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
Wednesday, December 15, 1993
BRIEFER: Michael McCurry
Subject Page
RUSSIA
Elections/Impact on Yeltin's Ability to Govern .. 1-11
-- Vice President's Statement/Meetings with
Political Leaders ......................... 1-3,5
-- US Contacts with Zhirinovsky/Rationale ...... 2-4
Current/Future US Aid ........................... 4-9
White House Background Briefing Today ........... 5
Upcoming Summit with US ......................... 7
UKRAINE
Status of START I/NPT ........................... 9-10
NATO
Partnership for Peace/Timetable ................. 10-11
POLAND
Foreign Minister's Meeting with Secretary ...... 11
-- Partnership for Peace ....................... 11
HAITI
Prime Minister's Meeting with Peter Tarnoff ..... 11-12,14-16
Asst. Secretary Shattuck's Concern re: Adequacy
of Refugee Processing Centers in Country ...... 12-13
Four Friends Meeting re: Sanctions Enforcement . 13
Prospects for Conference on Reconciliation ...... 14-16
VIETNAM
Asst Secretary Lord Concludes Visit ............. 16-17
SOMALIA
Departure of US Troops .......................... 17
Whereabouts of Aideed ........................... 17
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #165
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1993, 1:08 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. McCURRY: I have no opening statements. I'd be delighted to
take your questions. Good afternoon, everyone.
Q On behalf of the Department of State Correspondents
Association, could I just point out that the 12:30 briefing was
called today at 1:04, 34 minutes late.
MR. McCURRY: Why don't we say the Noon Briefing is now at 1:00.
Then I'm only four minutes late. We've been clocking in closer to
1:00 as a general principle. It just makes it easier if we just say
1:00.
Q It'll be 1:30 then.
MR. McCURRY: No, that's not true.
Q That's what you said when you changed it to 12:30.
Q It was moved to 12:30 because you were clocking in closer to
12:30. Now, you're clocking in closer to 1:00.
Q What's the read today on Russia?
MR. McCURRY: On Russia? I think most of you have seen some of
the comments that Vice President Gore had to say earlier today
following his meeting with President Yeltsin. I think he was very
encouraged by that meeting. He indicated that President Yeltsin had
expressed great confidence in his ability to stay the course. I
think beyond what the Vice President has said -- he's given a pretty
detailed readout of his meeting at this point -- I don't have a lot
to add to what the Vice President said.
Q What's the basis of the confidence? If the
ultra-nationalists and the communists are as strong in the
parliament, as it looks like it could be, this has to cause problems;
right?
MR. McCURRY: As we've said in the last couple of
days, the composition of the new parliament is still very much
in flux. We're learning more now about some of the other seats
that are being filled.
I think I told you in the last couple of days that we
have been -- a lot of you have declared Zhirinovskiy the
"president-elect" or the "shadow president," based on some of
the results that are coming in for half of the Duma seats --
half of the seats in the lower house of the parliament.
In the other half of the seats that were up and
contested in this election, it appears that a large majority of
people elected on that slate have called themselves
"independents," or didn't run with a party affiliation. That
means that there's going to be a lot of uncertainty about the
political texture of this Duma as it gathers to meet next year;
and presumably the political leadership -- those who represent
reform in Russia -- are going to do what they can do to build
coalitions and to try to establish factions that they can work
with within this new parliament.
That's something that clearly will unfold over the
next month and that we will certainly be watching carefully as
I assume you will as well.
Q On Zhirinovskiy, clearly, he's not going to be
president soon. But in his past ramblings, among other things
he said that he would take back Alaska. Do you have any
problem with that?
MR. McCURRY: I think the President has said something
about that. I think I said something about that a couple of
days ago. It's kind of a ludicrous proposition.
Q Are there any plans for Gore to meet with
Zhirinovskiy now, now that he's had a chance to meet with
Yeltsin?
MR. McCURRY: No. My understanding is that he is
reaching out and meeting with some opposition figures within
the political community while he's in Moscow. But he has made
it very clear that Mr. Zhirinovskiy is not among those that
will be on the guest list.
Q What are the kinds of people or the factions or
groups, or whatever, that the Administration is reaching out to
at this point?
MR. McCURRY: I think Vice President Gore is meeting
with people that represent a wide spectrum of political
viewpoints within the new political life of Russia. I don't
have a detailed list on who he has met with. I think as you
know, as we indicated last night, we have had contact, even
with Zhirinovskiy himself, even fairly recently through our
Embassy, because one of the things our Embassy feels strongly
about is the need to reach out and understand the full range of
views on the political spectrum within this emerging
democracy. So they will continue that type of work.
I think the Vice President, obviously, will have one
occasion in which he can touch base with some elements of the
opposition, but there's a full range. There are agrarians,
there are communists, there are various factions within the
pro-reform movement itself. I think certainly both the
Embassy, and then on the Vice President's trip, they'll reach
out and make sure that they understand the full range of views
that are going to be contesting in this new parliament.
Q Why not have Vice President Gore meet with
Zhirinovskiy as part of a group meeting of opposition leaders
rather than snubbing him?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know that I'd call it a "snub."
He just wasn't invited to this particular gathering. There
were others elected who weren't invited to this gathering. But
I think as the Vice President said today, and as I think the
Secretary told you yesterday, there are certain things about
the views, publicly stated in the past by Mr. Zhirinovskiy,
that are anathema to the values that we hold important. So I
think that would indicate that a meeting -- until there's some
better understanding of what his views are and what they will
be in this parliament -- a meeting like that would not be
warranted.
Q Mike, at what level were the meetings at the
Embassy with Zhirinovskiy? How often were they? Why would
they meet then and not now? Is it a practice to meet with
neo-Nazis such as this person? We had a considerable fallout
over meetings that were described in the same -- with Hamas
members in the Middle East.
MR. McCURRY: To make it real clear, I think during
the election period itself, various, presumably political
officers within the Embassy in Moscow, were doing everything
they could to understand the full range of debate within the
campaign itself and the viewpoints of those who were standing
as candidates.
My understanding is the meeting that was held by our
Embassy representatives with Zhirinovskiy was held in the
context of his placement on the ballot as a registered
candidate. They met with a wide variety of candidates on that
ballot so they would have a better understanding of the types
of people who were seeking office and the viewpoints they would
have.
Q Secretary Baker, on the MacNeil/Lehrer show last
night, said that -- he pretty well took the Administration line
on this -- but he did say that he felt that under the
circumstances it wouldn't be wise to cut the military budget
further. Do you have reaction to that?
MR. McCURRY: As you all know, the budget for the
Defense Department and our Department is under very active
review in the final stages of the annual budget process. I'm
not going to make any comment on budget matters at this point.
That's something the President is clearly addressing with
senior members of his Cabinet.
Q What's the status of U.S. aid to Russia, money
that has been voted so far? How much of it has been spent; how
much is still in the pipeline? And is any sort of review
underway as to whether or not to go ahead and spend any money
that might still be in the pipeline?
MR. McCURRY: From time to time I've checked in on how
much of that aid that has been approved by Congress has
actually been flowing. I know that most of the obligated
FY-1993 money had been spent and had been directed to various
sources. I'll see if I can get some more information on where
funding is.
I would say this, though, that we have maintained --
even prior to this election -- that the importance of taking
that money, approved and appropriated by Congress, and getting
it to its destination which, after all, is at the grass roots
level in Russia, is a very important part of our effort to
nurture and support political and economic reform in Russia,
because it's precisely designed to produce results that average
Russian citizens see as immediately as possible.
The sense that we were accelerating that type of aid
or trying to push money out in the pipeline so it would reach
the grass roots quickly had been a regular feature of our aid
program.
Now, some aid, as you know, that's coming through the
multilateral institutions, has flowed slower. Some of the
assistance is coming through the systemic transformation
facility, I think, is still being reviewed by the various
multilateral lending institutions. I don't have a complete
read on the status of that.
Q Just to follow up on that. Vice President Gore,
this morning, in his news conference in Moscow, took some
unnamed parties to task for being slow about getting aid to the
Russian people. Was he talking about the international lending
institutions, or individual countries?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know. I'm not sure what he said
in connection with that particular issue. I don't know who he
was directing those remarks to.
We have expressed concern directly to the Russians on
some occasion that we need to find help within the Russian
Government to establish some of the procedures necessary for
moving this money. I don't know to whom the Vice President was
referring.
I do want to let everyone know, I think later on in
the afternoon -- in fact, maybe shortly after this briefing --
they do plan to do some background briefing over at the White
House on Russia involving some senior Administration
officials. I want to make sure you know. It's probably going
to be, I think, close to the 2:00 hour, I am told.
Q Are you optimistic that Yeltsin is going to
somehow continue reforming at the pace and intensity that he
has been in the months ahead now that this election is over?
You see no change in the trend line there at all?
MR. McCURRY: I wouldn't want to add anything further
to what the Vice President has said following his meeting just
today with President Yeltsin. He said almost exactly that. He
said he was impressed by President Yeltsin's confidence and his
determination to move ahead on reform.
I think you'll see some of the reporting coming from
the Vice President's remarks in Moscow. He's had an
opportunity to speak directly with Yeltsin, so I wouldn't want
to go beyond that.
Q My question really is: It's nice that President
Yeltsin is expressing confidence that he can continue to go
ahead. Does that match, in any way, the reality that the U.S.
Government sees as it analyzes what has happened over there
since this election?
MR. McCURRY: I think it does in the sense that when
he has -- remember, a very important feature of this election
was the adoption of a new constitution that does allow the
President to formulate policy. It probably gives him a better
capacity for formulating policy than he had under the Soviet
era constitution that he has been operating under. We also,
clearly, have a legislative branch in which there will be many
forces contesting; but his ability to develop a program,
promulgate a program, form a government that then works that
program through a legislative branch is something that we
clearly are going to do more analysis on.
But I think our sense is that there's no reason to
think that they won't be able to propel reform forward.
Now, is the task going to be more complex for
President Yeltsin? Undoubtedly so. That's one of the unique
features of democracy -- that things get a lot tougher once you
begin to take into account a wide range of opinions expressed
by the people in exercising their right to vote.
Q Mike, can I come back to aid for just a second?
I think when you were asked about aid, you talked about the
feature of the U.S. program before the election being to get it
to the grass roots, and so on.
Bud was asking you whether there's been any review of
that now. I think what we want to know from you is whether the
election results have had any effect or will have any effect on
the Administration's obviously intended plan to push the aid
through and get it to the grass roots.
Are you pausing for a moment to review the scene,
check the scenery and see whether it's right to keep going
ahead with this aid? Or are you going to ahead, no questions
asked, the money is going?
MR. McCURRY: No, I would say that we are very much
committed to the path of reform and to continuing our strategic
alliance with reform and with reformers. That will continue
apace. The question of whether or not the results of the
election, as we assess them and understand them, will cause us
to think through how else that we might assist and promote
reform, I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility we might
look at that question. But I think your question is
immediately, are we taking a pause and saying, "Gee, is this
really a wise idea?" No, we are not. We are moving ahead and
supporting reform, continuing the policy, and staying the
course.
Q There is no sort of bottom-up review regarding
America's approach towards Russia as a result of this?
MR. McCURRY: We've certainly taken into account these
results, but as you've seen us over the last several days, we
are much more measured in our reaction than those of you in the
media who have already promoted Zhirinovskiy way beyond where
we think the current election results warrant his being placed.
Q Also, on the question of the summit, you're only
a few weeks away now from Mr. Clinton going to Moscow. Are any
plans for the summit being altered by the results of these
elections? I'm not talking about plans for a meeting with Mr.
Yeltsin. But is the President reconsidering, or is the
Administration reconsidering with whom Clinton should meet when
he goes there? Is he reconsidering any of the talking points,
for example, that we presume he'll make regarding nuclear
weapons in the other neighboring republics and so on?
MR. McCURRY: The President answered that question
directly yesterday and said, no, he was just at the point at
which he was beginning to focus on his approach to this trip,
in any event. I'm not aware of any plans to change the
fundamental features of his trip or of the summit itself.
There's already been a considerable amount of work
done on that summit. The Secretary and Foreign Minister
Kozyrev reviewed the agenda for the two leaders when they met
recently in Brussels. The Vice President was doing additional
preparatory work on this current trip, and I'm not aware of any
changes being made in the agenda for the summit itself.
I can't speak at the moment to the question: Are
there other things that will be included in the President's
schedule in light of the election results? I don't know the
answer to that, but we'll certainly watch and work with the
White House and find out more, as we know more about the
details of his schedule.
Q To go back to the aid question again. This is
the period of time when the budget is under review. Do you
anticipate that there will be a Russia aid package in the
upcoming budget? And if so, will it be greater or less than
the current fiscal year?
MR. McCURRY: My anticipation is there will be a
Russian aid package. Long before the results of this election,
it was clear to us that it was not going to be as large as the
initial package that was developed beginning with the Vancouver
summit. I think that's been known to the Russians for some
time. We made it clear at the time of the Vancouver summit
that much of this aid was going to front-loaded -- the first
year contributions wouldn't represent a pattern that would
develop over time.
I'm not aware of any changes in the size of the
package because of the election results. I think it had
already been settled in pretty much the type of request that
was going to be made.
Q Mike.
MR. McCURRY: Jim.
Q As you pointed out and the President pointed out,
much of what happened in the election was a protest vote. Has
it occurred -- or has this Administration considered the
possibility that it, the United States, by backing President
Yeltsin may have actually contributed to the protest by making
him sort of a symbol of outside interference?
MR. McCURRY: We will assess that question and see if
there's any legitimate reason to think that is so. I'd say
that we have been conscious in all of our contacts and dealings
with the Russians that a large part of what we do and say and
work with them does have reverberations domestically for them.
I know we were very conscious of that when the
Secretary visited Moscow in October. I think we understand
always that the types of bilateral relations we have with
countries do reverberate in their domestic political
environment. So we have taken some of that into account
already. Whether we will go back and look at that and say is
there something that we did that affected these results, I know
that question will be examined. I don't want to prejudge any
conclusions that we might make.
You see today a great deal of discussions of a similar
nature going on on behalf of people who are close political
advisers to President Yeltsin. They, themselves, are looking
at the question, is there something that we could have done
differently during this campaign. I can tell you from my
experience that's a very natural thing that happens after an
election.
Q Mike, you said earlier on the aid question, you
wouldn't want to rule out the possibility of reviewing aid in
the future? Why is that?
MR. McCURRY: I'm sorry. Say again.
Q You were asked whether there was a review going
on as far as aid to --
MR. McCURRY: No. I said there wasn't a review going
on now. I said as we analyze the results of the election, if
there's something that we see that we need to do, of course we
will look at that type of question.
Q Okay. Well, since you've sort of introduced the
hypothetical, what sorts of things would trigger a review of
aid to Russia? What would you be looking for?
MR. McCURRY: I mean, as I just said, we look at ways
to make effective our aid programs at all times. I don't think
there would be anything surprising about that.
Q The aid was channeled in large part to the grass
roots, and a big chunk of the grass roots ended up voting for
hardliners and ultranationalists. What does that say about the
efficacy of the aid program, and is that a cause for a shift in
direction?
MR. McCURRY: Our analysis is that at the grass roots
level, particularly outside the major population centers of St.
Petersburg and Moscow, they're not seeing the tangible rewards
for going down the path of reform and that there's a great deal
of frustration.
That has to do with things more than just the levels
of assistance coming from the West. It has to do with
indigenous economic conditions, obviously, as well; but I think
that's one among other things that we'll look at. Is there
some way that we can make more effective our support for reform
as we look at how we structure our assistance efforts? That's
the type of question, I think, that does suggest itself.
Q Still on Russia for just a second. Can you tell
us any more today about the Secretary's involvement in the
post-election assessment? Has he been in touch with Kozyrev
now? Has he been in touch, for example, with the Foreign
Ministers or other officials in surrounding former Soviet
Republics?
MR. McCURRY: He has had some contact with the
European allies, but I forgot to check and see exactly the
nature of the contacts. He does have a plan to meet with the
EU Ambassadors here next week on Tuesday, and I think that this
will be a subject that will be on their agenda for that
gathering.
He has not talked to Kozyrev, to my knowledge; and I
think most of his work on the question of the Russia elections
-- he's been in close contact with Vice President Gore's party,
talking to them and getting readouts on some of their meetings
that are going on with Russian officials that they are seeing.
Q And no contact with Kravchuk or Nazarbayev or any
of those people about what this means for the U.S. push to get
them to give up their nukes and so forth?
MR. McCURRY: Not at the Secretary's level. I think
that in each case Embassies have been in contact with their
points of contact in those governments, and they're assessing
that. We're clearly collecting reactions as they come in from
countries throughout the region.
Q What do you hear from Ukraine, for example,
following the elections?
MR. McCURRY: The same thing that you see publicly
stated by them in the news reports from Kiev.
Q Those media again. You mean they're just
overreacting to the elections?
MR. McCURRY: No. They're reporting the facts as they
think they know them and sometimes they analyze those facts and
sometimes the analysis is wrong. Reporting facts is -- you're
always straight when you're reporting facts.
Q As long as we report everything you say, we're
straight, right?
MR. McCURRY: Factually. As long as you carry it
verbatim, without analysis and commentary, I think you'll be
right on the money.
Q Would it be the advice of the State Department
that Ukraine should be encouraged by the results of the
election in Russia? That that should be a motivator to give up
their nuclear weapons?
MR. McCURRY: No. I think, as I said yesterday, if
they have concerns -- and they have obviously expressed
concerns -- that might make it all the more imperative for them
to follow through with the commitments they've made on the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, on START I, and on the Lisbon
Protocols.
Q Why?
MR. McCURRY: It's very strong. Because, among other
things, they know that there's a security guarantee that is
similar to those offered to other accessionaries to the NPT
that's available to them once they fully adhere to their
commitments.
Q Mike, is there any sort of review underway -- as
long as we're on the subject of reviews -- of the speed with
which the Partnership for Peace would go into effect for some
of the East European countries?
In other words, is there any thought being given to,
perhaps, speeding up the timetable to that as a result of the
Russian election results?
MR. McCURRY: Not occasioned by the election, but that
has been under review because it's an item that's under review
in preparation for the NATO Summit. That is one of the
questions that is certainly on the table for the summit in
January. How do you structure the Partnership? How do you
address questions like timing? What's necessary to demonstrate
the kind of qualifications that might lead eventually to NATO
membership?
These are all among the things that I think have been
set up for the leaders to discuss when they meet in January,
but that was true prior to this election.
Q Are you considering speeding up the timetable?
In other words, was there in your mind, say just for argument's
sake, a five-year timetable and now there's a three-year
timetable as a result?
MR. McCURRY: I'm not aware of any change in how we
view the question of timing. It was an issue that was to be
discussed by the NATO summit leaders, and clearly will be. I
guess your question is maybe will that conversation be informed
by the results of the election, and of course it will be.
Q Did the subject come up in the meeting yesterday
with the Polish Foreign Minister?
MR. McCURRY: Yes.
Q Did he change the Secretary's mind on --
MR. McCURRY: No. I think they had an exchange very
much along the lines of the comments they addressed to all of
you prior to the meeting, it's my understanding from the
Secretary.
Q Was he convinced it was Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde?
MR. McCURRY: I don't want to attempt to amplify or
clarify on the Foreign Minister's remarks.
Q But the Foreign Minister used the word "fear"
several times yesterday with the Secretary. Did the Secretary
feel he was able to allay the Polish Foreign Minister's fears?
MR. McCURRY: I think the Secretary feels confident
that he made it clear that the avenue available for addressing
that type of fear is the avenue laid out in the U.S.
initiative, Partnership for Peace. I mean, if anything, it's
another argument in favor of the type of approach that we have
developed and put before our NATO allies.
Q It's funny, because it seems as though no matter
what the election results would have been, those answers would
have been the same. If the Reformists had triumphed, then you
would have said this was another argument why the Partnership
-- it is like the all-purpose answer here. It's extraordinary.
Q Bingo! He's got it.
MR. McCURRY: That must indicate that it's divinely
clever. (Laughter)
Q Could we do Haiti?
MR. McCURRY: Yes. Let's move on.
Q President Aristide is asking Cedras to resign.
That's part one. Do you have a response to that?
MR. McCURRY: I don't have a response to that. I just
actually happened to see that on the wires prior, and I will
tell you that I suspect that we can have some more to say on
that perhaps later. Prime Minister Malval was here and met
with Under Secretary Tarnoff yesterday before returning to
Haiti.
My understanding is that he's now enroute to Haiti and
may be arriving in Haiti shortly.
Q Why was that not made public yesterday?
MR. McCURRY: I think it was developed very quickly.
He was here. I think you know, or at least we knew that he was
coming here to talk to President Aristide following the meeting
of the Four Friends in Paris; but I think it was a hastily
arranged meeting yesterday.
Q Why? What was the meeting for?
MR. McCURRY: To discuss the situation in Haiti.
Q Can you be more specific?
MR. McCURRY: No.
Q Do you remember talking about the U.S. policy on
Haitian refugees yesterday at about this time, and apparently
hours later Assistant Secretary Shattuck raised questions about
the wisdom of the policy.
MR. McCURRY: I don't think he did that. It's my
understanding -- I've talked to Assistant Secretary Shattuck at
some length today, and this is his understanding of what he
said and my understanding of what he said.
He expressed concern about the human rights situation
in Haiti. He, I think as you know, was there to deliver a
posthumous award to the family of Guy Mallary, and then also
had a number of briefings about the situation in Haiti. He is
clearly concerned that threats and intimidations do seem to be
on the rise, and those caused him some concern.
He then went and got a briefing -- or I think he
toured one of the in-country processing centers that we have in
Haiti to take a look at what capacity they have for handling
cases in which there might be a legitimate claim for refugee
status leading to an asylum request.
I think his concern is that the capacity of those
in-country processing centers might now be stretched because
there has been a noticeable increase in the volume of people
applying for refugee status. I think what he was indicating is
that we needed to look at the issue of whether or not those
in-country processing facilities are adequate to handle the
cases in which there might be people who have got bona fide
claims for refugee status that need to be processed.
I went through that pretty carefully with him today,
and he certainly wants me to indicate that that's what he
intended to communicate. He did not call into question the
overall policy on repatriation or interdiction or return of
people who are attempting to illegally emigrate from Haiti, and
there is no change in Administration policy on that question.
Q Will the Administration consider expanding its
ability to process these people? Are we going to --
MR. McCURRY: That's among the things, I think, that
will need to be looked at. There are limits to our capacity to
do so because of the resources that we have available in Haiti
and the resources that we have available at those three sites.
That's exactly what Assistant Secretary Shattuck was suggesting
needs to be examined or reviewed.
Q But will it now be reviewed?
MR. McCURRY: That question of how those processing
centers are working, what their capacity is and what type of
volume they can handle given the increase that we're seeing is
something that we are looking at, yes.
Q What about the question of sanctions? There was
some reporting yesterday out of Paris that seemed to indicate
that perhaps the United States was swayed to the French view on
the need to increase sanctions?
MR. McCURRY: I checked into that, Carol. My
understanding is that they did have that discussion. I think,
as you know, it was widely known the French had put forward a
suggestion that maybe we needed to toughen sanctions. I
understand that they agreed at that meeting, as they said in
the communique, to have a high-level military delegation from
the Four Friends journey to Haiti to meet with military leaders
in Haiti and indicate to them the strong possibility that they
would have to consider a toughening of sanctions next year
should there not be a movement on implementing the Governors
Island process.
Q But not at this moment?
MR. McCURRY: My understanding is that they did not
suggest nor did they agree in the meeting in Paris to do that
immediately.
Q Mike, still on Haiti, did Malval tell Tarnoff
that he wanted to resign, and did he give him a date for
resignation?
MR. McCURRY: I don't have anything for you on that.
Q Did Tarnoff tell Malval not to resign?
MR. McCURRY: I think the Under Secretary expressed to
Prime Minister Malval the gratitude that we feel for the Prime
Minister's tireless efforts to build a political future for
Haiti and to attempt to bring together the parties in the
interests of furthering the Governors Island process.
Q So he expressed gratitude for Malval's past
service but did not ask him to stay on, is that correct?
MR. McCURRY: I think they discussed his status at
some length.
Q The Secretary has said in recent weeks -- I think
last week or maybe the week before -- that Malval should not
resign. Has the United States Government told Malval he should
not resign?
MR. McCURRY: We have expressed strong support for the
Prime Minister -- indicated that his service and his
willingness to serve as Acting Prime Minister beyond the date
of his resignation, which had been set for today, was very
helpful and that his ideas in trying to bring together the
conference that he suggested should occur were also very much
warranted.
The President, I think as you know, expressed strong
support for exactly that concept on December 6 and expressed
either, I think, gratitude or warmly welcomed the willingness
of Prime Minister Malval to agree to continue as an Acting
Prime Minister to try to further that process.
Q And you got an answer from Malval, but you don't
want to tell us what it was. Is that accurate?
MR. McCURRY: It's not my place to get into that.
Q President Aristide has evidently objected to this
conference and said it should not be held. Does the United
States still back the conference?
MR. McCURRY: I don't have anything on that.
Q When Malval was here, he had indicated he'd like
that conference to start this week, or soon anyway, and did he
give an indication how quickly that could get off the ground?
MR. McCURRY: Yes. They discussed that, and I just
don't have anything further on that right now.
Q Are you confident that it will happen at all, or
do you think there is a problem with it now?
MR. McCURRY: I am not.
Q You're not confident it will happen.
MR. McCURRY: I am not confident that it will happen.
Q Would you say the talks between Malval and
Tarnoff were productive?
MR. McCURRY: They were fully engaged and productive
in dealing with the situation in Haiti and how to try to
advance the Governors Island process and move it forward at
this point. I think that was a very productive conversation.
Dealing with someone who is so clearly and courageously
committed to the future of his country is obviously going to be
a productive session, yes.
Q You're not confident this conference will happen,
and Malval's agreement to stay on as Acting Prime Minister was
contingent on this new initiative. Did then Malval indicate
that he was stepping down as Acting Prime Minister -- that he
would not serve as Acting Prime Minister?
MR. McCURRY: I just don't have an answer I can give
for you on that. It wouldn't be my place to give that answer.
Q Does the United States still support the idea of
a conference?
MR. McCURRY: We continue to think that Prime Minister
Malval's initiative was one that could have been very helpful
and --
Q Could have been.
MR. McCURRY: Or might have been or will be. The idea
was an idea that could have advanced the prospects for a
settlement of the differences that existed between the parties.
Q Even though Aristide opposes the idea of having a
conference?
MR. McCURRY: I think the President made clear on
December 6, and I believe at that time President Aristide
indicated his willingness to be supportive of the initiative
that Prime Minister Malval launched or at least articulated
that day. My recollection is that President Aristide at that
time was supportive, yes.
Q Who then do you see as the obstacle to this
conference?
MR. McCURRY: I don't want to characterize it. It's
not my place to characterize who's presenting obstacles.
Q Did Christopher weigh in at all yesterday in the
talks with Malval?
MR. McCURRY: I don't think he was physically
present. He has been in close contact. This has been a
subject that developed... It took on a certain amount of
urgency because of the meeting in Paris while the Secretary was
traveling abroad, so Under Secretary Tarnoff had been a point
of contact for Prime Minister Malval on this.
He has been working closely with Under Secretary
Tarnoff on the issue and contributing a fair number of ideas to
it, yes.
Q But the Secretary didn't call Malval or stop in
the meeting briefly to try to persuade him?
MR. McCURRY: He did not participate in that meeting,
no.
Q And if this conference is now off the table, as
it seems to be, what's the next alternative?
MR. McCURRY: We'll have to wait and see what happens.
Q Can we go to North Korea?
MR. McCURRY: Yes.
Q Has there been any movement on either side on the
North Korea situation?
MR. McCURRY: No, nothing new since the meeting on
Friday. We're still awaiting a response to the ideas presented
on Friday.
Q Anything on Hanoi with the departure of the
Assistant Secretary?
MR. McCURRY: No. He was out doing a -- I think he
went out to the border, as I indicated, or at least he did have
a good tour. In fact, if you get a chance to, read a kind of
interesting report on his tour out to the border with Laos when
they went to investigate some of the trilateral work that's
going on to look for additional remains. Then, my
understanding is that he departed for Tokyo, where he'll be
having some discussions with the Japanese Government on the
Framework Talks.
Q And what is Secretary Lord's and, for that
matter, the Secretary of State's opinion following Lord's visit
of Vietnam's compliance with and efforts to help resolve the
MIA issue?
MR. McCURRY: I think nothing different from what I
described yesterday. I think Assistant Secretary Lord clearly
was very encouraged by some of the progress that's being made.
I think he was touched by the ceremony in which the remains of
seven missing were returned to the United States. I think that
he wants to have an opportunity to present a very full report
on his travels to the Secretary, and we didn't have any further
characterization of his conclusions beyond that.
Q A quick question on Somalia. What is the U.S.
assessment of the number of troops, U.S. and other troops, the
percentage of troops, in the international peacekeeping force
in Somalia that will be leaving as of March 31? There's some
speculation that actually three-quarters of them will be
departing.
MR. McCURRY: As of that date?
Q Yes.
MR. McCURRY: I don't have that. I'll see if we've
got an assessment. I don't know that we've got one that is
complete, because I think in some cases we just don't know the
answer to the question, "Who's staying and who's going?"
Q How's the strangulation going around Sarajevo
today?
MR. McCURRY: I haven't seen any new reports today on
that.
Q On the question of Somalia, where is General
Aideed? Was he walking toward the border? (Laughter)
MR. McCURRY: My understanding is that, following the
meetings in Addis Ababa, he departed -- made his own
arrangements, bought a ticket or something, and departed for,
we believe, Nairobi, Kenya, I am told. I don't have a
confirmation on that, but our understanding was that he was not
returning immediately to Somalia,,that he did have some
additional travels in the region that he was arranging on his
own.
Q Is Ambassador Oakley going back?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know the answer to that. The
last I heard, he had plans to go back, but I don't know what
the status of those plans are.
Q Thank you.
MR. McCURRY: You're welcome.
(The briefing concluded at 1:46 p.m.)
(###)