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
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1993
BRIEFER:
Michael McCurry
Subject
Page
UN
Security Council Discussions re: Moratorium on
Export of Antipersonnel Mines
........................................1-2
RUSSIA
Elections/Reform
.....................................................................2-5
-- Current/Future US Aid
....................................................4-5
HAITI
Asst. Secretary Shattuck's Concern re: Adequacy
of Refugee Processing Centers in Country .................5-6
-- Amnesty International Letter .....................................5-
6
Resignation of Prime Minister
...........................................6
Prospects for Conference on Reconciliation ...............6
Four Friends Communique/Sanctions Enforcement ...6-7,9-10
-- Proposed Meeting with Military .................................6-7
Sanctions/Impact on Citizens
............................................7-8
Efforts at National Reconciliation ...................................8-
10
VENEZUELA
Impact of New EPA Standards on Oil Imports .............11
LEBANON
Hamilton Mission to Bekaa Valley ....................................11
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
Declaration of Principles/Implementation ..................12-14
Bilateral Talks/Timing
.........................................................14
DEPARTMENT
Secretary's Contacts with Admiral Inman ...................14-15
(###)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #166
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1993, 12:45 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. McCURRY: Good afternoon, everybody. I am delighted to be
here right on time at l2:45. (Laughter)
Q Sixteen minutes late.
MR. McCURRY: Right on time, l2:45, fifteen minutes early; for
Mr. Dancy, fifteen minutes late.
Q Congratulations on beginning the briefing only twelve
minutes late today.
MR. McCURRY: No, fifteen minutes. Right at l2:45. We're
splitting the difference: l2:45.
I've got one thing I would like to draw your attention to.
Some of you might remember that when we were in Moscow, I had Under
Secretary Davis do a little briefing for you on some of the efforts we
are making on demining. We did it that day because there actually had
been some success in working with the Russians on some cooperative
efforts that would help use some of their technology, which is
innovative and, frankly, in some cases better than some of the things we
have for demining.
They talked about that cooperation; but I do, in continuing
that story, want to call your attention to the fact that today the U.N.
General Assembly is expected to approve a resolution by consensus that
will call on U.N. member states to agree to a moratorium on the export
of antipersonnel land mines. That resolution was cosponsored by the
United States and 65 other countries.
We welcome this important first step toward more permanent
international controls on these very brutal and crippling weapons.
We have discussed it. I think some of you are familiar with
our report that we put out last summer called "Hidden Killers" that
notes that between 85 and ll0 million unexploded landmines are still
buried in 62 countries, causing l50 civilian casualties each week. Half
of these casualties occur in two countries, Afghanistan and Cambodia.
Largely because of that, according to one U.N. estimate, one of every
236 Cambodians is an amputee.
The U.S. has a landmine moratorium that has been in effect
since October l992. It was recently extended until l996, and we will be
urging our allies to observe similar moratoria in accordance with this
new U.N. resolution. Again, as I say, we will be seeking to pursue more
permanent controls as well.
We have also made available $l2.5 million for education and
landmine removal training programs to lessen the threat landmines pose
to people around the world.
I think it is a very important initiative by the United
States, and I want to call that to your attention.
I also will say, if any of you are interested in that, the
principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Political-Military
Affairs Bureau, Ted McNamara, is going to have a group over late this
afternoon, at 4:45, just to kind of go through that and provide some
additional background. If anyone is interested, they can call the PM
Bureau at 647-l027.
Q That will be on the record?
MR. McCURRY: Yes. And with that, any questions?
Q Now that you have a clearer idea of the outcome in the
Russian elections over the weekend, do you have more to say about your
impressions?
MR. McCURRY: I don't. I think that many of you have seen the
reports today that kind of bring more of these election results into
focus. I think, as I have been suggesting the last several days, and as
others have suggested, that we are getting a better picture of what the
composition of the Duma will now look like.
We still don't know that much about the upper house, the
Federal Council. Those results have been slower in coming in.
I would say that we will be making efforts with our European
allies to attempt to understand better what type of political
composition there will be in this new legislature, what type of
coalitions might be formed between the relative party blocs within the
Duma; and we will certainly be looking hard to understand better the new
political dynamic that exists as a result of the newly elected
legislature.
I don't think at this point anybody, including the Russians
themselves, has a good sense of what's going to happen. I would say and
make one general observation that the election results in Russia do seem
to have had the effect of being a wake-up call to the reformers; and you
are seeing now reports from Russia indicating that the reformers
themselves are beginning to work more cohesively and certainly that
would be -- given our own strong interest in promoting and encouraging
reform in Russia, that would be an interesting and timely development.
Sid.
Q Like you say, it's a wake-up call. Is it a wake-up call
that maybe they are moving too fast and relying too much on the United
States? Or is it a wake-up call that they should move more quickly and
rely more on the United States?
MR. McCURRY: No. I think it's a reminder to them that they
need to work better amongst themselves in promoting the agenda of reform
that they all clearly deeply believe in. I think those who have made
comments -- you have seen some resignations in the last two days by
senior officials close to President Yeltsin, who are making exactly that
point, that they need to do a better job of promulgating and
articulating their program. I think that's the sense, that they are
going to draw together, work more cohesively in advancing their common
agenda.
Q Is it a wake-up call to the United States and its Western
allies in any way?
MR. McCURRY: Well, I think we have been assessing the results
all along. As we have been in a lot of the bilateral contacts we have
been having the last several days -- the two that you know the Secretary
has done, but additional conversations we've had as well -- we are
discussing with our allies what the impact of the election will be and
what our understanding is.
I think some things seem to be pretty fundamental. You have
all seen Foreign Minister Kozyrev's statements at this point that they
will remain -- you know, the fundamental direction of Russian foreign
policy will remain unchanged and that President Yeltsin is the guarantor
of that. Those are important statements, of course; but I think as we
try to understand more of what the political dynamic will be in Russia
as it relates to economic reform and political reform, we certainly will
be working closely with our allies. Jim.
Q Have you seen the reports or do you have any indications
from the Americans, non-official Americans, who are monitoring the
elections? Do you have any reports of any irregularities in the actual
voting practices?
MR. McCURRY: We have not. We are not aware of any credible
reports of irregularities in the voting itself, and we have not heard of
any reports of irregularities in vote counting.
I will say it is clear that the vote counting is proceeding
slowly by Western standards, but the Russians don't have the advantage
of having computerized tabulation equipment and some of the things that
we use that produce almost instantaneous results on an election night.
And, again, the results that did come in early were
principally based on exit polling information that, you know -- it is
not clear what the reliability of that information has been.
The official observer of the election -- there are many
international observers who were invited by the Russians to be there and
to witness the election, including a number of American groups that have
been there for some time working in Russia, but the official observer
was the CSCE. I understand that they are actually assessing the conduct
of the election and will have some type of formal report next week.
Saul?
Q At the White House yesterday a senior administration
official said that the President, in a letter Gore handed to Yeltsin,
the United States promised to reinvigorate its support for Russia and
the reform movement.
Can you tell us specifically what that means?
MR. McCURRY: Well, I think the President, in fact, said that
publicly yesterday. As well, he said that we would certainly be
redoubling our efforts. I don't know if that takes on any tangible
quantitative formula at this point, but Imy understanding is that we are
working, as I said yesterday, more aggressively to figure out the ways
that you can move this money into that pipeline, both the bilateral
assistance we are providing and then the work we do through some of the
multilateral lending institutions.
Q Did you discuss yesterday --
MR. McCURRY: Oh, and one -- I would also say obviously this
has been a discussion that Vice President Gore has had while he has been
in Moscow, too. So we certainly will hear back from the Vice
President's delegation upon his return about some ideas that they may
have explored there. That will be an important contribution to our
understanding what we can do best to nurture the process of reform.
Q Did you explore yesterday how much of the $2.9 billion
has gone?
MR. McCURRY: We did. I think we posted a TQ, if I am not
mistaken, last night that actually traced through the FY '93 money and
how we are looking now at the FY '94 package. I don't have that in
front of me right now, but I would direct you to that. It wasn't that
detailed but at least gave some idea of how the money was moving in the
pipeline.
Q Another subject?
MR. McCURRY: Another subject.
Q Was John Shattuck taken to the woodshed by Peter Tarnoff
as a result of his comments on Haiti?
MR. McCURRY: He was not, and I was a little distressed to see
that reported today. I was, frankly, in the meetings, in both meetings
that he had with Under Secretary Tarnoff. Assistant Secretary Shattuck
made his own views very clear, and I think there was an understanding by
the Under Secretary of what had happened there. We had some comments
that -- we have seen the excerpts of the comments he made in Port-au-
Prince, and it was pretty clear that Assistant Secretary Shattuck was
describing exactly what I referred to yesterday: the policy that
relates to refugees and our work at these in-country processing centers
within Haiti, to make sure that we have got facilities available to
handle any valid claim to refugee status.
So I can't frankly tell you where that came from. I was in
both of those meetings myself, and nothing of that nature occurred.
Q So does Shattuck still retain the full confidence of the
Secretary and the Under Secretary?
MR. McCURRY: He absolutely does. He is doing a superb job.
Q So, Mike, you would say that the report -- I believe it
was in The Times today -- and a letter from Amnesty International to
Warren Christopher, criticizing him for criticizing Shattuck, are not
based in reality?
MR. McCURRY: Yes. I wish Amnesty International had tried to
determine the facts before being critical of something that did not
occur. It would have been nice. They could have called anyone who was
participating in that meeting and gotten a straight story, I think.
Q Also on Haiti, you put out a statement --
MR. McCURRY: By the way, I think that we have since made
available to Amnesty the text of our briefing here yesterday which --
the authoritative account of what happened didn't make it into the news
article unfortunately; but that is what happened and is the way I
described it to you yesterday. We have made that available, as well as
the transcript of what the Assistant Secretary said down in Port-au-
Prince, too. We have made that available to Amnesty, so they understand
what happened. They don't have to rely on an account that was not
accurate.
Q You put out a statement yesterday expressing regret at
Mr. Malval's resignation. It was our understanding when he was here
though that he would remain on as acting. Is that no longer the case?
MR. McCURRY: Well, it was our understanding, if I am not
mistaken, because some of that did occur while we were -- while I was
out of the country, that he was staying on in a role as Acting Prime
Minister to facilitate this conference that he was attempting to
organize. As he indicated yesterday, it doesn't appear that there is
much likelihood that will happen.
As our statement indicated, we certainly hope he will continue
to work to put that together, and it may be possible to revive that
concept; but his resignation was effective, as you know, on the 15th.
His agreement to continue in an acting capacity was based on his
willingness to work on this conference.
Q Well, when he was here, he didn't link his capacity as
Acting Prime Minister with the conference. He said that he
constitutionally would remain until someone else was appointed or
elected by parliament.
MR. McCURRY: Then my understanding of that -- if that's the
case, my understanding is wrong, then, because I understood that he had
agreed to continue in that capacity while they were working on this
conference. I'll check into it and try to clarify that. My
understanding is that the resignation was effective yesterday. He, as
you know, left the airport pretty abruptly yesterday with no indication
of what his plans were.
Q Since the conference is not going to take place, do you
have any new ideas?
MR. McCURRY: Well, the new ideas are the ones -- I don't know
how many of you have seen the communique that the Four Friends issued
after the meeting in Paris -- we've got copies available in the Press
Office -- but they outline pretty clearly what the next steps are going
to be at this point. There is a military delegation, as I indicated
yesterday, that will go and meet with the Haitian military authorities
and make it very clear to them that the sanctions are going to remain in
place and be enforced unless the provisions that are articulated in the
communique -- which are very close to the Governor's Island process
provisions -- are fully implemented and that the only way that those
sanctions are going to be lifted is if those parties live up to their
obligations. I think that is made pretty clear in the communique that
the Four Friends issued.
They also suggest that if there is not a willingness on the
part of the Haitian military authorities to carry out those provisions,
there is a likelihood that there will be a request for additional and
tougher sanctions.
Q So it's fair to say that U.S. policy now is totally
focused and hinges only on the sanctions.
MR. McCURRY: I'd say it's fair to say that at the moment the
point of pressure that we have to bear is the sanctions regime as
adopted by the United Nations -- that's correct -- absent a
reinvigorated diplomatic track which, of course, we would welcome and
would encourage and we are encouraging in our contacts with the parties.
But the best prospect for that type of dialogue appeared to be the idea
that had been advanced by Prime Minister Malval.
Q What is your assessment of the potential physical damage
the sanctions are doing to the poor end of the population, which I know
you've always had a concern about, but now apparently it's become acute
in some of the not-so-well-off neighborhoods.
MR. McCURRY: As we indicated in this statement last night, we
continue to do everything we can to render humanitarian assistance to
lessen the impact of sanctions on the most vulnerable citizens in Haiti.
There was an effort in constructing the sanctions regime itself to try
to ameliorate the effects of sanctions on the poor citizens of Haiti by
allowing things like cooking oil, heating oil to be exempted from the
oil provisions of the embargo.
We do have fairly extensive work that we do through non-
government organizations to provide humanitarian efforts, and we
obviously are very keen on making sure that that type of assistance
continues. But it's important to say -- and to say it again and again
-- the effect of those sanctions on the citizens of Haiti are the
responsibility of the parties that refuse to live up to their
obligations.
Q Well, some of these humanitarian supplies can't reach the
people because there's no fuel for the trucks. Do you have any ideas
about how to resolve that one?
MR. McCURRY: I have seen from time to time that some of the
groups have looked into ways in which they can use some of the dwindling
oil supplies that are available to ensure the delivery of humanitarian
relief. I don't have with me right now an immediate update on what
they're trying to do to get that through. But they recognize that as a
problem. I know they are attempting to address it.
Q Do you have anything to say about President Aristide's
supposed role in sabotaging the conference idea?
MR. McCURRY: No, I don't. Those are questions you'll have to
address to President Aristide.
Q Mike, it's been just about a year, I think, almost
exactly a year since President-elect Clinton reversed himself on the
Haitian refugee policy and made the announcement about the in-processing
centers, and so on.
Did Secretary Christopher ever imagine that it would be a full
year -- a full year would go by and there would have been no progress
towards democratization in Haiti, and, in fact, actually a deterioration
of the prospects for democracy in Haiti and a deterioration of the
physical and economic status of the people of Haiti?
MR. McCURRY: Looking back a year ago, I think that you
remember that this Administration came to office with a very dire
situation, the prospect of an immediate out-migration of boat people
from Haiti, and worked diligently to address that -- the Governor's
Island process, the Governor's Island accord were all very hopeful
developments. They certainly stemmed any significant out-migration of
folks from Haiti in the intervening time, and they worked to at least
create some type of diplomatic process that might lead to a national
reconciliation.
That process has not reached the conclusion that was
designated in Governor's Island. They have not moved ahead with the
commitments and the provisions, and that is obviously disappointing to
us. Looking back a year ago, given the enormous complexity of the
problem and the situation that existed at the time that this
Administration took office, I don't think there was a great deal of hope
that anything could have been done at that point. That's why getting
the diplomatic effort invigorated and getting the Governor's Island
accord were at least some signs of hope, and hopefully maybe that type
of effort, that type of willingness on the parties to address the
issues, might be reinvigorated.
Q I'm not sure I understand why we continue to stay with
sanctions that are hurting people instead of taking another possible
route, and that is dealing directly with Cedras as the de facto head of
the government and the person who is sort of in charge. Can you tell me
what the reasons for that --
MR. McCURRY: Yes. It's very obviously that our goal has been
a restoration of democracy in Haiti. That was the goal of the
Governor's Island process. I think to indicate that anything other than
the return of the democratically-elected president as a premise of U.S.
policy would be to negate one of the fundamentals of the policy towards
Haiti, which is that they need to see a restoration to democracy.
That's what the purpose of the pressure of the sanctions is about.
Q Why not deal with him since the Governor's Island accords
now for all intents and purposes are dormant if not dead. Why not deal
with him as, let us say, we are dealing with Aideed in Somalia?
MR. McCURRY: I hate to say it's an analogous situation, but
that is in fact what we have done by incorporating Cedras and the other
Haitian military authorities into the discussions that have been
underway, post Governor's Island.
That's why the military delegation from the Four Friends will
meet with Cedras, and that's one of the reasons why that dialogue has
been continued. I mean, we do deal with him. In no way do we accept
the premise that he represents the legitimate governing authority.
Q Okay. But can you accept the premise that Cedras and
company would have a role to play in the setting up of any future
government, any future elections, in that he has as legitimate a role to
play as other people we've been dealing with in other parts of the world
under similar circumstances?
MR. McCURRY: The obligations of the general and the Haitian
military authorities as they're spelled out in even this most recent
communique of the Four Friends are very clear, and they don't lead to
that type of involvement.
Q Mike, your comment about the Four Friends meeting with
him as a reflection of bringing Cedras somehow into the process makes me
ask, is this meeting with the military delegation a one-shot, message-
sending opportunity from the Four Friends? Or are you suggesting that
what is being done now is the establishment of a military-to-military
negotiating operation in which this delegation will meet with him once,
perhaps conduct a whole series of meetings, and work out some process
for the future of Haiti?
MR. McCURRY: No. It's very, very clear that the delegation
is delivering a message. If that message then leads to a willingness on
the parties to enter into discussions, that would be encouraging. But
the initial purpose is simply to deliver the message.
Q But you're not setting up the beginning of a military-to-
military negotiating situation?
MR. McCURRY: No. That's not my understanding of what was
agreed to in Paris.
Q (Inaudible) to that meeting?
MR. McCURRY: I don't believe so. Actually, I frankly don't
know. We expect to have the meeting early next week. Each country will
send diplomats and military officers. In addition to the military
officers, there will be some folks represented. I don't know whether,
for example, Special Envoy Caputo will be included or not.
Q What does it say, though, about your U.S. guy, basically
Aristide, if he in fact was an obstacle to this sort of last-ditch
diplomatic effort?
MR. McCURRY: I didn't comment on that yesterday, and I'm not
willing to comment on that today. I think his posture toward Prime
Minister Malval's initiative is something that he really needs to
address himself.
Q Does the United States still support Aristide and believe
that he is a credible leader for Haiti?
MR. McCURRY: We still support a process that leads to the
return of the democratically-elected president of Haiti, yes.
Q You don't necessarily support President Aristide?
MR. McCURRY: The Governor's Island process calls for the
return of the democratically-elected -- I'm quoting from the communique
-- the communique calls for the return of the democratically-elected
President of Haiti.
Q That sounds like a less than enthusiastic endorsement.
MR. McCURRY: Does it? We have been supportive.
Q That reminds me, I may be wrong about this, but didn't he
announce yesterday the appointment of a new defense minister? He fired
Cedras, I think, and --
MR. McCURRY: I saw a news account of that, and I don't
believe that we have been able to confirm that, to my knowledge. It was
suggested in a news account that he was carrying a letter that was
intended for delivery to Cedras, but I don't have any details on that.
Q So presumably it would be hypothetical to ask the U.S.
whether the U.S. would support the establishment of a broader government
based in Washington -- a government-in-exile based in Washington,
including cabinet ministers and so on.
MR. McCURRY: I think that's a hypothetical question, yes.
Other subjects.
Q Yesterday, the EPA announced new rules on reformulated
gasoline which are going to effectively exclude 50,000 barrels a day
from Venezuela, and a first-class row is developing over that. Do you
have any comments?
MR. McCURRY: I'll look into that. I was aware that they had
issued those new standards and knew a little bit about their effect here
in the United States, but not how they might impact on our trading
relations with other oil exporting nations. But I'll see if I can get
anything on that for you.
Q Don't you think it's a little bit ironical that on the
very date on which GATT is finalized for freer trade, that this kind of
restriction is being imposed?
MR. McCURRY: The international trade agreements that have
been developed take into account the work that individual nations are
doing to curb pollution, and in this case emissions of things that
contribute to acid rain and contribute to poisons in the air, in
violation of the Clean Air Act in the United States; and I think that
those international trade agreements do account for domestic programs
that are aimed at pollution control.
Q That may be true but a double standard is being applied
to Venezuela, Mike. They're two different base lines being used.
MR. McCURRY: I said I'd look into it. I will.
Q How is planning going along for Lee Hamilton's staff's
mission into the Bekaa Valley?
MR. McCURRY: There's a fair amount of planning. I've seen
information back and forth on the delegation and arrangements that are
being made. I don't have anything with me right now. But I do think
that they're pulling together an itinerary and that planning is moving
ahead for admission, I believe early next year.
Q Hezbollah has said that they will not meet with any
Americans on this issue. It's been a week or so since they said that.
Has the Administration perceived any change in that position?
Do we see that as an obstacle?
MR. McCURRY: I don't have the latest on that. I think we are
hoping that those who can be persuasive and influential might encourage
them to be cooperative with this very important delegation.
Q Who would that be?
MR. McCURRY: Their friends.
Q On the question -- on the Middle East -- when Secretary
Christopher was in Cairo, he said the United States could live with a
small delay in the implementation of the Declaration of Principles.
Sunday, Prime Minister Rabin and Arafat met, came to no
conclusion, put off their next meeting for at least ten days. Press
reports say that there aren't really many prospects that it's going to
be concluded at that time. Do you have a reaction to this? Does that
square with the Secretary's desire for a delay of only a few days?
MR. McCURRY: It doesn't square with the information we have.
The Israelis and the PLO have continued to meet. They've just finished,
I think -- or they're either having or are conducting some fairly
encouraging talks in Paris on the economic aspects of implementing the
Declaration of Principles. They clearly are engaged in discussions that
will help lead to the effective implementation of the declaration.
I think both Prime Minister Rabin and Chairman Arafat have
said publicly that they will continue to remain in dialogue to resolve
the final issues. I don't know that things are as bleak as you suggest.
They clearly have very difficult issues that they are
addressing, and they clearly are going to have to get very serious if
they want to remove those obstacles that exist to the implementation of
the declaration. But what's going on at the working level, where you
see the delegations engaged, is very encouraging and positive work
towards the full implementation of the declaration.
Q Do you have any indication that they will complete the
task before their next meeting, which was to be ten days after the last
meeting?
MR. McCURRY: I am not certain. The only thing I've seen
reported on the wire -- I'm not basing this on an independent assessment
-- but I did see on the wire that Prime Minister Rabin made a reference
to 10 to 21 days, or something like that. I can't recall exactly what
he said.
It was clear that it was in the context of expecting there to
be continuing dialogue, and that certainly reflects what our
understanding of the situation is.
Q You say you're encouraged by the level of work at the
sub-level, the working level. What about at the highest levels? Is
there anything that the upper leadership on either side can do
differently?
MR. McCURRY: The highest levels are highest levels and
probably best not commented upon. What we can talk about is the work
that is going on in Paris both bilaterally between Israel and the PLO,
and then the presentation that the PLO has made, I think, yesterday in
Paris to the multilateral donors which was very persuasive and
encouraging and demonstrated a great deal of thought about the
structures necessary for implementing the declaration.
With that type of work going on, that suggests that there is a
climate in which there could be progress. At the highest levels, the
highest levels will do their work.
Q So you're confident that both Rabin and Arafat are doing
all they can at this point to move this forward?
MR. McCURRY: We have monitored their progress and know of
their discussions, and I just don't want to characterize the work that
they're doing.
Q What about the general work pattern of half of the
highest level -- Mr. Arafat, who, peripatetically, gets on airplanes
when some people feel that he might be better paying attention to the
detailed work of trying to make his organization into a governmental
structure? Is that a distraction?
MR. McCURRY: I wouldn't want to say that. Again, I would
point you toward the work that has been going on by those who are
delegated, presumably, by the Chairman, or at least by the PLO with some
responsibility for doing detail work of these negotiations. And as I
say, our reports are that that work is proceeding and is looking good.
Q Mike, has the Secretary and other senior members of this
Administration expressed frustration with the Israelis and the
Palestinians for coming up with an agreement that is so non-specific and
open-ended that it welcomes this sort of delay in working out the
details?
MR. McCURRY: I don't think we've expressed frustration, no.
Q Is that a hindrance to implementing it? That it is so
general and so non-legalistic?
MR. McCURRY: I can't answer that because we are not a
participant in their direct talks, so we're not in a good position to
comment on what are the obstacles of the negotiating points between the
two parties as they address the elements of the declaration. It
wouldn't be right to comment on that.
Q Does the Secretary consider it a good contract?
MR. McCURRY: I think the Secretary considers it a good
Declaration of Principles that can lead to a peace process that would be
advantageous to both parties. He's a lawyer, so I wouldn't dare comment
on his ability to read a contract without talking to him.
Q He has commented publicly on that very subject. You're
not suggesting any change in that view in which he described the
agreement as one that has "some ambiguity?"
MR. McCURRY: He has described that agreement as one that has
some ambiguity, but he has not suggested that that represents a problem.
Q A question on -- just to clarify something that was
announced in Damascus, I guess -- where do we stand with the heads of
delegation talks? Is that scheduled for January 18 now?
MR. McCURRY: I've heard 18-19-20. I don't think that has
been entirely pinned down yet.
Q That's the head of delegation thing, not --
MR. McCURRY: That would precede a formal resumption of the
round.
Q That has not been agreed to yet by anybody; right?
MR. McCURRY: The intent would be for the heads of delegation
to meet, discuss issues, and then to proceed to the round. I don't
think that has been laid out. They would have to agree to that at the
time that they gather here in Washington.
Q And if I could -- stop me if you've already dealt with
this earlier because I came in late -- could you tell us anything about
what contact the Secretary had with Aspin, either yesterday before the
resignation or perhaps afterwards? Did he call him? Or have they met
or had a conversation of any kind?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know the answer to that. I know that
the Secretary was at the White House yesterday and he may have had
contact with Les. I just don't know the answer to that.
I do know that after the President and the Secretary of
Defense concluded their meeting yesterday, the President and the
Secretary talked. I don't know whether the Secretary talked to
Secretary Aspin. Of course, you know from the statement the Secretary
issued last night, he had very strong feelings that he communicated.
I'm sure he'll do so privately to the Secretary as well.
Q And has Secretary Christopher -- tell us something about
his relationship with Bobby Inman?
MR. McCURRY: He -- you almost got me! Why are you asking
that question? (Laughter)
Q I'm the one who asks the questions here. You give the
answers. (Laughter)
MR. McCURRY: Oh, I have to give the answers.
Admiral Robert Inman is someone that the Secretary knows very,
very well. He has, I think, worked with him in a couple of capacities
in the past. My understanding is they may -- I'll double-check it -- I
think that they first worked together at the time of the Moscow Embassy
fire in 1979.
I will tell you that at the request of the White House the
Secretary has spent some time, in the past several days leading up to
yesterday's announcement, with the President's candidate for Secretary
of Defense.
I think that Secretary Christopher is confident the nominee
will be someone that will be a very effective member of the President's
foreign policy team and someone that he will be able to work with very
well.
How is that for artful construction?
Q You made the announcement. That's all I needed.
MR. McCURRY: No, I did not.
Q You said, "the President's candidate."
MR. McCURRY: I said the President's candidate. I didn't say
who he met with.
Q It was in answer to a question about Bobby Inman.
MR. McCURRY: No, those are two separate questions. You just
asked me out of the clear blue about Admiral Inman. He's a very nice
fellow. I asked you why you asked that question.
Q Are you saying, at the request of the White House, the
Secretary spent time with --
MR. McCURRY: The President's candidate.
Q The President's candidate.
MR. McCURRY: Yes.
Q Over the last few days, did you say?
MR. McCURRY: I said in the days leading up to the
announcement yesterday.
Q Thank you.
(Press briefing concluded at 1:22 p.m.)
(###)