931129 Daily Press Briefing  Return to: Index of 1993 Daily Briefings || Electronic Research Collections Index || ERC Homepage

Note: This Electronic Research Collection (ERC) is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the US State Department homepage.


Asst. Secretary Djerejian to Speak at 
  L.A. World Affairs Council Tuesday .........................1

Aid Talks in Addis Ababa Opens Today/Goals

US Contacts with Haynes Mahoney ..............................3

Discussion Draft of New Foreign Assistant
   Act Forwarded to Congress ........................................3-7
--  Impact on Pakistan 
--  Availability to Public 

Prospects for Meeting with US .....................................7
Foreign Ministry Statement ...........................................7

Government Contacts with IRA ....................................7-8

Election Process/US Position on Observers ..........8

EU Peace Plan/Efforts at Ceasefire/
--  Conditions for Relaxing Sanctions ......................9

Violence in Gaza 

Expiring US Legislation 


                       DEPARTMENT OF STATE
                       DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

                                                  DPC #153

               MONDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1993, 1:05 P.M.

         MS. SHELLY:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  I have a 
short statement to read.  Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, 
Edward Djerejian, will deliver a speech at the Biltmore Hotel in Los 
Angeles, California, on Tuesday, November 30, at noon, Pacific Standard 
Time.  The event is being sponsored by the Los Angeles World Affairs 
Council.  The title of the Assistant Secretary's speech is "War and 
Peace:  Problems and Prospects of American Diplomacy in the Middle 
East."  We'll post an announcement on this a little bit later with 
information about who you might call on this event.

          Before I take your questions, I just want to give you a short 
update on where the conference is in Addis Ababa today.  As you are 
aware, the U.N.-sponsored conference on humanitarian issues opened in 
Addis Ababa today.

          Ambassador Oakley is a member of the U.S. delegation.  He will 
be working with others while he is there to advance the political 
reconciliation process.

          I would like to note that representatives from both Aideed's 
Somali National Alliance faction and Ali Mahdi's United Somali Congress 
are in Addis Ababa.  Aideed and Ali Mahdi, themselves, have thus far 
declined to participate in the conference.

          Our primary expectation of the conference is that the Somali 
representatives will define their assistance goals and priorities, will 
take the initiative in creating a secure environment for donor 
investments, and will continue progress in re-establishing viable civil 
institutions.  There will also be time for political discussions among 
the Somali representatives after the conference, which we hope will 
advance the progress toward political reconciliation.

          I'd be pleased to take your questions.

          Q    You say representatives of Aideed and Mahdi are there.  
Are they taking part in the conference?

          MS. SHELLY:  Yes, that's correct.  That's my understanding.

          Q    Isn't the conference undercut, though, by the fact that 
both leaders are not there themselves?

          MS. SHELLY:  I think it certainly was very much our hope that 
each of these two leaders would participate personally.  I think the 
fact that they have sent representatives is still an encouraging sign.  
It certainly still is our hope that they might -- either or both -- 
change their minds and personally attend.  Even though our preference 
would certainly be to have them present, it is still our feeling that 
the prospects for some progress are still good.

          Q    What do you make of Aideed's statement today on forces 
getting out immediately?

          MS. SHELLY:  I understand that he did make some remarks this 
morning and put forward some proposals of a "Somalia for Somalis" 
nature.  I haven't really had the opportunity to study those yet.  I 
think to make any further comments on them would be premature.

          Q    What are the conditions for future U.S. assistance?

          MS. SHELLY:  I don't have anything specific for you on that.  
I don't think there's been any change on that.  I think what the 
conference is all about is to try to particularly identify what the 
needs and requirements are to get the goals and priorities defined, and 
then to try to determine how best the potential donors can meet them.  
If there's anything more specific on that that I can add, I'll be happy 
to try to post something later.

          Q    But doesn't there have to be a political settlement for 
the U.S. to make its contribution?

          MS. SHELLY:  I think a political settlement is an essential 
ingredient for prospects for humanitarian assistance and for longer-run 
economic type assistance to really have the chance of having a full 
success.  So I think, yes, that is very much the case.

          Q    Has Aideed set conditions for his own participation in 
this conference?  Is the U.S. moving to accommodate him in any way?

          MS. SHELLY:  I'm not aware of the fact that he has laid down 
any specific conditions.  Whether or not he would attend and the 
circumstances under which he would attend have been under discussion for 
several days, but I'm not aware of the fact that there is any specific, 
categoric condition as a precursor to that.

          Q    I thought he had insisted that his various backers, who 
had been arrested a couple of months ago, be released.  You haven't 
heard that?

          MS. SHELLY:  Well, I understand that that is one of the points 
that he has made in his discussion with a variety of parties.  I'm not 
sure that he has laid that down in absolute terms as a condition for 

          Q    The U.S. delegate, Mr. Oakley, and (inaudible) 
representative said to the Council that the U.S. is going to withdraw 
all forces as scheduled at the end of March.  Has any representative of 
the United States confirmed that withdrawal schedule?

          MS. SHELLY:  As I mentioned, Ambassador Oakley is a member of 
the delegation but he's actually not the delegation head.  The 
delegation head is Richard McCall, who is with AID.

          I'm not aware that there's any change in the overall position 
regarding the presence of U.S. troops.  I don't believe there's any 
change in that.

          Q    Do you have an update on the American diplomat, Mr. 
Mahoney, who was kidnapped in Yemen?

          MS. SHELLY:  We have had a further exchange of contacts with 
Mr. Mahoney.  We were able to send him a package containing a change of 
clothes and other personal items.  We have received a message back from 
him that he is in good health and is in good spirits.

          We remain confident that the Yemeni authorities are working 
urgently to secure Mr. Mahoney's release.  We remain hopeful that the 
situation will be resolved in the very near future, but I wouldn't want 
to speculate any further.  We continue to call upon his captors to 
release him immediately.

          Q    A new subject?

          MS. SHELLY:  Sure.

          Q    This is with reference to the new Foreign Assistance Act.  
Is it possible to get the full text of the Administration's letter to 
the Congress -- the letter of the Secretary of State?  Because there's a 
lot of confusion of what it means and what it wants?

          MS. SHELLY:  I've got a few details on this.  Let me take a 
minute and go through them.

          First of all, the Administration has forwarded to Congress 
what we're calling a "discussion draft" of a new Foreign Assistance Act.  
We will be consulting with Congress on this in the near future.

          The old Foreign Assistance Act is 30 years old and it 
reflected the Cold War concerns of that period and not the realities of 
the post-Cold War world.

          The kinds of changes we are proposing would provide a clear 
framework for achieving U.S. goals in today's world.  These include 
promoting prosperity and sustainable development; building democracy; 
promoting peace; providing humanitarian assistance, and supporting U.S. 

          I can get a little more specific:  New assistance categories 
reflecting modern realities would replace the Cold War-era economic 
support fund.

          New categories of countries ineligible for assistance would be 
based on current world realities, replacing the outdated Cold War 

          Funds would be requested for broad objectives instead of the 
many different and sometimes conflicting goals, priorities and earmarks 
which are contained in the current law.

          The Executive department responsible for aid programs will be 
clarified and coordinated and administration of programs would be 

          As to the process of this, as I mentioned, what has been 
submitted so far is a "discussion draft."  It's part of an ongoing 
consultative process with the Congress on the future role of foreign 

          It reflects an urgent concern in the Congress and in the 
Administration over three major issues.  The first is, basically, how 
foreign assistance, generally, affects American interests -- and I might 
note specifically economic interests.

          Secondly, it defines and appropriate role for security 
assistance in a world where fighting communism is no longer our number 
one objective.

          And, thirdly, it contains a blueprint for how we can use 
foreign aid and help strength free market-oriented democracies 
consolidate their recent political and economic gains.

          In specific terms, the "discussion draft" lays out a new 
framework for foreign assistance, a framework that we hope will be 
clear, comprehensive, and coherent, and free of 32 years worth of 
accumulated baggage and Cold War rhetoric.

          Q    The fact that you're apparently going to lift 
restrictions on aid to Pakistan, though, apart from the sort of general 
context, isn't that a recognition that, in this case, restrictions on 
aid to Pakistan have failed and you're just going to have to deal with 
the fact that Pakistan has a nuclear program and go from there?

          MS. SHELLY:  I wouldn't necessarily agree with the conclusion 
that you've drawn from that.  In what we've transmitted, it omits all 
country-specific language and that would, of course, include the 
Pressler Amendment.  As I said, that's less a question of the Pressler 
Amendment itself and more of our effort to update the approach with the 
current realities of the 1990s.

          We have said in the transmittal letter, which we sent to the 
Congress which accompanied the "discussion draft," that the absence of 
any country-specific language should not be interpreted as a change in 
U.S. policy toward any particular any country.

          I would just note, in an effort to preserve the President's 
flexibility in carrying out foreign policy, the "discussion draft" does 
impose generic foreign aid sanctions on the basis of objectionable 
activities by other governments.  The kinds of categories we have in 
mind -- gross human rights violations, terrorism, nuclear proliferation.

          Specifically, on your point, this does not indicate any 
weakening in the Administration's desire to check nuclear proliferation 
in South Asia.  Pakistan will still continue to be subject to the 
sanctions under the Administration's proposal.

          The "discussion draft" does include also provisions for 
national interest waivers of sanctions.  As a matter of Administration 
policy, satisfaction of the Pressler standard will remain the essential 
basis for exercising any national interest waiver and for resuming 
economic and military assistance, including any decision by the U.S. 
Government to sell or transfer military equipment or technology to 

          Q    Are you saying, then, just so that I'm sure I understand, 
that if Congress were to adopt this new approach that you're putting 
forward, that the President would not waive aid restrictions on 

          MS. SHELLY:  What we have indicated is that Pakistan would 
continue to be subject to sanctions along the lines of the Pressler 
Amendment under the Administration's new proposal.  That's correct.

          Q    Indefinitely or for a specific period or --

          MS. SHELLY:  I don't think I could really speculate on how 
long that would be.  I think, first of all, it will take some time 
before this consultation process is finished and before the legislation 
is finally acted on.          I'm not aware that there's any date fixed 
by which this commitment of the Administration would terminate.

          Q    And Pakistan would still be subjected to these 
restrictions, not because there is specific language that says Pakistan 
will be subjected to restrictions, but because the Administration 
intends to interpret its more general goals of non-proliferation to 
apply to Pakistan, is that right?

          MS. SHELLY:  I think that's a pretty accurate assessment of 

          Q    What other countries would fall under the same category 
as Pakistan?

          MS. SHELLY:  The Pressler Amendment adopted in 1985 
specifically states that no assistance shall be furnished to Pakistan -- 
no military equipment or technology shall be sold or transferred to 
Pakistan.  In other words, the language on this is Pakistan-specific.  
It does not specifically mention other countries by name.

          Q    You talked about generic language affecting 

          MS. SHELLY:  I'm not an expert on the bill, but my 
understanding is that in the other kinds of categories that I mentioned 
above, where there are kind of generic references, then subsequent to 
that the determinations as to which countries fell into those categories 
would have to be made.  I don't have any other country-specific 
information to add.

          Q    Let me give you an opportunity to be more specific.  How 
about India?

          MS. SHELLY:  I have nothing specific on India.

          Q    Also on Pakistan, you mentioned that the sanctions would 
continue, and then you related those sanctions to the foreign 
assistance.  Would the Administration grant a waiver on the delivery of 
the 60 F-16s which are sitting on the ground in Arizona?

          MS. SHELLY:  I don't have any information on that.

          Q    Just to follow up, is it possible to get actually what 
you gave Congress -- summaries.  Is it possible to get a full text of 
the letter?

          MS. SHELLY:  Of the letter to -- the transmittal letter?

          Q    Is it possible to get the discussion draft?

          MS. SHELLY:  I'm not aware -- I think at this point, while 
it's in its discussion phase, I don't think that the document or the 
transmittal letter is available for public circulation.  I'd be happy to 
check on that point and see if that is the case, and certainly we'll 
endeavor to get you a copy of the Act as soon as we can make it 

          Q    Do I understand what you're saying, that the 
Administration would make a determination about the proliferation 
issues, but then it would retain the discretion to issue a waiver in 
specific country cases?

          MS. SHELLY:  I don't really have anything more specific for 
you than what I said about the general provisions.  As I indicated 
before, there are the different types of categories where certain 
exceptions might be made.  What I provided for you very specifically 
really addressed only the Pressler  Amendment and the Pakistani 
situation.  As I said, the discussion draft itself -- it does impose 
generic foreign aid sanctions on the basis of these categories of 
objectionable activities.

          How this would actually work in practice and the ultimate 
language -- because, as I said, it's a discussion draft -- there could 
be some changes to it, certainly.  But I think that the point is to try 
to get away from the country-specific approach, to try to get into a 
much more broad policy approach, to try to work in the context of the 
objectives defined.  I'm really not in a position to go beyond that on 
the specific generic foreign aid sanctions that I mentioned.  That's 
simply all I can tell you at this point.

          Q    On North Korea nuclear matter, you had a meeting with 
North Korea on the 24th and conveyed the recent posture made by the two 
Presidents of the United States and Korea.  Since then, do you have any 
response from the North Korean part, or have they requested a meeting -- 
working level meeting where they are supposed to pass their posture 
concerning that matter?

          MS. SHELLY:  No.  We have not received any response yet.  We 
hope that the North Koreans will be in a position to respond positively 
in the very near future.

          Q    And this morning there are two reports concerning North 
Korea.  One is that a statement released -- made by the Foreign Ministry 
said that they denounce the U.S. policy of so-called (inaudible) the 
North Korean situation.  They made a statement concerning that matter.  
And also the other report is that the Prime Minister of North Korea is 
going to visit China in early December.  That might give some 
suggestion, so could you give some comment or remark concerning that 
statement and scheduled visit?

          MS. SHELLY:  On your latter point, I don't have anything to 
comment on that.  I've seen the press reports only so far of the 
statement to which you've referred, and I don't think it would be 
appropriate for me to comment specifically until we had the chance to 
see the full text of what the Foreign Ministry actually said.

          Q    You don't give any comment of the North Korean Prime 
Minister visit -- scheduled visit to China?

          MS. SHELLY:  No, I don't have any comment on that.

          Q    Do you have any comment or reaction to the reports of the 
British Government's contacts with the Irish Republican Army?

          MS. SHELLY:  The United States policy is to support the 
efforts of the British and the Irish Government to stop the violence.  
We believe that it is up to them to determine the best overall strategy 
to accomplish this goal.  That's all I have.

          Q    The President of Mexico has picked out his successor 
again.  This process has caused irritation in the past.  Do you have any 
comments on this?

          MS. SHELLY:  I don't really have much for you.  We 
congratulate Mr. Colosio on his nomination.  We continue to follow 
Mexico's electoral process with great interest and will do so as it 

          We are confident that our excellent relations with Mexico in 
trade and many other areas will continue, regardless of which candidate 
wins next year's election.

          Q    Does the United States favor the presence of 
international observers in the election in Mexico?

          MS. SHELLY:  I'm not aware that the U.S. has taken a position 
on that.

          Q    Could you take that question, please?

          MS. SHELLY:  Sure, I'll be happy to take it and see if we can 
post something.

          Q    Does the State Department have any comment on the 
elections in Taiwan that took place over the weekend?

          MS. SHELLY:  No, I don't have any comment on that.

          Q    Could I go back to the British question?  As a country 
that has taken a lead in trying to get parties in the Middle East to sit 
down face to face, I just wondered if there was anything further you 
could say about the British contacts with the IRA?  I mean, the 
statement was rather neutral.

          MS. SHELLY:  The statement is intended to be neutral.  As you 
certainly are aware, the British and Irish Governments have been working 
very closely to try to reinvigorate the political process.  Certainly, 
we have always tried to support those efforts and have always called for 
a stop to the violence.

          Beyond that, I don't really think -- it's not a discussion, a 
negotiation in which the United States is directly involved in any way.  
I think it really would not be very appropriate to characterize the U.S. 
position in any different context.

          Q    On the former Yugoslavia, there seems to be a divergence 
or growing divergence between the United States and its European allies 
on how and when to end the sanctions.  They seem to be more eager to do 
so than the United States.  Is that an accurate perception?

          MS. SHELLY:  As you know -- this is a bit of a moving target, 
because, as you know, the European Union Foreign Ministers are meeting 
on this in Geneva today.  I don't have any specific readout on what's 
happened so far.

          What we understood to be the case at the outset of the 
discussion was that the European Union plan put forward several elements 
for a peace plan.  It required the Serbs to provide an additional three 
to four percent of additional territory to the Bosnian Government as the 
basis for a political settlement, based on the Owen-Stoltenberg plan.

          The EU had also called on Serbs and Croats to implement the 
cease-fire and confidence-building measures in Krajina.  On the 
sanctions point, the EU plan provided that some of the sanctions on 
Serbia could be suspended if a political settlement in Bosnia was 
reached, and if that settlement was implemented, and if the cease-fire 
and the confidence-building measures in Krajina were implemented there 
could be this kind of phased reduction.

          I think that there perhaps has been too much speculation about 
a kind of division on sanctions between the United States and the 
members of the European Union on this.  I think that the key point here 
is that we are in agreement with the Europeans that there should be no 
premature easing of the sanctions regime.  I don't think there's any 
difference in our position and the European position on that.

          We believe there can be no movement toward moderating 
sanctions until a Bosnian settlement has been reached and until the 
international community sees that it's being implemented.  It's my 
understanding, based on reports of discussions that we've had, that the 
Europeans are also very keen on that point as well.  They want to see 
concrete evidence of actions, and they want to see that commitments are 
being implemented, and that that is the moment in time when it would be 
appropriate to actually get into the sanctions question or any potential 

          Q    Violence of the weekend in Gaza.  Any comment?

          MS. SHELLY:  I don't have a specific comment on that.  I think 
that we have seen the reports.  We're aware of the fact that there 
continues to be episodes of violence at the time in the region.  What 
we're trying to do with both the Israelis and the PLO is to keep the 
focus on the implementation of the Declaration of Principles which we 
still think offers the best opportunity for moving the process forward.

          Those who oppose the agreement with violence should not be 
permitted to derail it.

          Q    One final question:  Do you have any new information on 
the Secretary's itinerary or plans to visit the Middle East?

          MS. SHELLY:  I don't have anything with me right now.  I'll 
check and see what we can post later this afternoon.

          Q    Could I ask just one more question, please.

          MS. SHELLY:  Sure.

          Q    Concerning the waiver for the anti-PLO legislation which 
expires on December 30, does the State Department view that as a problem 
with the Congress out of session, and would you take the question if you 
don't have anything?

          MS. SHELLY:  Yes.  I don't have any answer at my fingertips.  
I'll be happy to take the question.

          Q    Thank you.

          MS. SHELLY:  Thank you.


To the top of this page