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.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
Monday, November 22, 1993

                                BRIEFER:  Michael McCurry

Subject                                            Page

ANNOUNCEMENTS
Secretary's Trip to Europe/Middle East Next Week 1,3
Robert Lamb Named US Special Coordinator for
  Cyprus ........................................1-3

FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
US Humanitarian Aid .............................1
Status of Embargo against Serbia ................3-5
--  Reported EU Vote Today ......................3
--  Secretary's Contacts with Counterparts ......4-5

ISRAEL
Reported Arab League Vote on Boycott ............3

UKRAINE
Prospects for Implementing START I ..............6-7,10
--  Statement by Russian Foreign Minister .......6
Nunn-Lugar Aid Package ..........................7-10,16

KAZAKHSTAN
Timing of NPT Vote by Parliament ................9

BELARUS
Prospects for Visit by the President ............10-12

NORTH KOREA
US Policy re:  IAEA Inspections/Dialogue w/South 11-12

SOUTH KOREA
Kim Yong-sam's Meeting with President Tomorrow ..12

IRAQ
Deputy Foreign Minister Reported at UN ..........12
Conditions for Sales of Oil .....................12-13

GEORGIA
Reported Arrests/Due Process Questioned .........13

SOMALIA
Efforts at National Reconciliation/Security .....13-15
--  US Aid ......................................13-15
--  Conferences To Begin Monday .................14




                     DEPARTMENT OF STATE
                     DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

                                              DPC #150

             MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1993, 1:13 P.M.
            (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)


       MR. McCURRY: Good afternoon, everybody.  I have one housekeeping 
announcement and then two other brief items.

       As a reminder, first of all for those of you that may have not 
been here Friday, we've got a sign-up sheet posted for the Secretary's 
trip to Europe and to the Middle East.  Those of you wishing to apply 
for a seat on the plane should put your name on the list by 12 noon 
tomorrow.  That's Tuesday, 12 noon tomorrow.

       Second -- this is an announcement -- the United States is 
providing $30 million to help meet the current winter requirements of 
refugees and conflict victims in the former Yugoslavia, particularly in 
Bosnia.  This funding will bring the total U.S. Government assistance to 
this point in the former Yugoslavia to over $447 million.  That's since 
1991.

       This $30 million contribution will be used for a variety of 
purposes that we've spelled out in the statement that you'll have 
available, but it's going to UNHCR, the ICRC, the International Rescue 
Committee -- which has been working on winterization programs in Bosnia 
-- and some of the money also will be used for the International 
Organization for Migration, the IOM, which we've been working with on 
medical evacuations and other issues.

       Another announcement:  Secretary Christopher has appointed 
Ambassador Robert Lamb, effective December l, as U.S. Special 
Coordinator for Cyprus.  Ambassador Lamb succeeds Ambassador John 
Maresca, who will concentrate now on other duties, especially Nagorno-
Karabakh.  Maresca has been working on that problem.  

       Ambassador Lamb returned from Nicosia in October, where he served 
as U.S. Ambassador to Cyprus since 1990.  He was previously Assistant 
Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security and U.S. Assistant Secretary 
of State for Administration.

       Ambassador Lamb joined the Foreign Service in 1963.  In addition 
to his Washington assignments, he's served abroad at our posts in 
Brussels, Monrovia, Bangkok, Kathmandu and Bonn.

       With those announcements, more on each of them I think at the 
Press Office if you need it, I'll take any questions you might have.

       Q     Alan's been saving up, but I think he has a question.  
(Laughter)

       MR. McCURRY:  O.K.

       Q     Does this appointment of the Special Coordinator signal 
lack of confidence in the new Ambassador -- what's his name?  
(Laughter).  What is his name?

       MR. McCURRY:  I anticipated that question, of course.  The new 
Ambassador is not yet at post, I think, or he's just shortly arrived at 
post.  Certainly, no one could have lost any confidence in him.

       No, that's speaking jokingly, we should make sure.

       This has been a practice to take this Special Coordinator role 
and use it to work on a particular problem that needs attention beyond 
the full range of bilateral issues that the Ambassador handles, and 
Ambassador Boucher in fact has been in close contact with Ambassador 
Lamb and was well aware of this pending appointment.  

       The Special Coordinator will work, obviously, with the Turkish 
Cypriot and Greek Cypriot communities and the Turkish government and 
Greek government as they continue the U.N.-brokered, or U.N.-sponsored, 
negotiations -- which I believe are right now suspended because I think 
there's an election in early December, if not December 12th, within the 
Turkish-Cypriot community.

       Q     You don't have a regular Coordinator,too, do we?

       MR. McCURRY:  I think we have Special Coordinators.  It's kind of 
like --

       Q     Do you have a Commissioner (inaudible) or any --

       MR. McCURRY:  It's sort of "Senior Officials," you know.  I've 
never seen any "Junior Officials" around.  (Laughter)

       Yes, sir.

       Q     Is there anything you can say about the Arab League's vote 
to uphold the boycott too?

       MR. McCURRY:  No.  I don't.  That has just occurred.

       Q     A couple of hours ago, yes.

       MR. McCURRY:  I didn't see that.  We'll get you something on 
that.  Of course, the United States would reaffirm its position; ending 
all aspects of the boycott against Israel would be a very necessary and 
helpful feature of moving the peace process forward in the Middle East.

       Yes, Chris?

       Q     I think we've had a briefing since this strange incident of 
the American Embassy people in Athens.  Do you have anything pulled 
together on that?

       MR. McCURRY:  With the "strange incident"?  I think that "strange 
incident," as you call it, was addressed in remarks made by Press Office 
people last week.  There wasn't much to say beyond the information that 
I think was conveyed last week.  I'm not aware of anything new on that.

       Q     When the Secretary goes to the Middle East, will he see 
Yasser Arafat?  

       MR. McCURRY:  I would suspect that he would.  I'm not sure when 
and where.  We're still working on itinerary, and I think that we will 
know more about that probably later this week.  

       We might have to actually formally announce the schedule for the 
Middle East portion of this trip after we have moved on to Europe, for 
the simple reason that a lot of that will still be coming together.

       Q     Just on Bosnia, there are some suggestions out of Europe 
that the United States is now willing to consider a proposal to lift the 
embargo against Belgrade in return for Serbian agreement to give up some 
more land as far as making peace with Bosnia.  Is that true?  

       MR. McCURRY:  I can't tell you a lot about that because we have 
not heard back.  

       A little background:  I think some of you know the European Union 
has a Foreign Minister-level meeting today in Luxembourg.  They're 
discussing the situation in the former  Yugoslavia, among other issues; 
and we did not have a representative at the meeting.

       I will say that prior to this meeting today, the Secretary has 
had conversations with Foreign Minister Hurd, Foreign  Minister Juppe, 
Foreign Minister Kinkel, and Foreign Minister Willy Claes.  I think he 
shared some of our thinking on the current conditions in Bosnia and 
current prospects for political settlement, and certainly some aspects 
of the Franco-German initiative that was under discussion today.

       Sometime within this hour we hope to get a fuller readout by 
telephone from some of the participants in that meeting, so we might 
have a little more to say about it.

       I'd say there's not a lot I can tell you about the telephone 
calls the Secretary has had with his counter- parts other than to say we 
expressed some of our reactions, thoughts, reservations; and whether or 
not those were taken into account at the meeting today we'll have to 
learn after we hear a fuller detail of their deliberations today.

       Mark?

       Q     The Europeans apparently are saying that they have the 
tacit support of the United States for lifting sanctions once and 
agreement is reached and is being implemented.  Is that correct?

       MR. McCURRY:  I can't tell you whether that is correct or not, 
because we just are not in a position at this point to know exactly what 
they have spelled out.  We've seen some of the wire accounts that 
indicate that they've got a certain direction or formulation in mind.  
But whether or not that is consistent with some of the things that the 
Secretary has expressed to his foreign ministers, we'll learn more about 
later this afternoon.

       Q     If there's at least an answer to that question today, do 
you suppose you could --

       MR. McCURRY:  If there is a way that we can come back at it with 
a written taken question later, I'll do that, yes.

       Q     What are some of the principles and ideas that the 
Secretary thinks are important to be taken into account in (inaudible).

       MR. McCURRY:  I'm not going to get into detailing the private 
conversations he had with his counterparts.  Clearly, as I say, they 
reflected on the situation on the  situation on the ground, the 
prospects for a settlement, the disposition of the parties as it relates 
to negotiations.  But beyond that I just wouldn't want to characterize 
the call.

       Q     Did he initiate these calls today?  Is that today or 
yesterday or when?

       MR. McCURRY:  I think he did initiate the calls with the 
likelihood that this matter was going to be addressed at the meeting 
today.  I think that there has been discussion back and forth at a lower 
level, lower than the Ministerial level.  But I think the Secretary did 
initiate the calls beginning over the weekend while we were still in 
Seattle.

       Q     Has the United States ever linked the lifting of sanctions 
with cooperation with the War Crimes Tribunal?

       MR. McCURRY:  I don't know the answer to that, Mark.  The only 
conditions by which sanctions can currently be lifted are those that are 
expressed in Security Council Resolution 871, which details the 
requirements that the United Nations Security Council placed on lifting 
of sanctions or easing of sanctions.  I think compliance with all U.N. 
Security Council resolutions is one of the requirements and that would 
relate to the War Crimes Tribunal resolution, too.  But I would have to 
check on that or perhaps you'd want to check at the U.N. on that, too.

       Q     Mike, can you say whether the U.S. supports the idea of 
linking the settlement in Bosnia with the settlement in Krajina and 
putting that altogether in a package with sanctions?

       MR. McCURRY:  I can't.  I mean, I think our view has been all 
along that the parties need to engage in a comprehensive discussion 
about the conditions for peace.  And the situation in Krajina would 
certainly relate directly to -- even though it involves parties other 
than the Bosnian Government, it certainly relates to the need for an 
overall approach to peace in the former Yugoslavia.

       How that relates to sanctions is not something I'm prepared to 
discuss right now.

       Q     Can you say just in terms of discussion, to get a 
settlement the EC has also called for the U.S. and Russia to try to 
bring the parties together next week?  Do we support that idea?

       MR. McCURRY:  Let me add that to something I'll try to check on 
as we learn more about the meeting.  We're not confident as we're here 
right now that that is indeed what they've asked for. 

       Terry.

       Q     If the terms for lifting the sanctions are negotiable or at 
least discussable at this point, is the question of dropping war crimes 
prosecution also negotiable?  Is that something that can be on the 
table?

       MR. McCURRY:  I didn't indicate that anything was negotiable.  I 
said that what currently is in effect are the conditions for lifting 
sanctions as adopted by the U.N. Security Council.  I'm not aware of any 
other set of conditions.  Perhaps later today we'll learn of an 
initiative that's now been adopted by the European Union.

       Q     While we were in Seattle, the State Department, I think, 
had a little to say about what the Unkrainian Parliament did on nuclear 
weapons.  There's great concern in the arms control community that this 
can destroy the START Treaty and cause other damage as well.  Is there 
anything further, or can you tell us what the U.S. plans to do?  I don't 
know, you've probably run out of appeals to the --

       MR. McCURRY:  There is not a lot new.  I think some of you may 
have seen the reaction that Foreign Minister Kozyrev had on behalf of 
Russia.  We've seen those reports.  We have been discussing this 
situation with both Ukraine and Russia, so I don't have any direct 
comment on Foreign Minister Kozyrev's report, which is, I think, the 
newest thing.

       But to go back to where we were last week and just to re-
emphasize, we fully expect Ukraine to fulfill all the obligations it 
undertook as part of the Lisbon Protocol, including the conditions I 
think that you are familiar with:  accession to the Non-Proliferation 
Treaty in the shortest time possible and a commitment to eliminate all 
nuclear weapons, including strategic offensive weapons located in its 
territory during the next seven-year reduction period.

       We have repeatedly heard from President Kravchuk that they will 
live up to those obligations.  We've been in contact with the Government 
of Ukraine through regular diplomatic channels, and obviously the 
Secretary himself raised the issue when he was there.  We expect the 
Ukrainian Government to work with the Rada to ensure that all of the 
commitments made by Ukraine are fulfilled.

       Q     Mike, for the last year or year and a half now the United 
States has been hiding behind this fig leave that the Rada had to vote 
before anything could be decided.

       MR. McCURRY:  Well, it's kind of like --

       Q     Well, the Rada has now voted, and they've stiffed you.  
Isn't it time --

       MR. McCURRY:  They ratified the Treaty with some conditions --

       Q     With such stringent conditions that it's not effective.  
Isn't it time for the United States perhaps to take a little stronger 
action now than to keep repeating this rubric that you expect them to 
comply with their commitment?

       MR. McCURRY:  If you want to apparently make editorial judgments 
on the action of the Rada, you're free to do so.  I can tell you that we 
are working the issue and working with the Ukrainian Government to try 
to get them to honor all of the obligations that they have made in the 
past and to fulfill the commitments that are necessary to achieve many 
of the things that we described directly to the Ukrainian Government on 
our recent trip.

       Q     Money may be one of the main issues, which would not be a 
great surprise.  Remember the Secretary's figure, and you remember the 
Unkrainian Foreign Minister's figure were, you know, a huge gulf between 
them.  One was speaking in billions.

       Now the Parliament has a figure.  Is the U.S. about to sweeten 
the deal and try to buy the Ukrainians off, which may be impossible 
anyway?

       MR. McCURRY:  Not that I'm aware.  They have different ways of 
calculating what they think the cost of extracting the highly enriched 
uranium are.  There are different ways in which those figures are 
arrived at, and we at a technical level have been working with them on 
that to better understand their calculations versus our calculations.  
But I'm not aware that that figures into the decisions on ratification.

       Q     Mike, what policy options are you considering now?  I mean, 
what comes after this contact at a diplomatic level, lower level 
diplomatic level apparently?

       MR. McCURRY:  I think that we are reviewing options.  Normally, 
we don't kind of list out our options prior to adopting them.  But I 
think that they remain focused on the need for Ukraine to fully abide by 
the commitments that it's made.

       Saul.

       Q     Can you say that one of the options you're  reviewing is 
the amount of money that was promised when we were on the trip?

       MR. McCURRY:  That's kind of what Barry asked.  I'm not aware of 
that.  

       Q     I'm not talking about the more money that they estimated.  
Barry asked about --

       MR. McCURRY:  Nunn-Lugar.

       Q     -- an overall sum.  

       MR. McCURRY:  He was asking about Nunn-Lugar money.  You're 
talking about the overall.

       Q     I'm talking about Nunn-Lugar money.  I'm talking about the 
Nunn-Lugar money that the United States committed to for the signing of 
the (inaudible) which was part of the overall deal when the Secretary 
was there.  Is that affected?

       MR. McCURRY:  As I'm here now, I'm not aware of any change 
planned in the Nunn-Lugar assistance package as it pertains to Ukraine.  
I'll check further to see if my understanding is correct, but I'm not 
aware of any change.

       Barry.

       Q     Given the situation, as much as I know you'd like to pay 
homage to Kazakhstan --

       Q     Let me ask this --

       Q     No, on Kiev.

       Q     Well, that Nunn-Lugar money was part -- was only part of 
it.  There was also an economic aid package --

       MR. McCURRY:  Right, that's true.

       Q     -- that was offered, that was apart from Nunn-Lugar that 
was sort of offered as part of good behavior on the nuclear issue.  That 
has nothing to do with Nunn-Lugar funds more than dismantling.

       MR. McCURRY:  That is not entirely an accurate description, Saul, 
because we've said all along that the progress towards economic 
liberalization and democratization in the Ukraine is something that is 
manifestly in our interests economically, and we, I think, separated out 
that question from the assistance that we've provided to Ukraine for 
denuclearization as part of the Nunn-Lugar program.

       It is obvious it is goes without saying that all these things 
factor into the status of a bilateral relationship.  But I think that we 
have never, to my knowledge, sort of said you can't get any of this 
economic assistance money that helps you move towards democracy and free 
markets unless you abide by all these commitments on the nuclear side.  

       Q     The United States is not using economic aid as leverage on 
--

       MR. McCURRY:  We haven't in this case.  We have not in this case 
tied those two things directly, because we say it's in our interest 
ultimately to see Ukraine make the economic transformation that's very 
-- it's certainly important to their citizens.  Clearly, it's in our 
national security interests to keep this process moving forward on 
denuclearization.

       Q     Given the situation, could the Secretary recommend the 
President go to Kiev, much as you'd like to visit some -- have him visit 
various former republics?

       MR. McCURRY:  I don't know that that question is as immediately 
before us as the issue of whether or not President Kravchuk might be 
coming to the United States, and I'm not aware of any plans underway for 
that type of visit.

       Q     Are there plans or might Kravchuk come here before the end 
of the year?

       MR. McCURRY:  Not that I'm aware of.

       Q     What about Kazakhstan?  Didn't he -- I mean, you know, you 
have those two things to juggle, and you want to -- well, you know the 
considerations.

       MR. McCURRY: Let's say that the considerations are still being 
considered, and I don't have anything new on the President's travel 
plan.

       Q     Mike, has Nazarbayev indicated when his Parliament will 
vote on NPT?  I mean, have they been (inaudible) at the end of the year?

       MR. McCURRY:  No.  I think there's nothing specific beyond the 
commitment he mentioned when we were in Almaty, saying that it would be 
by the end of the year.  I don't know if there's a follow-up on that.

       Q     Mike, when you say that the United States is reviewing 
options with regard to Ukraine and their  non-compliance with their 
commitments, does the review include withdrawing or holding back any of 
the aid that the United States has offered to them -- any of the aid?

       MR. McCURRY:  I don't want to imply there is a full-scale review 
of our approach to Ukraine underway.  I think what I'm just indicating 
is that we are clearly aware of what's happened in the Parliament.  
We're thinking of what the next steps are now to encourage Ukraine to 
abide by the commitments that it's made and to understand better the 
decisions taken by the Rada and what other decisions might be possible.

       But I don't know of any plans to offer different types of 
packages of aid.

       Q     So the bottom line is for the moment that they have done 
this and we're not taking any action to try to change that.

       MR. McCURRY:  That's not true.  As I just indicated, we have been 
in very direct contact with them, talked to them about this issue.  The 
Secretary went there.  There have been other diplomatic follow-up 
contacts since then.  We are trying to work that issue very directly 
with Ukraine. 

       And clearly, because you can tell from the remarks of Foreign 
Minister Kozyrev today, Russia is as well.

       Q     Mike, Kravchuk, it has been reported in Ukraine, has been 
very eager to come to Washington by the year end.  You noted that there 
were no plans to have him do so.

       Is that connected to the Rada, the Ukrainian action on START, 
that therefore he would not be welcome to come at this point?

       MR. McCURRY:  I don't want to go beyond what I said earlier.  I 
just said I'm not aware of any plans for him to come.  I'd just leave it 
at that.

       Q     There is a report from Minsk that Shushkevich -- I don't 
know what he calls himself these days --

       MR. McCURRY: Chairman.

       Q     As he was under the Communist system -- same guy.  But he 
says that the President is coming to -- or going to Minsk as part of his 
trip.

       So you're getting to be boxed.  You're going to have to come out 
and say whether the President is going to visit  Kiev in gratitude for 
what the Ukrainians are doing for you, or to you.

       MR. McCURRY:  I don't have anything on a stop in Belarus, but I 
wouldn't entirely be surprised if the President stopped in Belarus.  But 
I don't have anything at this point on it.

       Q     Mike, have you come to modify North Korean nuclear policy 
after APEC conversation?

       MR. McCURRY:  Have we come to -- I'm sorry.

       Q     Modify or change?

       MR. McCURRY:  Modify.  No.  The policy remains the one that 
you've heard the Secretary articulate throughout this past week; that we 
continue to seek compliance with those inspections necessary by the IAEA 
to guarantee continuity of safeguards, and we continue to seek the 
North-South dialogue that North Korea has committed to.  And the tactics 
in support of those goals are things that I'll leave you to speculate 
on.

       Q     And could you give a comment concerning the Newsweek report 
of today that the only one obvious reason why you are continuing the 
South dialogue policy with North Korea is that the United States and the 
South Korean forces should win -- should lose the war if North Korea 
invaded South Korea?

       MR. McCURRY:  Oh, I think you're referring, I think, to some type 
of study that has been conducted, or some type of war game scenario that 
has been conducted.  I heard about this earlier this morning from the 
Pentagon.  They're trying to chase that report down.  I don't have 
anything on that.  I'm not sure that's something that they're going to 
discuss very liberally.  But I can assure you that the policy itself, as 
it has been formulated and directed, takes into account many, many 
things.  I'm not sure what the status of that report is.

       Mark.

       Q     Are the working level contacts with North Korea resuming in 
New York this week?

       MR. McCURRY:  I don't know that there is anything planned.  But, 
again, I think that would rank in those category of things that wouldn't 
be entirely surprising.  But it's our policy and custom here not to 
announce any meetings of that nature prior to them actually occurring.  
We usually have sort of discussed those after the fact.

       Maybe check in later in the week, and I'll see if there's 
anything there.

       Q     Just one follow up.  Tomorrow's summit meeting between 
Clinton and Kim Yong-sam of South Korea, also your Department's attitude 
concerning the North Korean nuclear policy does not have any change from 
what you have mentioned just before?

       MR. McCURRY:  I think the overall thrust of our policy and the 
goals of the policy certainly remain exactly as they have been.  I just 
am not going to comment on different tactics that you might pursue in 
furtherance of those goals.  But, certainly, the policy remains exactly 
as I described and, I think, as the Secretary and others described it.

       Alan.

       Q     Do you have any information about the visit of Tariq Aziz 
to the U.N.?  What he's doing there?  Maybe I'll have a follow up after.

       MR. McCURRY:  Yes.  I'll have to check into that more.  It may be 
-- I know that they have been looking into -- there have been some 
compliance issues that they have had under discussion at the United 
Nations.  I'll have to check further on that, though, and see if we know 
specifically what they've been looking at.

       Q     On the whole question of Iraqi sales of oil and the 
unloosening of sanctions -- forgive me if this is ground that you've 
covered already last week, or whenever -- I understand that there's a 
difference of opinion among some members of the Security Council as to 
when Iraq might be allowed to resume sales of oil merely by complying 
with Resolution 687 on the dismantling of weapons of mass destruction, 
or whether there is a general, more broad requirement on complying with 
all U.N. Security Council resolutions that are relevant.

       Perhaps you could just state what the U.S. position on that is?

       MR. McCURRY:  I'll take it as a question just to review it.  We 
haven't talked about that in a while.  I don't immediately have the 
language in front of me.

       As a general proposition, though, the resumption of sales, as you 
know, there is a separate proposal regime that would allow Iraq to re-
enter the oil market to generate proceeds for humanitarian purposes, and 
that's all fully  authorized by the U.N. Security Council.  We've  
discussed that often here.  As to whether there's another conflicting 
interpretation about when Iraq might broadly re-enter oil market, I'll 
check and see.  I'm not aware of any change in the U.S. position, which 
has been pretty steadfast and solid.

        In any event, the conditions necessary have not been met because 
there has not been compliance with some of the most central of the post-
war Security Council resolutions.  I'll put a more definitive answer up.

        Yes, in the back.

        Q      Do you have anything on the stories over the weekend 
about the alleged CIA operation to smuggle drugs from Venezuela to the 
U.S.?

        MR. McCURRY:  No, I don't.  I understand that other agencies of 
government have reacted more directly to that.  I think that both the 
Drug Enforcement Administration and the CIA -- my understanding -- have 
both put out comments on not only the "60 Minute" story but also The New 
York Times story that appeared on Saturday, I think.  I don't have 
anything to add beyond what the two of them have already said.

        Q      Has the State Department looked into a report -- the 
Christian Science Monitor, for one -- that the Shevardnadze people are 
arbitrarily arresting lots of people in Georgia on no more than 
suspicions that they support his political opponent?

        This is likely to be a CSCE issue, and I wonder if this is what 
the State Department worked up?

        MR. McCURRY:  I don't know the answer to that.  They're 
arresting (inaudible)

        Q      Well, there are the secessionists, but there are people 
-- just plain old civilians that are apparently being arrested just on 
suspicion that they're not loyal to the government.  It's kind of what 
used to go on when he ran the Secret Police in Georgia.

        MR. McCURRY:  I wasn't aware of that report.  I'll check around 
and see if there's anything that we're doing either with the CSCE 
meetings approaching or anywhere else that would relate to that.

        Sid.

        Q      On Somalia, Mike.  Is the United States going to cut off 
all aid to Somalia if the factions don't engage in best efforts to forge 
peace agreements?

        MR. McCURRY:  We continue to work with the clans and the 
factions to try to get them to participate.  But, to the contrary, I 
think we've just, through the humanitarian conference that is coming up 
next week, offered to make available an additional hundred million 
dollars to help with the process of national reconciliation.  So I'm not 
aware of any effort to cut off aid now.

        Q      So it's not hinged -- aid is not hinged on the Somalis 
talking and trying to work out peace arrangements as The Post or The 
Times reported today?

        MR. McCURRY:  The conditions that exists on that aid, that I 
understand, are that to obtain the aid the factions must ensure the 
physical security of donor personnel and also take some concrete steps 
that would provide some minimal capacity at the local level for these 
institutions that are providing humanitarian relief to function.

        So I think it's more directly tied to their willingness to 
cooperate in a security environment that will allow the relief workers 
to do their work.

        Q      They don't have to give up their weapons?

        MR. McCURRY:  There's no point in providing the money unless the 
conditions are going to be such that people there can operate in a way 
that will make the relief and the assistance effective.

        Q      But their weapons were the problem, and the U.S. has now 
bugged out on that one?

        MR. McCURRY:  It's using the weapons that was the problem.

        Q      Well, if they're around, they tend to get used.  That's 
one of the arguments for the Brady bill.

        MR. McCURRY:  That's also the reason why Ambassador Oakley has 
put great emphasis and with some effect on the recreation of the 
Security Committee representing the factions, so that they can discuss a 
variety of issues related to safety and civil order within Mogadishu and 
elsewhere.

        Q      I'm a little confused, Mike.  Unless they agree to 
provide -- unless the factions agree to provide security for voluntary 
workers, then we will not provide them with any aid?

        MR. McCURRY:  I'll go back and make sure this is right.  But my 
understanding is that's a requirement that exists for all of the donor 
participants participating through UNOSOM and through the U.N.-directed 
relief effort.  That's something that the humanitarian effort going on 
in Somalia has established as a condition.  I think it's something that 
they intend to reaffirm when they meet on Monday at the conference.  I 
think it starts Monday and runs through, at least, the balance of the 
week or half way through the week.

        Saul.

        Q      They've made agreements before, as you know.  Ambassador 
Oakley was there for an agreement before.  And, of course, the 
humanitarian aid pulled out of there at some point, way back there in 
December of last year because they couldn't be protected.  Since then 
there was reconciliation.  There was an Addis Ababa agreement, but they 
didn't abide by it.

        What makes you think that the factions -- that Aideed or other 
faction over there -- are going to abide by agreements and make peace so 
that humanitarian aid can continue and that the civil war, in which we 
intervened, would end?

        MR. McCURRY:  Their understanding that the type of 
rehabilitation activities that we are currently funding and the prospect 
of longer term development programs, seeing that that is contingent on 
both the secure environment necessary to operate these programs and to 
some willingness on the part of the parties to engage in dialogue toward 
national reconciliation, that can be a very powerful inducement, we 
think, for a change.

        Q      What wasn't it powerful last October and November?

        MR. McCURRY:  It's not totally clear that it was unpersuasive 
because it did create some conditions for improving conditions within 
the country and also it did help prompt some level of dialogue that 
resulted in the Addis Ababa accords in March.

        Q      No, no, no.  That happened after the United States and 
others went in and protected by force all of the supply routes in 
December.  If you're saying --

        MR. McCURRY:  You're saying dating back --

        Q      -- to go back to the conditions of October and November 
of last year, why should anything be different?

        MR. McCURRY:  Look, we're using that pressure and that lever 
that we think will be effective, and we think it will be affected to 
sort of discuss in the context of this humanitarian aid and assistance 
the conditions that are required by the international community for 
furthering the efforts.

        Now, at some point, the Somali factions, and the faction 
leaders, do have to take responsibility for their own affairs.  They do 
have to be cognizant of the fact that they are shutting off access to 
the type of humanitarian aid that could help bring their people out of 
poverty and reverse much of the misery that many Somalis have continued 
to endure even since the end of the famine.

        That is ultimately a question that is before the leadership of 
each of the factions and before the various people who might be part of 
the national reconciliation process itself.  Do they live up to the 
responsibility of moving ahead and honoring the commitments they have as 
leaders within each of their own factions and sub-clans.

        Q      Could I just ask -- I know the State Department doesn't 
like to do comparisons.  But you've just said the United States is 
willing to condition aid to a small nation where people are starving.  
And yet the United States is not willing to condition aid to Ukraine to 
sort of bring some pressure on Ukraine to get rid of these vastly more 
destabilizing nuclear weapons?

        MR. McCURRY:  We have conditioned some aid in Ukraine on 
progress on denuclearization.  That is, of course, true on Nunn-Lugar 
and the requirements that exists for applying the funds.

        Q      Is any aid going right now to Ukraine?  There isn't much?

        MR. McCURRY:  There's not a lot of aid that is going right now 
because the Nunn-Lugar money I don't believe has started to go, winning 
the completion of the SSD -- the technical arrangements on the SSD; and 
I don't think there has been a lot of money flowing from the Enterprise 
Funds or some of the economic assistance programs yet.  There has been 
some, though.

        Q      Thank you.

               (Press briefing concluded at 1:44 p.m.)
(###)

To the top of this page