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
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1993
BRIEFER: Michael McCurry
Subject Page
AFGHANISTAN, Fighting ...................................1
BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA
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
SOMALIA
Boutros-Ghali Remarks on U.S. Participation .............6
Oakley -- Whereabouts, Activities, Briefing ............7
DEPARTMENT
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
HAITI
Harvard Study, Relief, Effect of Sanctions ..............12-14
Blockade; Assets Freeze and Participation ...............14-15
PAKISTAN
U.S. Official's Comments on Kashmir .....................15, 22
INDIA
U.S. Ambassador, Kashmir, U.S. Relations ................17-18
JORDAN
Elections ...............................................20
Reported Agreement with Israel ..........................20
ISRAEL
Violence in West Bank, Rabin Mtg w/ Settlers ............20-21
PEACE PROCESS
Syria Pres. Assad Conditions, Lifting Iraqi Sanctions ...21-22
SYRIA
Iraqi Officials Visit Damascus ..........................22
UKRAINE
START Ratification, Kravchuk Visit to U.S. ..............22
(###)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #147
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1993, 1:04 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. McCURRY: Good afternoon, everybody. I don't have any
prepared statements to share with you, so I'd be happy to take your
questions.
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
sanctions?
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
about.
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
days.
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
General.
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
frequented?
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
understand.
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
report?
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
matter.
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
Department?
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
General.
Q Adding to that: If the Secretary knew that Funk was
sending it to the Justice Department in the middle of the night last
night?
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
million.
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.
Warren.
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.
Norm.
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
level.
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
event.
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
travelling?
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
further.
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
President.
Q Thank you.
(Press briefing concluded at 1:55 p.m.)
(###)
To the top of this page