Note: This Electronic Research Collection (ERC) is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the
US DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1993
Subject
Page
ANNOUNCEMENT
Asst. Secretary Djerejian to Speak at
L.A. World Affairs Council Tuesday .........................1
SOMALIA
Aid Talks in Addis Ababa Opens Today/Goals
/Participants
.....................................................................1-3
YEMEN
US Contacts with Haynes Mahoney ..............................3
DEPARTMENT
Discussion Draft of New Foreign Assistant
Act Forwarded to Congress ........................................3-7
-- Impact on Pakistan
.....................................................4-7
-- Availability to Public
................................................6
NORTH KOREA
Prospects for Meeting with US .....................................7
Foreign Ministry Statement ...........................................7
UK
Government Contacts with IRA ....................................7-8
MEXICO
Election Process/US Position on Observers ..........8
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
EU Peace Plan/Efforts at Ceasefire/
Confidence-Building
.......................................................8-9
-- Conditions for Relaxing Sanctions ......................9
ISRAEL/OCCUPIED TERRITORIES
Violence in Gaza
.................................................................9
PLO
Expiring US Legislation
...................................................10
(###)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #153
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1993, 1:05 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
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
attending.
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.
diplomacy.
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
restrictions.
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
improved.
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
aid.
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
Pakistan.
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
Pakistan?
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
it.
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
proliferators.
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
available.
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
unfolds.
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
easing.
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.
(###)