Note: This Electronic Research Collection (ERC) is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the
US DEPARTMENT OF STATE
OFFICE OF TE SPOKESMAN
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
Friday, December 17, 1993
BRIEFER: Michael McCurry
Subject Page
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Secretary's Speech Monday in New York ........... 1
Briefing by Amb. Talbott on Monday .............. 1
Secretary's Meeting Today with FonMin of FYROM... 1
DEPARTMENT
Secretary's Aspirations for Today's White House
Discussion re Budget .......................... 1-4
Reduction in Israel or Egypt Aid Levels ......... 4
RUSSIA
Election Results
--Reconsideration of Dealing with Russia / Demands
of International Financial Institutions .. 4
HAITI
Return of Aristide / US Actions ............... 5-6
US Policy on Tougher Sanctions ................ 5
Malval Conference Proposal ...................... 5-6
US Contact with Military Authorities .......... 6-7
Possible Power-Sharing Arrangement .............. 7
LIBYA
Disappearance/Abduction of Mr. Kikhya from Cairo /
US Contacts with Egypt Govt ................. 7-8
OCCUPIED TERRITORIES
Israeli Crackdown on Violence by Settlers ....... 8
NORTH KOREA
Response to US Presentation ................... 8
ETHIOPIA
Womens' Group Appeal Re Detained Citizens ....... 8
BRAZIL
Readout of Fon Min Celso Amorim Meeting w/
Secretary ..................................... 8-9
Intellectual Property Rights .................... 9
SYRIA
Secretary's Contacts Re Preparations for
Clinton/Assad Meeting ......................... 9
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #167
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1993, 12:46 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. McCURRY: Good afternoon, everybody. I've got a couple
of very short announcements. To start with, first of all, on
Monday -- this coming Monday -- Secretary Christopher will be
out of town. I just want to let everyone know that. He'll be
up in New York. He's going to be giving a briefing to a group
of folks from the Conference of Presidents of major American
Jewish organizations in New York. Obviously, he'll be telling
them a little bit about his recent trip and covering some of
the points, discussing where we are. That event is closed to
the press, but I did want to advise you of the Secretary's
whereabouts on Monday.
On Monday we will have here, in my absence, Ambassador
Talbott to give you an ON-THE-RECORD briefing on Vice President
Gore's recent trip to Russia and the NIS states. That will be
at 12:30 here. I think we'll also cover, obviously, the recent
elections and Strobe's assessment of where things are in Russia.
Finally, I just wanted to advise you -- this was arranged
too late to get on the Secretary's calendar today, but he will
be meeting at 3:00 today with the Foreign Minister of the
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Stevo Crvenkovski. That
will occur at 3:00. There's no photo op of that because we
arranged it at the very last minute, but I did want to let you
know about the meeting.
With those housekeeping announcements, any questions you
might have.
Q Mike, what's the Secretary looking to achieve in his
meeting, budget meeting this afternoon with the President?
MR. McCURRY: I think several things. One, they are in the
final stages of the budget process, I think as you know. I
believe all the Cabinet members at various points are going to
meet with the President as part of the normal budget process to
argue their department's budget submission and to look at the
numbers as they are measured with the OMB.
I think the Secretary's intention, as he said earlier
today, is to tell the President, outline for the President,
both the opportunities that exist in the world through the
conduct of diplomacy and some of the opportunity costs of not
fully financing those types of diplomatic efforts. It's a
discussion he's had with the President before. This has been
going on for some time.
I think many of you will recall in October we had a
senior Administration official at that time give you a sort of
an outline of the type of presentation on our thinking on the
budget as we prepared the FY-95 submission. I believe earlier
in December we had both Brian Atwood and Under Secretary Davis
here again, and I'd say that the rough contours of the
presentation they made here to all of you is very similar to
what the Secretary will be arguing to the President.
As he indicated upstairs earlier, he's working fully
within the process, arguing the case as the procedure has been
defined by OMB, and I think that he wants to make the strongest
possible case that the conduct of diplomacy can pay enormous
rewards, especially the conduct of preventive diplomacy that
can head off the types of crises that inevitably end up costing
the U.S. taxpayer much more money.
So without revealing any of the specifics of the
presentation the Secretary will make, that's a rough outline
which I would point out is consistent with what other officials
have said here from the podium in the past.
Q Is the published report of an additional
$3 billion in foreign aid correct? Is that what the Secretary
is seeking?
MR. McCURRY: No, that figure is not correct; but I
don't want to get into the numbers that will be used in this
submission today. We're at a point in the budget process in
which there's a lot of back-and-forth with OMB, and I would
guide you against that figure. That's just not a correct
figure.
Q I thought that the Secretary and the
Administration were moving in a direction where so-called
foreign aid really wouldn't be that, that there would be money
coming from various and sundry other budgets to be spent on
what used to be called foreign aid issues. Is that not being
done in this session, this round?
MR. McCURRY: I'm sorry, Ralph.
Q I forgot what you called it. You know, it's this
business of claiming that environmental assistance money ought
to come from somebody else's budget but funneled through the
State Department to be used in foreign aid -- what used to be
called foreign aid projects.
MR. McCURRY: That's a little too truncated an
explanation. I'd say that there are large -- within what are
now called the 50 and 150 accounts, there are a lot of
different programs that have sort of cross-cutting jurisdiction
within the United States Government. Whichever agency is the
one that carries it out, the point is -- the argument that we
made is that you need to look at that overall budget as a whole
and compare it to some of the other things that we do in the
area of international affairs and national security and then
measure up what the differences are.
It was not an argument that we should get all the
money as opposed to the other agencies; it was just let's take
a look at what our relative expenditures are under these
different budget headings, and then figure out if we've got
everything correctly prioritized.
If we believe in these programs that we feel -- we
call them often preventive diplomacy -- if we believe in these
programs that can pay a reward down the line and reduce costs
for security expenditures or national defense expenditures,
then are we adequately funding them today, and what kind of
resource base is necessary. That's the broad outline of the
argument.
Q Does the Secretary have an idea as he makes his
presentation to the President today as to where the additional
money, however much it is, should come from from the federal
budget, or is he just going in and saying, "We need more to do
what we want to do, and you figure out where it has to come
from."
MR. McCURRY: There is one pot of money, and where the
money comes from is the U.S. taxpayer. I mean, that's the
easiest way to say it. I think the Secretary fully understands
the enormous pressure that comes to bear on the President, who
has to judge all of the different competing requests from all
the agencies and then simultaneously concentrate on a goal that
the President, as you know, attaches great importance to, which
is deficit reduction.
It's not our place to suggest from whence comes the
money because you have to look at a budget in an overall
sense. In fact, I would stress that's exactly the argument the
Secretary is making, which is that you need to consider sort of
the global implications of budgeting rather than looking at
these two little narrow accounts and say, "Can you take all the
money -- shave all the money off the top of, for example, the
150 or the 50 account." You need to take a more global
perspective if you're looking at foreign policy that's
conducted in a new way.
Q Is it accurate to say that the Secretary is
geared up for a hard sell today?
MR. McCURRY: I think it's accurate to say that he's
been selling hard for some time. I think he feels very
strongly from making the case that diplomacy deserves to be
funded at adequate levels and that you can't continue to sort
of nickel and dime the diplomatic function within the federal
budget -- as this country has over the last decade -- or it
will have consequences. I think he feels passionately about
that, and I think he will argue that.
Clearly, every Cabinet Secretary feels strongly about
the programs under their jurisdiction, and that's part of the
annual budget process. But, again, I'd stress and as the
Secretary stressed earlier today, he's doing this presentation
and making this case totally within the confines of the budget
process; and he's insisted to all of us who work for him that
we do so within the confines and the parameters of the process
that's been outlined by Director Panetta and by the President.
Q Just one more on that subject. I think we would
be remiss if we didn't ask an obligatory question. Is the
Secretary planning in his presentation to suggest any reduction
in the two largest accounts of the foreign aid budget -- Israel
and Egypt.
MR. McCURRY: No. There's no change from what we said
publicly in the past on that.
Q Mike, in response to the Russian elections,
President Clinton mentioned that he thought that the vote for
Zhirinovskiy was a protest to the economic conditions largely
caused by the shock therapy policies. Is there now an ongoing
reconsideration of how to deal with Russia in that respect?
Also, with regard to the international institutions,
even a year ago Secretary Bentsen had encouraged the IMF not to
go so tough on Russia because of the tenuous situation there.
Will there be attempts to soften the demands in that respect on
the part of the U.S.?
MR. McCURRY: I think the Vice President spoke very
clearly to that point in Moscow yesterday, and I don't know
that there's anything more that you could add to that. I would
go back on one point as the premise of the question, though. I
don't think, not to my knowledge did the President suggest the
economic program or the shock therapy of the Russian economic
reformers that was responsible for the economic conditions that
exist. I think he made a general comment saying the economic
conditions were a motivating factor in the way a lot of people
voted.
I don't think he analyzed in his comments what the
effect of the shock therapy program has been on local economic
conditions. I don't know that he linked those two up.
Q Mike, on Haiti, please.
MR. McCURRY: On Haiti.
Q The Secretary said this morning that the United
States still backs the return of President Aristide. What is
the United States prepared to do to make that come about?
MR. McCURRY: As he outlined in the first instance,
it's putting pressure, as the Four Friends agreed to do in
Paris, on the Haitian military authorities, putting pressure on
them, both diplomatically and through the effect of the
economic sanctions in place, to have them live up to the
commitments that have been made under the Governor's Island
process.
Additional steps beyond that I don't think have been
discussed. But clearly if there is no movement as the
communique of the Four Friends indicates, there would have to
be consideration of tougher sanctions; not to say there
couldn't be other things considered as well, as the Secretary
indicated today.
Q Is the United States prepared to use force to
restore President Aristide to power?
MR. McCURRY: If that is one of the options that might
even be considered, that's not something I would be discussing
at this point here.
Q But the United States would be prepared to back
tougher sanctions?
MR. McCURRY: We subscribe fully to the statements
that were contained in that communique issued last weekend. It
suggests in that communique that if there is no progress
towards meeting the conditions set forth in both the communique
and in the broad outline of the Governor's Island process,
there would have to be consideration of expanding the current
embargo that exists on Haiti.
We've said, on our part for the United States,
separately from the Four Friends, we've said all along that we
are certainly cognizant of the humanitarian costs of an embargo
that impacts on poor and suffering people in Haiti, and we have
taken steps to try to ameliorate that. We understand that, for
example, oil deliveries to hospitals or to those who are trying
to get medical supplies through to indigent populations is
something that needs to be addressed.
Q Does the United States still back the idea, which
Prime Minister Malval was putting forward, of a dialogue?
MR. McCURRY: Not just a dialogue. The Prime Minister
had a very specific proposal for a conference that would
involve the parties. It's my understanding it was a fairly
detailed vision of what a peace conference on the future of
Haiti would look like. We did support that. We thought that
was a very promising idea. It may be that that idea can be
resurrected in some fashion and can prove useful in the
future. That's something at this that's unclear.
Q Is that invitation to some parties to come
forward and revive the idea?
MR. McCURRY: It was the Prime Minister's initiative,
and I think it was, in part, promising because it was the
initiative of the Prime Minister. I'm not putting forward that
here. I'm just saying that we saw that as a promising idea and
perhaps it could be promising again in the future.
Q A lot of the interest in whether the U.S.
continues to back the return of President Aristide is because
many people think that he might stand some prospect of
succeeding in a negotiation with Cedras and others in the
leadership of military government there if Aristide himself
were not part of the formula.
Obviously, the Secretary has said what he said on that
front. Is there any reaching out being done now by the United
States to the military leadership of Haiti to try to find a new
mechanism in which they will participate, considering that they
haven't participated in any other so far?
MR. McCURRY: We have been in regular contact with
Haitian military authorities. I don't know how recently. I
know we tend to work closely with the OAS and U.N. Special
Envoy, Dante Caputo, who maintains regular contact with a
spectrum of military leaders, and through Ambassador Swing's
staff in Port-au-Prince. We also try to keep in regular
contact with military leadership beyond just the
Cedras-Francois level but also the junior officers who are a
factor in the equation, too. So we do keep a broad range of
contact.
Whether any of that might build into some dialogue, I
just don't want to speculate on that.
Q Is there any --
MR. McCURRY: But clearly, you heard the Secretary say
earlier that we are going to have to look for ways to
resuscitate or resurrect some process that leads toward a
Governor's Island framework agreement, since that clearly is
the only avenue that promises a return of Aristide and a return
of democracy to Haiti.
Q Is the U.S. suggesting to the military government
of Haiti some method by which the American or, for that matter,
the international engineers might be able to return to work on
Haiti's infrastructure or deal with humanitarian aid or
whatever? Is there some discussion of how to get that underway?
MR. McCURRY: No, I'm not aware of any, Ralph. I'm
just not aware of any. I know that on the question of a U.S.
participation in this international presence, that has been a
regular feature of what's been called for since Governor's
Island and was in the communique that was issued in Paris last
week. They called for creating the proper environment for the
deployment of the U.N. police and military cooperation mission.
There was really no specific definition given to
"proper environment." But proper environment, obviously, in
our interpretation, would include the ability of a deployment
like that to carry out the mission in safety and to do the work
that they are assigned to do. It's a non-combat mission, so
they're there for humanitarian purposes.
Q Could the United States and Haiti -- I realize
this is hypothetical, but could the United States live with a
power-sharing arrangement?
MR. McCURRY: I don't want to speculate on that at
this point. We clearly, at this point, are trying to advance
the Governor's Island process forward. It's obviously been
stuck since the provisions that would have lead to the return
of President Aristide were, in a sense, vitiated earlier in the
year.
At this point we see the Governor's Island process as
the formula that bring us back to a point where we might see a
glimmer of hope for democracy in Haiti.
I think, obviously, we've got one -- the next step
that we're looking at is the meeting that I think this military
delegation that's been dispatched by the Four Friends will
have. I think it's now scheduled to be on Monday. After that,
we'll have to assess what type of response there is from the
parties.
Q Mike, the family of Mansur Kikhya, the former
Libyan minister, held a news conference here in town to press
their case for information from Egypt; and they said the United
States had been very active and very helpful in trying to get
information.
Can you offer us any information or any update on his
fate or where he might be or --
MR. McCURRY: I can't. I think that's correct, that
we have been helpful and been, in a sense, making
diplomatically the same plea that the family made today. We
don't have any information on what may have occurred. It's
certainly premature to speculate on what's going on with this
abduction or if there is some overall motive here that might be
suggested.
But as to news on Mr. Kikhya, we certainly remain
concerned about his disappearance. We've been in touch with
the Government of Egypt, urged them to make every effort they
can to find out about what happened.
The Government of Egypt has assured us that they are
looking into the matter, but that their investigation has not
yet turned up any information that might lead to information on
Mr. Kikhya's whereabouts.
Q Mike, Israeli authorities seem to be cracking
down to a certain extent on settlers. There seem to be some
arrests in the Nablus area and, reportedly, the closing off of
some settlements. Any comment on that?
MR. McCURRY: We support efforts to stop the violence
and to end lawlessness. I think the Secretary made that very
clear on his recent trip. As we've said in the past, we
recognize and welcome the fact that Israeli officials have made
it clear that lawlessness will not be tolerated.
We, again, call on Israelis and Palestinians alike to
respect the law, to promote the work that will lead to national
reconciliation, to do everything possible to exercise maximum
restraint and stop violence at a time when the peace process
itself needs to be nurtured and needs to be advanced.
Q Any update on the situation with North Korea?
MR. McCURRY: No. They still have not delivered to us
a response to our presentation at the meeting on Friday.
There's been no further meeting scheduled at this point.
Q Mike, do you have anything on -- I think there's
an Ethiopian women's group that has appealed to the State
Department to step in and help get some people released who
were arrested on their way to a reconciliation conference there?
MR. McCURRY: I'm not aware of that situation, but
I'll be happy to check into that. Maybe if you check
afterwards, we can get a little more of the details so we can
get a question.
Q Would you have anything on the visit today by the
Brazilian Foreign Minister to the State Department?
MR. McCURRY: Yes. The meeting concluded just a
little while ago. If you can bear with me, someone did give me
a quick readout. I think the subjects discussed were very
close and similar to the list that the Secretary gave prior to
the meeting with the Foreign Minister; but I'm told they
reviewed and exchanged views on a number of bilateral and
multilateral issues.
The Secretary was pleased that Brazil warmly welcomed
the idea of a hemispheric summit which will be held in the
United States next year at a time uncertain. We will continue
discussing that issue with Brazil as the planning process for
this summit proceeds.
They did discuss as well non-proliferation, as the
Secretary indicated that they would. The Foreign Minister
stated that Brazil hopes to have its Senate ratify full-scope
nuclear safeguards as soon as the end of this month. So those
were, I think, the two key points that came out.
Q One of the stickiest issues -- there are many, I
guess, but one of the stickiest issues actually with Brazil is
intellectual property rights that the Secretary mentioned. Was
there any progress made on that front, any pledges from the
Brazilians?
MR. McCURRY: Ralph, I don't have anything here
indicating that they did. I know they talked about it. I did
ask the Secretary very briefly. He said he covered the points
and they had a good discussion, but I didn't get a specific on
that. If there is anything specific I can add, I will.
Q Back to the Middle East for just a second. In
advance of the Clinton-Assad meeting, has the Secretary had any
further contact with Foreign Minister Shara? Is there any plan
for another meeting perhaps, or some kind of get-together or
some --
MR. McCURRY: There will be a lot of contacts at
different levels. I'm not sure if they will be at the
Secretarial or Foreign Minister level. But the Secretary has
been working very closely with our peace team, with the group
here in the Department. They have been working the phones in
the region pretty deliberately over the last several days. I
think the Secretary's last contact in the region was with
Foreign Minister Moussa earlier in the week. I did mention
earlier that he had talked to Foreign Secretary Hurd just prior
to Foreign Secretary Hurd's meeting with Chairman Arafat.
The Secretary no doubt will be following up with that,
particularly as we get into the first week of January in
advance of the trip.
Q Thank you.
MR. McCURRY: Thank you.
(Press briefing concluded at 1:10 p.m.)
(###)