
from the extensive series of meetings we've had with high-level 
officials from India and the great care and attention we devote to it, 
that bilateral relation is one that is considered among the most 
important in the region -- indeed, if not in the world itself.  It's one 
in which the United States has a long history of very close and warm 
bilateral relations with India, and it's one in which the United States 
attaches the utmost importance.

          Q    Could an ambassador have prevented the recent flap that 
took place over Kashmir, and all the back and forth that took place -- 
Tarnoff sending a letter and Indians aggressively, diplomatically saying 
that this was uncalled for and all that type of thing?

          MR. McCURRY:  As a matter of fact, I don't know.  As a matter 
of interpretation, that's something that I would leave to your own 
judgments and your own calculations.

          Q    On the subject of vacant ambassadorships, or neglected 
ambassadorships, when is Ed Djerejian supposed to go to Israel?

          MR. McCURRY:  I think he just had his confirmation hearing, if 
I'm not mistaken, this week -- yesterday.  So he will be departing 
fairly promptly upon confirmation by the Senate.

          Q    Could I ask another one about Wharton?

          MR. McCURRY:  Yes.

          Q    From your description of where the Secretary has begun 
reaching out, it sounds like he's not reaching into the Department.  
He's rather talking in terms of somebody outside.  Am I --

          MR. McCURRY:  I wouldn't conclude that.  He's starting by 
discussing with some others the job itself, the parameters of the job, 
and then I think he'll move from there.

          Q    Can I just follow up?  Why does he find it necessary to 
reinvent the job?

          MR. McCURRY:  One thing that is different about the job, I 
think, as he fills this vacancy, is that I think he has found in recent 
weeks that he does travel more than he had initially anticipated.  I 
think that changes some of his own views of the job itself.  He had 
expected that he would not be on the road as much as he has been.

          Q    He's travelled less than his two most recent 
predecessors.  How much less travelling did he expect?

          MR. McCURRY:  He's doing more than he had originally expected.

          Q    Michael, this whole thing just seems totally bizarre to 
me.  You've got a Secretary of State who served in the position that you 
now say he's asking people how should that position work.  He was a 
Deputy Secretary of State.

          MR. McCURRY:  He's obviously also discussing with these people 
-- the types of people -- and probably specific individuals who might 
fill that job.  But I'm just not -- I was trying to avoid getting into 
the description and discussion of who's candidates, because I think 
that's probably what you're all most interested in.

          Q    Are you telling us that a year after he started this job, 
and after formally serving in the job he's now trying to fill, the 
Secretary is unsure how that job should be structured and needs help 
from former Secretaries because it has come as a shock to him that he's 

          MR. McCURRY:  No.  That's an argumentative question that 
misrepresents what I've said at this briefing.

          Q    Mike, do you have any comments on the elections in 
Jordan, the initial results of elections in Jordan?

          MR. McCURRY:  The answer is, of course not.  He's got a very 
good idea.  I think he's looking for recommendations on people.  He's 
consulting with some other people about the types of people who might be 
available, who might be good, and who might bring certain types of 
strength to the job.

          Q    (Inaudible)

          MR. McCURRY:  If you would have asked it politely, I would 
have given you that answer.

          Q    But, Michael, we tried it politely the first time and you 
gave us the run-around.

          Q    He's travelling more than he expected.  The sort of 
person he's looking for -- do you see any possibility that he might turn 
some of the travel over to the Deputy once named?

          MR. McCURRY:  As Dr. Wharton did.  Dr. Wharton represented the 
Department and the Secretary very effectively on some of his travels.  I 
would assume that there would be travel involved, but I don't know the 
degree to how that would balance out compared to Dr. Wharton's work.

          Q    Can we go back to my question, please?

          MR. McCURRY:  Jordan?  Yes.  We congratulate the Jordanians on 
their successful elections.  These elections represent what we feel is 
an important development in the evolution of democracy in Jordan itself, 
a process the United States has supported.

          Obviously, we won't comment on the choices that the Jordanian 
people have made.  We do feel, however, that the results reflect 
widespread support for centrists and for moderates.  We did note that 
the turnout seemed to be somewhat higher than many had suggested or 
predicted in advance.  Certainly, that was encouraging.

          Q    Was it free and fair?

          MR. McCURRY:  Yes.

          Q    While we're still in the Middle East, can you tell us 
anything about any sort of upcoming signing between Israel and Jordan?  
Arafat is saying it could take place in a couple of days, and Rabin is 
coming here this week.

          MR. McCURRY:  I obviously know that Prime Minister Rabin is 
scheduled to be here on Friday, the 12th.  I just don't have anything 
else related to any signings.  I'm not certain what Chairman Arafat was 
referring to.

          Q    Michael, on Israel:  Have you been paying attention to 
what's going on in the West Bank and the kind of riots that have been 
going on there, the increasing level of violence and the reports out of 
Israel today that Prime Minister Rabin met with the settlers and 
apparently promised them that he would ease the building freeze?

          Has the U.S. been informed of that, or will it be talking to 
Prime Minister Rabin about that?  Because it seems to kind of run head-
on into commitments the U.S. has.

          MR. McCURRY:  I don't know.  Let me divide up -- obviously, we 
have been concerned about the violence in the  region and specifically 
in the area of some of the settlements.  It's something that we feel is 
in some ways descriptive of the conditions that the peace process itself 
attempts to address.  But I can't say for certain whether or not this 
will be a subject or whether this meeting today, apparently, that the 
Prime Minister has had is something that will be open for discussion 
when the Prime Minister is here.

          It is a subject that we have raised with the Israeli 
Government in the past during visits there, during discussions with him.  
It is something that is of concern to us and certainly is of concern to 
them as well.

          Q    But (inaudible) my colleague's question about this 
meeting, my information also from the Israeli newspapers is that he 
promised that he will conduct regular meetings with the settlers to 
apprise them of all of the things that are developing in the peace 
process.  Is this a good omen or a bad omen, if the settlers are going 
to come on the line, where they have been obstructionists all the time?

          MR. McCURRY:  I was not aware of the report.  We will 
certainly seek to understand more about the meeting itself.  I'm not 
sure that we would have comment on steps that he's taking to deal with 
dissent within his own country, but I'll see if I can find anything 

          Q    While we are on the peace process, there was an item in 
Time Magazine -- I think the last issue of Time Magazine -- which was 
quoted in Ha'artz newspaper in Israel saying, that Hafez Assad 
stipulated continuation of the peace talks with lifting the sanctions on 
Iraq.  Do you have any comment?  Can you take the question and give us 
an answer, please?

          MR. McCURRY:  I'm not familiar with that report and not --

          Q    In Time Magazine and Ha'artz, these new newspapers?

          MR. McCURRY:  State again what they said?

          Q    The stipulation of Hafez Assad, that he will continue the 
negotiations of the peace talks in the Middle East if the sanctions will 
be lifted with Iraq.

          MR. McCURRY:  Only if sanctions were lifted against Iraq?

          Q    Yes.  This is the language of the item.  Can you look 
into this, please?

          MR. McCURRY:  I will certainly look into that.  I'm certainly 
not aware of anything of that nature, but I will try  to find out more 
about it.

          Q    Along those lines, Mike, are you familiar with reports of 
numerous Iraqi officials visiting Damascus in recent months?  And what 
do you make of it?

          MR. McCURRY:  I don't know that we have any assessment of 
that.  I'll see if we do.

          Q    Are you aware of anything that's been happening there?

          MR. McCURRY:  No.  I'm not aware.  I'll see if anyone was 
aware of that.

          Q    Can you take that, please?

          MR. McCURRY:  Yes.

          Q    Mike, could I have an answer later on the American 
official's briefing in Islamabad on (inaudible)?  Could I have it later?  
Could you take the question?

          MR. McCURRY:  On the Islamabad briefing today, what was --

          Q    Yesterday evening, an American official --

          MR. McCURRY:  Right.  I'll see if there's anything that we can 
get on that.  We'll check with the post and see.  I wasn't aware of the 
briefing itself, but I'll see if we can find out some more.

          Q    Mike, new subject.  The Ukrainian parliament has convened 
today to start debating, among other things, the START ratification.  
Have you any reason to believe that this time around it will get 
ratified?  And is the visit of President Kravchuck still on track for 
this month?

          MR. McCURRY:  I wasn't aware of any visit by President 
Kravchuk this month.  Is there any reason to believe that there was 
going to be a movement forward within the parliament?  I think that 
there were some -- I think, as you heard the Secretary say after his 
meeting with some of the leaders of the Rada -- when we were in Kiev -- 
he does feel that his sentiment within the leadership of the Rada to 
move ahead on START ratification.  I think that's something that we 
certainly are hoping -- indeed, somewhat expecting -- that the 
parliament would address.  We will watch the deliberations of the 
parliament very carefully in the coming--

          Q    On the visit, Foreign Minister Zlenko said that there 
would be meeting around November 30.  He announced that in Kiev after 
his last conversation, I think, with the Secretary.

          MR. McCURRY:  I'm not aware of any plans for a visit by the 

          Q    Thank you.

          (Press briefing concluded at 1:55 p.m.)


To the top of this page