Note: This Electronic Research Collection (ERC) is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the
US DEPARTMENT OF STATE
OFFICE OF THE SPOKESMAN
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
Tuesday, December 14, 1993
BRIEFER: Michael McCurry
Subject Page
RUSSIA
Elections/Prospects for Further Democratic Reform1-11
-- Secretary's Conversations with Vice President
Gore/Ambassador Talbott/Return to US ......1,10-11
-- Summit by Baltic Countries ..................3
-- Impact on US Aid Program ....................3-4
-- Foreign Minister's Election .................4
-- Impact on Partnership for Peace .............6-8
-- Impact on SSD Agreements ....................8-9
US Contacts with Party Leaders ..................4
Vice President Gore's Visit/Meetings ............4
NEWLY INDEPENDENT STATES
Security Issues/US Role .........................8
UKRAINE
Status of START I/NPT ...........................9
UK
Secretary's Contacts with Foreign Secretary re:
GATT/Middle East/Possibly Russia ..............11
EL SALVADOR
US Document Declassification ....................11-12
DEPARTMENT
Effort to Speed Up FOIA Requests ................12-13
LIBYA
Whereabouts of Mansur Kikhya in Egypt ...........13
Invitation to Terrorists to Visit ...............13
JAPAN
US Pleased at Opening of Rice Market ............13-14
MACEDONIA
US Policy .......................................14,16
Possible Visit to Department by Foreign Minister 14
VIETNAM
Amb. Lord's News Conference re: POWs/MIAs Today 14-15
Report US Companies Allowed to Bid on Projects ..14-15
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
Humanitarian Flights/Convoys/Serb Escorts .......15-16
HUMAN RIGHTS
Human Rights Watch Charges US with Violations ...17-18
US Immigration Policy re: Haiti ................17
HAITI
US Immigration Policy ...........................17
Four Friends Meeting Today/Sanctions Enforcement 18
Conference on Reconciliation ....................19
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #163
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1993, 1:16 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. McCURRY: Good afternoon, everybody, and I thank you for
letting us present Chairman Hamilton's views for you and allowing
us to delay the briefing today.
I don't have any opening statements, so I will go straight to any
questions you might have.
QCan you address the issue of any further American reactions to the
Russian elections, whether or not the Administration is perfectly
happy with the trend line that you see developing, whether there is
any message you would like to send back the other direction about
what is transpiring?
MR. McCURRY: I don't have a lot new to add to what we covered
yesterday. I don't think our assessment has been completed yet,
because we are still awaiting, as I told you yesterday, awaiting
results from elections that just haven't been measured or assessed
yet.
I will tell you that Secretary Christopher had a very good
conversation this morning with Vice President Gore, who, as you
know, is in Moscow now, and he also talked separately with
Ambassador Talbott to get a report from both the Vice President and
the Ambassador on their assessments, some of their conversations in
Moscow.
I think a lot of what I told you yesterday still stands. All the
information we have indicates that the election proceeded in a
normal fashion with no major irregularities, but again the
situation is very much the same. The results that we are looking
at and that many of you are making judgments on, are based on the
kinds of trends we are seeing in the elections for about half of
the lower house of the new parliament, this would be the lower
house, the Duma.
We have very fragmentary information about the member-specific
elections that fill the remaining half of the Duma. Some of you, I
think, may have what you believe are exit poll data that will
suggest certain trends on that. We have not assessed a trend on
that. For example, we don't know the party affiliations, or the
political preferences, that many of the people elected in that half.
Mr. Zhirinovskiy's party, for example, fielded -- of those 225
seats -- roughly 70 candidates, as near as we can determine, in
that group of member-specific constituencies that we are still
awaiting results from.
So I think at this point we are still in a position where we
will assess the election results, will measure the sentiments
that exist within this new body.
I will say it's clear that there was a significant protest vote
that is reflected in the strong showing by Zhirinovskiy's
party, and by the Communists, too, for that matter, the former
Communists. But reform candidates have also made a strong
showing.
Beyond that, I would say that we are clearly committed to
maintaining the process of political and economic reform in
Russia. We would acknowledge that that is going to be
sometimes a difficult road and will likely be a long road.
From the beginning we have suggested that our long-term
interests in Russia are associated with nurturing the process
of political and economic reform, and we will stay that course.
QYou often in the past months used the phrase, "we support
President Yeltsin in reforms," so I couldn't help but notice
that that was missing. Is that --
MR. McCURRY: Oh, no, our policy fairly clearly has been very
supportive of President Yeltsin, his efforts at reform. But we
have made it very clear that our interests are in the process
of reform and nurturing that reform, and that doesn't depend
necessarily on one individual. It is a political process that
we believe, among many things, is now made permanent by the
fact that they have had a free, democratic election. And we
will continue to press for exactly that type of progress.
QWould you agree with Chairman Hamilton's assessment this
morning that a lot now will depend on what he called
coalition-building, other people call it horse-trading, within
the newly formed democratic system?
MR. McCURRY: I think a lot will depend on how the new
parliament, as they constitute the Duma, the lower body, as
they constitute the Federation Council, the upper house --
about which, by the way, we know absolutely nothing at this
point as far as election results -- as we assess what types of
factions develop within those two bodies, we'll know a lot more
about how the executive branch and the legislative branch will
coexist. But at this point, it is just impossible to say what
impact that is going to have on policy that will be directed by
the executive branch and then submitted to the legislative
branch.
Q Doesn't the strong showing of the Communists and the
other anti-reform factions cause the U.S. Government a certain
pause, cause the U.S. Government to stop in its tracks and to
wonder in what direction Russia is heading?
MR. McCURRY: I would say to the contrary. I would say at a
moment in which you can see the wide range of forces that exist
within Russian political life, the need to remain steadfast in
our support of economic reform and political reform is even
more imperative.
Q At least can you say that the prospect that Mr.
Zhirinovskiy has come off with most of the proportional
representation vote and appears to represent a rather
significant force, knowing what he believes and what he has
said, that the rise of Mr. Zhirinovskiy alarms the United
States?
MR. McCURRY: Well, I'd say, you know, we don't know at this
point how Zhirinovskiy's party will perform in the parliament
or what positions it will take on issues that are in the
national interests of the United States.
I will say that many of Mr. Zhirinovskiy's past statements
embody views that are obviously completely anathema to
principles of democracy, to our own views on issues like human
rights, the democratic process, economic reform, and relations
among sovereign states.
Q Let me try this in a different way. The Baltic
countries are so alarmed that they are holding a summit to
discuss the implications on troop withdrawal, and so forth. Do
you feel that their fears are exaggerated?
MR. McCURRY: Well, I don't want to characterize their views.
My understanding is that they will hold a summit. They are
assessing these election results just as we are assessing them,
and we are attempting to understand better what the shape of
the political landscape in Russia will be, and I assume that
they are doing likewise.
Ralph.
Q Can the United States go ahead with its aid program?
Can the Congress go ahead with voting billions of dollars of
aid to Russia, when uncertainties such as the kind of role that
Mr. Zhirinovskiy's party will have in the upcoming parliament
are hovering over the Russian Government?
MR. McCURRY: Well, I think, as you heard the President say
yesterday, the strength that has been shown by Zhirinovskiy's
party in this election may well be attributed in part to the
fact that the Russian people are waiting to see
the results of economic reform. We have made clear from the
very outset that the thrust of our assistance to Russia is
aimed at getting those tangible benefits to the people of
Russia, so that they see that the investment in democracy and
political liberalization make sense and does yield results.
So I think it is ever more important that we do our part, as
Congress has been willing to do, and as the President has
pledged to do, to get the type of assistance to Russia that
makes possible their complete transformation to democracy and
to market capitalism.
Q Can I follow up on that? Can you tell us whether
Ambassador Talbott or any other senior U.S. official has ever
met with Mr. Zhirinovskiy and to what extent have there been
consultations with his faction, shall we say, opposition
faction?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know the answer to that. I doubt very
much whether they have met with Mr. Zhirinovskiy, but I can
check further. I think, as is our practice in embassies around
the world, we, through our embassies, maintain a broad range of
contacts within the political life of a host nation. But I
don't know whether that has extended to elements of
Zhirinovskiy's party. I will see if I can find out anything
further on that.
I do believe -- I don't have details on it -- I do believe that
Vice President Gore plans to meet with some people during his
trip later on today. I don't have -- it is really best to go
to the Vice President's traveling party for information on his
schedule -- but I think he does plan to have some contacts
beyond those senior officials within the Russian Government
that he will meet.
Q Do you mean he is going to be meeting with opposition
figures?
Q Is he going to be meeting with Zhirinovskiy?
MR. McCURRY: I'm not aware of any plans, no.
Q When you say "meeting with some people", do you mean
meeting with opposition figures?
MR. McCURRY: I don't have his full list of people he will meet
with. I think he does plan to reach out.
Saul.
Q Any further word on Kosyrev, whether he survived?
MR. McCURRY: Kosyrev did win his seat in the Murmansk region,
is our understanding.
Q Just one more comment on Mr. Zhirinovskiy's success so
far. Clearly he's not in charge over there, but he does
represent, as I understand his past statements, a fairly
imperial, racist and fascist point of view.
Does the U.S. Government not find that trend alarming and
troublesome?
MR. McCURRY: Well, we have said those views, expressed in the
past by Zhirinovskiy, are completely anathema to us, as I said
earlier, so of course they are of concern, and we would not
expect or want to see those views take hold in the new
parliament. But at this point, it is completely unclear
whether there will be a foundation for those types of views
within the newly elected parliament.
That is exactly the type of thing we will be watching very
carefully, and attempting to assess. But there is no
indication that we have at this point that there is a basis
within this parliament to suggest that type of direction in the
policy formulations of the new parliament.
Q Based on what you know now, is there concern that
there will be added pressure on Yeltsin and Kosyrev to veer
away from a pro-Western foreign policy?
MR. McCURRY: Well, we haven't seen anything to suggest that
would be true. We will certainly watch. I mean, the clearest
answer is we have no idea -- no way of knowing at this point.
Q Did (inaudible) to Kosyrev today or last night?
MR. McCURRY: I don't believe he has. I think that the Foreign
Minister had just obviously completed a successful, apparently
successful, campaign, but I don't believe they have had an
opportunity to talk yet.
Q Do you have any further views on whether Yeltsin
should now stand for election, or simply stand by the
constitution which permits him to wait out his term?
MR. McCURRY: No, no change in what I indicated yesterday. We
haven't heard anything new from him on that subject other than
the statement that he did issue yesterday, and our views on
that subject are the same as we have expressed before.
Q Well, but those can change from time to time. I mean,
the Secretary expressed support for Mr. Yeltsin's announcement
that he would stand for election in the spring, and when it
became gradually clear that Mr. Yeltsin had no intention of
standing for election in the spring --
MR. McCURRY: Well, to correct you, Ralph, and not to
interrupt, I'm sorry, but that's not our understanding. Our
understanding is that he has expressed a personal preference
with the passage of this constitution, the promulgation of this
constitution, to serve out his term through 1996, but I don't
know that he has indicated definitely one way or another what
his election plans are. Not that I'm aware of, in any event.
Q So when you make reference to the U.S. views, what are
the U.S. views at this point? Just support Yeltsin? Whatever
his decision is about elections, the U.S. favors them if he
decides to --
MR. McCURRY: Well, there is a process by which now the Russian
people have elected -- I think we have indicated in the past
that we would take this one step at a time -- and they have
just concluded a successful election for the parliament. That
parliament will now constitute itself under the new
constitution. Under the new constitution, the term of the
President goes through 1996, and there are procedures within
that constitution for calling new elections. But I don't think
at this point, you know, it is our place to, prior to even the
calling of this new parliament, it's not our place to suggest
to them when and how and if they should hold another election.
Q Do the election results occasion any reassessment of
U.S. policy -- U.S. proposal toward partnership for peace at
the NATO summit?
MR. McCURRY: No. I think it's likely -- I think it's our view
likely to make the Partnership for Peace proposal even more
attractive in some instances, and I think that it continues to
serve as a very good foundation for the upcoming summit of NATO
leaders early next year.
Q Aren't you hearing the opposite from the Eastern
European governments?
MR. McCURRY: I think that there will be strong interest in
entering into these types of partnership arrangements that will
bridge the gap between the East and West. We have already
heard that from a number of Central and East European
countries, and I suspect, if anything, their interest in that
concept will be even stronger.
Q To follow up on that, though, wouldn't the results of
this election perhaps cause you, and certainly I would expect
it would cause countries like Poland, to perhaps want to speed
up their admission to NATO?
MR. McCURRY: Well, I don't think that we have ever set forth
exactly what the timing or how the timing or sequence would
work under Partnership for Peace, because that's frankly one of
the things that will be addressed most likely at the summit.
But how quickly any of the Central European states,
the Visogrod states or others might wish to informally enter
into partnership is, you know, something that certainly is
available to them, and certainly think there is interest in
moving ahead with that concept, once it's adopted by the NATO
leaders in January.
Q Well, let me ask the question another way, then.
Given what you know about the elections in Russia, does it make
the United States feel that a more expeditious inclusion of
other former Communist states in NATO -- does it make it more
desirable?
MR. McCURRY: I don't think we have assessed that question
yet. I think we are still preparing, as we had been before, to
present this idea formally to the NATO leaders in January, so
it can be formally adopted, and we do anticipate that there
will be further discussions on questions of timing and
criterion, and how you formally establish a partnership. Some
of that work remains to be done. I just can't answer for you
at this point whether we will make it -- whether it becomes
more urgent as a result of this election.
Q Are you suggesting that we will, in January, propose a
specific time?
MR. McCURRY: My understanding is that there would be, in and
around the preparation for the summit, discussions on that
point. Clearly, there were discussions recently at the
Ministerial meetings of both the Foreign Ministers and Defense
Ministers in Brussels. There would likely be continuing
discussions, moving right up into the summit itself.
Q You better be careful. I think what you're talking
about is timing for membership in the Partnership for Peace.
MR. McCURRY: Oh, yes.
QSome of us are asking questions about membership in NATO.
MR. McCURRY: Oh, all right. I'm referring only to the
sequence of timing for Partnership for Peace.
QYou're not suggesting any timetable for membership in NATO?
MR. McCURRY: No, I'm sorry. I wasn't hearing the question
carefully.
QI think Carol's question was, in light of the reaction the
Balts have already indicated, and you know the Polish Foreign
Minister's views -- he's made them quite public already, and
he's about to tell them to the Secretary in a little while --
you seem to think it's going to make these countries even more
eager to join the Partnership for Peace.
Some of us, I think, think it's going to make them even more
eager to go beyond partnership to full membership.
MR. McCURRY: If that's true, I think what's being set forth,
in the context of the summit, is the partnership proposal. I'm
not aware of any other proposal that will be pending before the
summit leaders in January than the U.S.-sponsored initiative
calling for Partnership for Peace. I think that's the avenue
that now is available to any nation that has those types of
concerns.
QThen it's accurate for us to say that despite what many think
are the ominous results in Russia, the United States has no
intention of supporting an expedited membership in NATO for
Eastern Europe?
MR. McCURRY: For the simple reason -- listen to the premise of
the question. We haven't come to the judgment that those are
ominous results. Now, if some of you have, that's your
prerogative, but we are still waiting to assess what those
results are and what they might likely mean as we look ahead.
We don't have in the type of indications that would suggest
that you should fundamentally alter some of the policy paths
you're on, whether it comes to assistance for Russia or whether
it comes to the question of how do you reconfigure, re-energize
NATO itself. We're still looking at election results that are
coming in.
It's the classic case of we've got precincts that haven't
reported yet, which is literally true when it comes to some of
the large urban centers -- St. Petersburg and Moscow, in
particular.
QMike, what measure of protection is the United States prepared
to give to the Baltics, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary?
MR. McCURRY: We've had conversations about security issues
with each of those countries. I wouldn't want to get into the
detail of those conversations, but there's been a broad
discussion of the types of guarantees that are available within
the discussion of the Partnership for Peace proposal itself;
most recently at the NACC meetings in Brussels.
QMike, has the United States Government taken any steps
following the early results in these elections to stop or
perhaps reverse actions the U.S. was taking on military
dismantlement, deployment of troops in Europe, or any other
actions of that nature? Has anything been done to put a hold
on any of those moves?
MR. McCURRY: You mean on SSD agreements -- dismantlement
agreements?
QYes. Anything been stopped? Everything is proceeding? So
weapons that were in the process of being dismantled continue
to be dismantled? Nothing about the results of these elections
has affected --
MR. McCURRY: We've seen nothing about the results of these
elections that I am aware of at this point that suggests any
change in the commitments made by those countries with whom
we've entered into SSD agreements or who are carrying out
dismantlement programs independently.
QDoes that cover as well commitments that we've made for
military cooperation, joint exercises, and the like, with the
Russian military? Everything is full-speed ahead?
MR. McCURRY: I can't answer that question. Those are
partnership arrangements that were made by the Secretary of
Defense, I think, when he met with the Russian Defense
Minister. I'd really want to check with the Pentagon before I
got into that. I'm not aware of any change in the status of
that, but I think they were handling that "mil-to-mil" contact.
QWe'll do that, too, but would you take the question just in
case there is something to be said on this front about
cooperative ventures with the Russians and whether they're
proceeding?
MR. McCURRY: If I took the question, Ralph, I think it would
just come back and refer it to the Pentagon. If there's
anything more than that that we can get for you, we'll post it.
QHas the United States felt it necessary to reassure the
Ukraine that their safety has not been imperiled any further as
a result of this election and they should go ahead with their
early agreement to do what they pledged to do on the Lisbon
accord?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know that we've have a diplomatic contact
since the election of that nature with Ukraine. But I think it
has been abundantly clear to Ukraine, and we had made it clear
to them, that it is in their security interests, their economic
interests, and their strategic interests to immediately proceed
with ratification of the NPT, START I, without reservations,
and to adhere to the commitments they've made pursuant to the
Lisbon Protocols. That is fundamentally in their security
interests.
I think that if this election perhaps causes them to reflect on
that, you would have to check with the Government of Ukraine to
see whether they have any new assessment.
QThe reason I'm asking is, after the last crisis -- the one in
the spring and the one in the fall in Russia -- the United
States went, as somebody suggested, full-speed ahead and put on
sort of an all-out, worldwide effort -- diplomatic effort -- to
display its support for reform and for the Yeltsin Government.
One of the things it did was to suggest to other nations that
they stick by agreements, that they continue to support what's
going on and that what's going on is good.
Is there a similar effort being contemplated by the United
States for something like -- now?
MR. McCURRY: What's the question?
QThat is, a diplomatic effort like the last one in September to
reassert support for reform and the Yeltsin Government in
Russia?
MR. McCURRY: I think the statements by the President --
certainly, by the Vice President -- and the statements that
we've made here at the Department make very clear our support
for political reform and for reformers. We will continue, as
we have, to be in alliance with those who are nurturing and
proceeding with reform in Russia.
As a result of assessing these election results over the next
several days, or however long it takes to get a definitive read
on what the results are, if we suggest that we need to take
additional steps to project that message, certainly, we will
consider that. But I think that's contingent on finding, on
our understanding, of what we think will likely emerge as the
Russian political debate continues next year.
QMike, one more question on the Vice President's visit in
Moscow. Strobe Talbott is with him. Does he have his own
agenda now? Is he going to be talking to any people that the
Vice President is not going to be seeing?
MR. McCURRY: I can't answer that. I don't know. He often
does. I know when he travels with the Secretary of State, he
often has a good number of meetings separately from the
Secretary's schedule, as do many of us who travel as part of
the delegation.
I suspect Strobe is going to do that on this trip. I just
don't know whether he is, in fact, going to do that.
QAre you expecting him to give you the sort of definitive
assessment when he comes back?
MR. McCURRY: I think he will be in a good position to give a
definitive assessment. And thinking ahead, I've already
thought about making that available as early as Monday here.
That's what we're working on.
QHe will be back Monday?
MR. McCURRY: I think he gets back over the weekend.
Mark.
QGiven the uncertainty about Russia's future foreign policy and
how it will use its Security Council veto, is there an added
impetus in the Administration now to resolving the North Korean
nuclear problem?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know that there's anything about the
election results in Russia that has made that question more
urgent.
QOne more on the diplomatic contacts. Can you tell us what
contacts the Secretary has had with allies in NATO, or perhaps
other friends, to obtain their assessment of the Russian
elections?
MR. McCURRY: Ralph, I'm only aware of one contact that he's
had. There may be others, and I can check with him. I'm only
aware of one.
He had an important call with Foreign Secretary Hurd yesterday
afternoon. The subject, I would make clear, was GATT. He
actually reached the Foreign Secretary in the middle of an EU
Foreign Ministers meeting, and I think he conveyed to the
Foreign Secretary the importance the United States attaches, in
the final hours of the Uruguay Round, to concluding the
agreement by the date certain tomorrow.
I think they also talked about the Middle East. I think they
may have also talked about the election in Russia, but I don't
know what other subjects they discussed.
QDoes the U.S. think it would -- in light of the returns from
the election, which you say are not assessable yet, does the
U.S. think it would be a good idea or would it be necessary to
have another kind of meeting prior to the NATO summit for the
NATO allies to come to a definitive assessment, perhaps, by the
time of the summit, before the summiteers get there and are
confronted with it?
MR. McCURRY: I haven't heard of any -- I haven't seen any
suggestion that that kind of session would be held. But I
think this is a subject of enough importance to all the members
of NATO. I think you may have seen the Secretary General's
comments yesterday. I'm certain there will be a discussion in
the lead up to the summit. I'm not aware of any plans to
gather a Ministerial-level group together; but I know that it
will be on the agenda of those countries as they prepare for
the NATO summit in January.
Jim.
Q Have you seen the story in the New York Times
today about the new set of documents released which suggests
that then-Administration officials had been involved in
training right-wing "death squad" supporters or members as
recently as three years ago?
MR. McCURRY: I saw the Times story today. We should
make clear that they are writing on a number of documents that
were declassified by this Administration pursuant to the Truth
Commission that was established by the Secretary. But the
article is pretty clear in indicating that the Ambassador
himself was concerned about possible wrongdoing on the part of
members of the group mentioned in the article and that
Ambassador Walker felt that he should put an end to activity
that he felt improper.
Beyond that -- you all know that we have looked at
this question from the perspective of the State Department and
issues that arise in the State Department and told you some
things about the findings of the Vessey Commission.
The matters referred to today involve another
Department, and I think that Department -- the Pentagon plans
to address -- my understanding is they plan to address that
today, so I'd refer you to them.
Q As you say, Ambassador Walker did try to put a
stop to it. But some of the people reading the documents come
to the conclusion that -- one of the lessons is that there
were, in fact, an Ambassador and a "shadow" Ambassador. There
were two different policies being promulgated, one of which
apparently was unknown to the real Ambassador.
MR. McCURRY: Again, I would say what we've said often
here. Our purpose in declassifying those documents is to let
the American people and let the press and let historians take a
look at that record and judge the facts.
It's not our purpose to reopen policy debates that
date back to the 1980s, or perhaps now we would say the 1990s
as well. Our purpose was in allowing people to make the right
type of historical judgments based on the most complete basis
of information that could be made available.
I think the Secretary clearly felt, as a result of
this whole episode, that it was important to think about any
implications that arise for the current conduct of foreign
policy, and we've addressed that. He, as you know, had a
high-level group that examined exactly that question. Their
reports have already been made public and made available to you.
Q Michael, could I have a follow-up on that?
There's a rumor around the building here that maybe because of
the budget, you're going to be cutting back on FOIA, on the
Freedom of Information Act releases. Can you confirm that the
Department of State, which doesn't have a sterling reputation
for rapidity with which it declassifies under FOIA, is not
going to have less of a good record on that than the previous
Administration?
MR. McCURRY: I can gladly confirm that to you as one
of the co-chairs of the Appeals Panel on FOIA cases. I can
tell you personally that we are taking steps to -- we're
actually taking some interesting steps in light of resource
cutbacks to get people to help us process cases faster.
One of the things we're doing is, there are some
senior career Ambassadors who are awaiting assignment or
haven't necessarily taken up new posts who are available, we're
actually bringing groups of them in to expedite cases and to
review them and turn them around faster. That's something that
I personally attach a priority to, and because it's something
that the Secretary of State attaches a high priority to.
Q Do you have any reaction to the disappearance of
Mansur Kikhya, who is a prominent Libyan opposition figure in
Cairo, given the fact that Colonel Qadhafi has been threatening
the opposition figures in exile?
MR. McCURRY: I know we are trying to find out more
about it because we've seen the reports. I think that we've
been in touch with the Government of Egypt to see if they can
help us find out what has happened. He is obviously a very
well-known dissident and the Libyans have employed such tactics
in the past but we just don't have any information on what has
occurred in this particular case. That's why we've contacted
the Government of Egypt to ask their assistance.
Q Anything on what Qadhafi said recently in his
speech?
MR. McCURRY: I'm not sure whether it was in that
speech or associated with that speech -- he's indicated that he
is inviting a group of well-known terrorists to Tripoli, and
obviously an invitation to terrorists belies Qadhafi's repeated
assertions that he has renounced terrorism, and it should be
noted and judged as such.
Q Could we go back to Europe for a minute? Do you
have anything on the "terrorists" trial in Moldova? The
verdict last week sentenced one person to death. It was an
illegal court.
MR. McCURRY: I don't have anything on that. I can
check and see if we can get something on that. I'm not certain
that we can, but, if we can, we will try to get something and
post it.
Q Yesterday, the Japanese Prime Minister made an
announcement on the rice issue. Do you have any comment on
that?
MR. McCURRY: I would say that the United States is
pleased that Japan has decided to start to open its rice market
to foreign imports through the Uruguay Round negotiations.
Japan's initiative will help ensure the Round's successful
completion and to expand world trade and to integrate into the
global economy.
We applaud Prime Minister Hosokawa's decision on what
was clearly a very difficult issue.
Q On North Korea, any new meetings, any new
developments at all on that?
MR. McCURRY: No. Nothing new on North Korea.
Q Is Under Secretary Davis out of the country?
MR. McCURRY: Is she out of the country? I don't
believe so. I saw her Monday. I don't think she's out of the
country, but I can double-check and see if she is.
Q Since in the recent few days expressing very hard
a number of European countries for the FYRM, Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, to get diplomatic recognition by the end
of this year on a bilateral level. Could you please once again
clarify the U.S. position vis-a-vis to this issue?
MR. McCURRY: I'm not aware of any change in our views
on the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, since last
stated, I believe, by my colleague, Ms. Shelly, when she
announced the opening of the liaison office in Skopje, which
was sometime during our trip, maybe within the last two weeks.
And I think she addressed the question at that time. I'm not
aware of any change in our views.
Q Since the Skopjean Foreign Minister was in town
yesterday, I'm wondering if he met any high-level U.S.
Department officials in this building?
MR. McCURRY: I can check and see whether the
representative of the FYRM met with anyone.
Q And one more question: It was reported in Europe
today that somehow Mr. Christopher is mediating between Greece
and Skopje to reach an agreement. Do you have anything on that?
MR. McCURRY: He's an enormously active Secretary of
State, but I don't believe his activity has extended to that
issue in recent days.
Q Mike, do you have any clarification of remarks by
U.S. officials in Vietnam that U.S. companies are now going to
be able to "bid" on contracts in Vietnam?
MR. McCURRY: I don't. I think Winston Lord --
Ambassador Lord, as you know, our Assistant Secretary for East
Asian and Pacific Affairs, has been in Hanoi today and held a
news conference in which he discussed some of the progress that
they're making on accounting for POW/MIA issues. The sole
purpose of his trip there was to look into the efforts that are
underway.
I think his schedule tomorrow, for example, includes a
trip out to the Vietnamese-Laos border to look at some of the
joint efforts by the Vietnamese and Laotians and also the U.S.
efforts to identify additional remains. Where we are on the
other questions bilaterally involving Vietnam is pretty much
where we've been; that any further steps in the U.S.-Vietnam
relations will depend strictly on further tangible progress in
POW/MIA accounting, and the issue of whether the Vietnamese
will have made sufficient progress in that area is something
that will be under review upon Ambassador Lord's return.
I know the Secretary certainly will be anxious to hear
his complete report. I am not aware of any changes suggested
such as those that you suggest that have been made in our
policy.
Now, there is one possible explanation of what they're
referring to, and that involves the step we took earlier this
year, lifting some of the restrictions on international
financial institution lending, which opens up a way in which
there might be a way for some U.S. companies to bid on projects
that are financed by multilateral lending institutions.
So that may be what they're referring to. I've seen
some of the reports that you're referring to, and I just want
to make it clear that's not connected to any initiative that
Ambassador Lord had under way today.
Q Can you give us your assessment of the situation
in Sarajevo and whether we're getting ready to go ahead with
the increased aid program announced in Rome, and how can we go
about it if the airport remains closed?
MR. McCURRY: The airport was closed, I think, because
of shelling in and around the residential area to the northwest
of the airport this morning. But it has been open on and off,
depending on the weather and depending on what the fighting
conditions have been around the airport.
I think as we've made clear, in addition to the
flights, which are very important, we've indicated, as we did
in Rome, that the convoy traffic is also critical in getting
necessary relief through. We've been following the convoy
relief situation very carefully in contact with UNHCR. They've
had mixed reports. It's fair to say there have been convoys
into Sarajevo within the last several days, into Tuzla within
the last several days, but there have been some convoys held up
proceeding to Gorazde, one of the other safe areas.
So I think it's best -- right now is a mixed bag, and
again the reason seems to be the same. In some cases they're
being hassled administratively by local commanders. In other
cases there's fighting going on between the three parties and
combinations of the three parties that interferes with some of
the convoy routing. But obviously the U.N.-sponsored effort
there with the additional assistance provided by the United
States is making a very real difference. It must continue,
because they clearly are going through a difficult winter, and
the winter will continue.
Q And the on-again/off-again status of Sarajevo's
airport and the on-again/off-again status of the convoys do not
constitute, I take it, strangulation in the views of the United
States.
MR. McCURRY: I don't have any change in the
characterization of that activity from what I've reported to
you in the past.
Q So there is no imminent implementation of the
NATO threat of last August?
MR. McCURRY: I'm not aware of any effort being made
to activate that August 2 or August 9 Communique.
Q Another subject?
MR. McCURRY: You want another one on that?
Q Yes. Are you satisfied with the kind of deal
made between the U.N. and the Serbs, by which the Serbs are
escorting the U.N. convoy and the U.N. is giving gasoline and
fuel to the Serbs?
MR. McCURRY: We have known for some time and heard
from the United Nations that that is virtually the only way
that they can get assistance through. They clearly have to
make arrangements both locally and then with border officials
to in a sense give a cut to the Serbians; and, frankly, it's
quite clear that aid would not continue at all were it not for
those types of arrangements.
So they certainly are not satisfactory arrangements,
but they're absolutely necessary in assuring that humanitarian
relief can proceed to its destination.
Q American Administration said a few times that it
will follow European Community countries considering
recognition of Republic of Macedonia. Does it mean that it
will happen if European countries establish full diplomatic
ties with Macedonia?
MR. McCURRY: We had been in contact with our European
friends and allies on that issue. We make our own independent
judgments on that question, as I indicated in response to the
question earlier, and we certainly are aware of some of the
discussions that have been held within the European Union, but
the United States will make its own independent judgment on
that question.
Q Another subject? Mike, the ACLU and a group
called Human Rights Watch are reporting today that they believe
the United States is in violation of the international covenant
on civil and political rights. Are you familiar with their
charges, or shall I spell out a few and ask you for a reaction?
MR. McCURRY: I'm not sure. Is it in reference by any
chance to Haiti?
Q It has to do with Haiti, it has to do with race
relations, it has to do with sexual relations, religious
freedom. There's a whole list of areas covered by this
international covenant, but the repatriation of Haitian
refugees is one of the subjects among them.
Is the U.S. preparing any kind of response to this
report or --
MR. McCURRY: I was aware -- I've seen some of the
comments carried on the wire services that have been critical.
I know in the case of Haitian repatriation, we feel very
strongly that we are, one, acting consistent with our policy in
repatriating to Haiti those who are trying to enter the United
States using the assistance of criminal profiteers; two, we
have set up in-processing centers within the country for the
exact reason that those who do have rights that need to be
protected should have a process under law by which they can
apply for asylum here in the United States. Those processing
centers are open. They have been quite active. In fact, I've
been told that there has been an increase in activity there, so
there are legal procedures available to those, both who are
repatriated and those who are seeking to immigrate to the
United States.
So on that issue we feel strongly. I'm not suggesting
that we've studied in any detail the report you're referring
to, but I know on that one issue we do have that response.
On the other aspects of the report and other things
covered, we certainly will look at the report and see if
there's anything that merits a response.
Q Can I ask a follow-up?
MR. McCURRY: You want to follow up on that.
Q The United States, as you know, annually
publishes its own human rights report which accuses a lot of
other countries of doing various and sundry things the U.S.
doesn't think are a good idea, and the U.S. requests and in
some cases demands that those countries take actions in
response, set up commissions to review these things, and so on.
Does the U.S. intend to look at this report with an
eye toward evaluating itself and offering some kind of response
to others who might read it and say, "Yeah, you've got the same
thing going on in the U.S., and you're pointing the finger at
us."
MR. McCURRY: That's not a construction that makes a
lot of sense. I don't think any rational individual would
compare the human rights record of the United States to many of
the countries that we criticize in our annual report. By the
same token, we have always urged in our relations with other
countries transparency when it comes to the issue of human
rights, and we welcome those who want to raise this issue.
We certainly will consider criticisms that are raised,
not necessarily indicating that we agree with the assessment,
but open and active discussions of issues of human rights,
whether it involves the United States or any country in the
world, can only be to the benefit of holding the world
community to the high standard of universal human rights that
has been adopted by the United Nations. That's not indicating
any specific response to any specific criticism raised in this
report, but a discussion of those issues can never be
detrimental to the interests of human rights.
Q Do you have any reaction or have you already
given it to the French effort to tighten sanctions against
Haiti?
MR. McCURRY: I'm not sure that we've given it or
not. I think our reaction is that the sanctions in place on
Haiti, probably the most robust international sanctions program
ever in the Western Hemisphere, have been effective; have been
having the desired effect of restricting trade. As we can tell
now from some of the curtailment of oil -- petroleum shipments
within Haiti are beginning to have an effect. They're
beginning to bite.
Q So no further tightening. Is that the American
position?
MR. McCURRY: I'm not aware of any efforts to tighten
sanctions. I think what they're trying to do is ensure that
those sanctions that are in place are working. As I suggested,
there is some evidence that they are having the effect that we
would desire.
Q Well, wait a second. Is France trying to ensure
that the existing sanctions are effective, or is that the
American effort?
MR. McCURRY: Look, I don't think that they have
addressed that today. We're still awaiting the copy of the
Four Friends Group. As you know, it includes the United
States, Canada, Venezuela and France. They met today in Paris
and issued a communique of which we, just prior to the
briefing, were attempting to get a copy of. I don't think that
that communique addressed anything about furthering sanctions.
We will try to find out more.
Q Have they proposed it? Because that was the
French intent?
MR. McCURRY: I just don't know whether they raised it
or not.
Q What's the status of Malval's effort to get a
conference going?
MR. McCURRY: We've strongly supported it. He, I
think, briefed the representatives of the Four Friends Group on
it yesterday, and I think he is planning to go back to Haiti to
see if they can convene that conference. He may be on the way
back now. I'm just not sure. But the United States has
strongly supported the Prime Minister's untiring efforts to
convene that conference and to create a consensus within Haiti
for national reconciliation.
Q One more question on the East. Could you take a
question on Romania? The Foreign Minister is coming to town.
It will be the first visit -- official visit --
MR. McCURRY: That's on Thursday.
Q Right -- since 1989. Is this a sign of warming
relations between the U.S. and Romania or recognition that
their reform program is now on track? Or what does it mean?
MR. McCURRY: I'll certainly see if I can put some
things together. I'm not sure we will do that for tomorrow.
We might just do that in the context of his visit, which I
believe is on Thursday, if I'm not mistaken.
Q Thank you.
MR. McCURRY: You're welcome.
(The briefing concluded at 2:02 p.m.)
(###)