Return to: Index of 1994 Daily Briefings || Electronic Research Collections Index || ERC Homepage

OCTOBER 4, 1994

                      U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
                       DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

                           I N D E X

                     Tuesday, October, 4 1994

                                 Briefer:  Michael McCurry

  President Mandela's Visit to Department .........  1
  Agreement with US re:  MTCR Compliance ..........  1

  New US Humanitarian Assistance ..................  1-2

  US Humanitarian Aid to UNHCR ....................  2

  Agreement between Assistant Foreign Minister and
    Assistant Secretary Shattuck ..................  2-4
    --  Human Rights/Rule of Law ..................  2-3
    --  International Broadcasting ................  3
    --  Talks with Red Cross ......................  3
  Agreement with US To Be Signed Today ............  3-6,12-15
    --  Compliance with MTCR ......................  3-6,12-15
    --  US Trade Sanctions ........................  5-6,12-15

  Gerry Adams's Meetings at the Department ........  4

  Departure of Military Leaders ...................  6-10

  Territorial Waters ..............................  9

  US Loan Guarantees ..............................  10-12

  Secretary to Visit Region .......................  15-17


DPC #141


MR. McCURRY: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I've got several announcements and items that I'd like to start with today.

First, as you all know, President Nelson Mandela is here in the building at this very moment for a lunch that is hosted by the Secretary and others in the United States Government.

I would just note -- I don't believe this has been commented upon -- but something happened in Pretoria yesterday that I think is relevant, given President Mandela's visit here. In Pretoria yesterday, representatives of the United States and South Africa signed a bilateral missile-related export-import agreement as well as several accompanying joint statements that cover steps South Africa will take to terminate its Category I missile program. That's Category I under the Missile Technology Control Regime.

They agreed essentially to terminate that missile program and the agreement commits South Africa to abide by the guidelines of the MTCR. It also includes provision for South Africa to import temporarily space-launched vehicles for satellite launches when it is agreed that such activities will not contribute to missile proliferation. And it also spells out some of the steps that South Africa will take to terminate its own existing space-launch vehicle program.

Those signatures, those documents, obviously, we believe reflect both the shared commitment that the United States and South Africa have to address proliferation concerns, especially related to weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, and is yet another indication of the positive turn in relations that exist between South Africa and the United States.

We're also posting a statement later today, indicating that the Department is providing another $28.5 million for humanitarian assistance programs for refugees, displaced persons and victims of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. We estimate that about 2.3 million people in the former Yugoslavia, obviously especially Bosnia, still remain in need of relief assistance with the approach of winter and the increased vulnerability of that population. It's important for international agencies that we work with to have adequate resources to address those humanitarian needs.

The funding of the $28.5 million breaks down as follows: $20.5 million will be provided to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees to support assistance programs in Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia and Macedonia; and the remaining $8 million will go to the International Committee for the Red Cross to support programs that they have underway in Bosnia and Croatia.

This is FY-94 money, and that brings the total contribution the United States Government has made for humanitarian relief in the former Yugoslavia in that fiscal year to $365 million. I think all told since 1991 we've provided something like three- quarters of a billion dollars in assistance.

We will also be posting another statement this afternoon, too, about an additional $18.2 million that's being provided to UNHCR to support assistance programs for Rwanda and Burundi refugees.

Moving on, would anyone like a readout on Assistant Secretary Shattuck's meetings? I assume you would.

He had dinner last night with his counterpart, the Assistant Foreign Minister, Qian Huasun, and they continued in a very lengthy meeting this morning -- a thorough discussion of human rights issues. They reached agreement on six broad points.

First, that the dialogue between the United States and the People's Republic on human rights issues is valuable and should continue.

Second, that both sides agree they will strengthen their legal contacts, focusing on legal reform and rule of law. There are a variety of ways in which we have been exchanging delegations -- especially non-governmental delegations -- to discuss the rule of law and the applicability of statute to human rights issues. The American Bar Association has been very helpful, for example, in that concern, and the two sides reaffirmed the importance of those strengthened contacts as they relate to rule of law.

Third, Assistant Secretary Shattuck will visit China in early 1995 to pursue the human rights discussions that we have been having.

Fourth, both sides recognize that they do have differences on this issue as it pertains to human rights conditions, but they do believe that those differences can be narrowed through the respective dialogue that they conduct.

Fifth, both sides agreed that they would soon reopen discussions on international broadcasting. There have been technical level talks, as some of you are aware, dating back to earlier in the year about some frequency impedance problems that the Voice of America, among others, has been experiencing.

And, lastly, China indicated that it would soon resume its talks with the International Committee of the Red Cross.

In all, Assistant Secretary Shattuck characterized it as a positive meeting with a number of specific outcomes that are favorable, but it's very important to note that obviously the dialogue will continue.

I think you're all aware, lastly, that we've scheduled a signing ceremony for about an hour from now that will relate to non-proliferation issues and the production of fissile materials. There's been a good deal of hard work and negotiating that's gone on around the margins of Foreign Minister and Vice Premier Qian Qichen's visit here, and we will await anxiously the news to be committed one hour from now -- unless you want to try to sort of squeeze it out of me now.

That's all I've got.

Q Do you have an evaluation of the human rights situation in China since May when the issue last came to a head?

MR. McCURRY: We have a number of continuing concerns that relate to conditions there and we expressed them. Both the Secretary and Assistant Secretary Shattuck have made a number of additional points to them. We've encouraged them to reflect on the human rights conditions that exist in China and to prepare, as we have recently prepared, a report on compliance with the international covenants on civil and political rights.

I believe that's a subject that we've addressed forthrightly in our own report, and it's one that China could and should address in its own submission pursuant to that international covenant. We continue to discuss with them and urge them to consider prisoner releases.

We've inquired about specific conditions that exist for a number of fairly prominent detainees -- among them Wei Jingsheng. We also encourage them to consider visits by international human rights organizations and to enter into dialogue with the Dalai Lama on the future of Tibet.

So among all the many concerns that we have raised that were covered specifically in the President's Executive Order concerning human rights and Most-Favored-Nation status, we continue to pursue those. I think that as the agreement of the Assistant Secretary and the Assistant Foreign Minister indicate, we do have some differences that remain on those issues.

Other questions.

Q Will you have a readout later following Gerry Adams' visit to the Department?

MR. McCURRY: We do. He's scheduled here in about 45 minutes. We were speculating earlier about the possibility that President Mandela, Gerry Adams and Foreign Minister Qian Qichen might all simultaneously arrive at the State Department, which would be an interesting occasion.

But Gerry Adams' session with Deputy Assistant Kornblum, Leon Fuerth and Nancy Soderberg from the White House will probably conclude around 3:00 o'clock is my guess, and we will at the very least have some type of written readout. It will either be produced from here or from the White House. We've been in contact with the White House this morning about that, so I think we'll probably just do something in a written form.

Q Can we go backwards to the ceremony that's about to take place in an hour? Do you want to talk more about what's going to happen there -- what agreement has been reached, or are you going to do it upstairs?

MR. McCURRY: I don't want to step on the news, but I'll tell you a little bit about it just to put it in some context, because I know a lot of you will be writing on some deadlines.

We have for many, many months had a number of non- proliferation related concerns that we have been in discussion with the Government of China about. They relate to some of our own concerns over their past missile exports, and they include items and concerns related to the sanctions that we imposed in August of 1993.

You'll recall that we imposed Category II sanctions on Chinese entities for the transfer of M-11 related equipment to Pakistan. At the time that we imposed those sanctions we indicated to China that our sanctions law -- U.S. sanctions law -- that required the imposition of those sanctions would allow us to waive sanctions and avoid the possibility of future sanctions if the two sides reached a comprehensive agreement that promotes key non-proliferation goals, including those that are defined by the MTCR guidelines and annex.

Among the issues that have been under discussion since, as you know, China's position has been that they have not conducted activity in contravention of MTCR deadlines, part of the dispute has been over the inherent capabilities of certain types of weapons systems, including the M-11. A Category I missile in the MTCR guidelines is one that is capable of carrying a payload of 500 kilograms at least 300 kilometers. I think it's just over 1,000 miles and just 186 pounds, right?

Q The other way around. 1,000 pounds --

MR. McCURRY: 1,000 pounds, 186 miles. That's right. Something like that.

Q You're not going to get on TV with that answer. (Laughter)

MR. McCURRY: I won't. Good. And it's just as well.

So part of the dispute has been, understanding those 25 nations that are participants in the MTCR agree that the inherent capability of a missile is something that has to be considered even if a missile has not been tested with certain payloads and certain ranges that fall underneath the stipulated guidelines. That has been one of the concerns we've had.

We've also asked for clarification of what exactly did transfer at the time the transfer occurred that led to us imposing, under our law, Category II sanctions.

In a number of different ways, we've tried to clarify that. As you know, the discussions that Under Secretary Davis has had with her Chinese counterparts have attempted to define some type of framework by which we could (1) understand the willingness of the Government of China to commit to MTCR guidelines, and (2) to establish some type of framework by which we can resolve some of these issues that we have in dispute about past missile export activity.

So I would point you in that direction. It's very likely that anything that they have agreed to that they might be able to sign in about an hour from now would be focused in on that type of concern.

Q So are we to believe that such a comprehensive agreement, which would allow a waiver of the sanctions, has possibly been reached?

MR. McCURRY: That would be a strong possibility based on everything that I just said. But I would leave that to the Secretary of State and the Foreign Minister to so announce.

Q The sanctions would be lifted?

MR. McCURRY: The sanctions would most likely -- the process -- the measures necessary to lift the sanctions could be initiated. Under our law, there is a 20-day notice period before you could formally waive any such sanctions such as the Category II sanctions that we imposed in August 1993.

Q Haiti?

MR. McCURRY: Haiti.

Q The departure today of Francois, is that (a) being taken as a real departure given that he slipped over to what appears to be a somewhat porous border and joined his brother; and, (b) what does that say about the prospects of Cedras and Biamby joining them?

MR. McCURRY: Just to recap what we do know, because I think there have been some conflicting reports. We understand from our Embassy in Port-au-Prince that Michel Francois, who is the Haitian Police Chief, left Port-au-Prince last night about 9:30. He crossed the Haitian border at Malpasse and arrived at the Dominican Republic border town of Jimani about midnight.

We understand that Dominican immigration authorities received clearance to permit legal entry of the Francois party into the country around 9:30 a.m. this morning. The party included, I think, a dozen people -- Francois and 11 others; mostly members of his family, bodyguards and domestic help, we are told.

I guess to respond directly to the question, we have said numerous times that the coup leaders should leave the country and that we thought eventually they would understand it was in their best interest to do so. That as a practical matter, most likely with the changes taking place in Haiti now, we're very hopeful that the transformation towards democracy and the restoration of democratic and civil institutions, that those who have associated with the de facto regime would not find that an environment that they were (a) familiar, and (b) found conducive to their own lifestyle.

His departure, which had been, I believe, anticipated, if not at least rumored for some time -- you'll recall back in June, I believe, his brother indicated at one point he might be willing to step down as police chief and leave. In any event, it is an indication that, as we've said before, the leaders of the current de facto regime should go and most likely would consider that their best option as the very hopeful progress takes place in Haiti.

Q Is it true that he had already made one or two trips across the border last week?

MR. McCURRY: I do not know the answer to that. It has been rumored, as you know.


Q These arrests of several paramilitary leaders over the last several days, what is the legal justification for that and what is their status? What will happen to them when the Aristide government returns?

MR. McCURRY: Those that have been apprehended by multinational force members have been apprehended pursuant to an action order by the U.N. Security Council. So they are certainly within the boundaries established within international law since they're incarcerated as a direct result of a U.N.- mandated mission.

Their legal status will depend on the disposition of the duly elected government when the duly elected government returns to office.

Q I don't understand. What part of the U.N. resolution puts them in jail, or gets them arrested?

MR. McCURRY: The return and restoration of democracy, the creation of a secure and safe environment so that democracy can be returned, and the authorization of all necessary means to accomplished those objectives are embodied in Resolution 940.

Q It's sort of a legal blank check to do anything he wants?

MR. McCURRY: No. The resolution is fairly precise. I don't have it here, but we've got copies of it if you want to check the text.

Q Just to follow up on that. The 904 also says "All necessary means to" -- I don't know the exact words, but I know it says "departure from Haiti of the military leaders." Will that be invoked as well?

MR. McCURRY: It calls for the departure from Haiti of the de facto leaders, consistent with the Governor's Island agreement, which is also referenced in the resolution and the Governor's Island agreement and also U.N. Resolution 917 which is a prior U.N. resolution, but is also authoritative given that it is reaffirmed within the text of U.N. Resolution 940. That sounds pretty hopeless there.

Q Start that over again.

MR. McCURRY: No, no. The point is, the references -- I'm recalling from memory now. The references to Cedras are that he must retire from his position and Biamby and Francois must be reassigned. No, I don't have that right. (TO STAFF) Go get me my little orange folder because I've got it in there.

It's somewhat ambiguous, in other words. Because the language in 940 says "depart from Haiti." That is clearly something envisioned, but there's also this simultaneous reference to Governor's Island.

In any event, as I just said, it's been our view that their departure from power, as envisioned in the agreement that they signed, should include their departure from Haiti. That's been our position. We feel as a practical matter, given the circumstances they are in, it probably will include a departure from Haiti. It's highly speculative at this point to try to determine what General Cedras and the army chief of staff might consider for their own future.

Q Do you expect Aristide to return with them still in the country?

MR. McCURRY: He has indicated he prefers and expects them to depart. We'll just have to see at this point.

I'll look it up. Ask me another question while I'm cramming?

Q Another subject?

MR. McCURRY: You're going to change the subject too far.

Q It's a statement, so you have to confirm or comment. May I?

MR. McCURRY: Go ahead.

Q The Turkish Foreign Minister, Mr. Soysal, attributed to Secretary Christopher the following regarding the territorial waters east of the Aegean during their last meeting in New York City, as aired in the spots by state radio and TV in Ankara: "The U.S. justifies and supports the Turkish approach to the issue. The U.S. is aware that even the 6-mile territorial waters create problems, and I can imagine what kind of complication might arise if they were extended to 12." Could you please confirm or comment on it?

MR. McCURRY: I'll have to check that against the readout that I had available. I know that that issue -- the issue of territorial waters and the application of the 12-mile limit under the Law of the Sea was an item of discussion. But whether the Foreign Ministers --

Q (Inaudible)

MR. McCURRY: It was a subject of discussion. I should more accurately say, it was scheduled to be an item of discussion because the Secretary was prepared to address that in his own preparation materials for the meeting. But I will need to check directly with those who participated in the meeting to comment on the version that has been provided by the Foreign Minister. If you can provide that to one of my able friends here, we'll double-check that and run it down.

Q Can I go back to Haiti?

MR. McCURRY: As a general proposition, we have said that both Turkey and Greece need to address this -- as two members of the NATO Alliance -- need to address this and resolve their differences amicably over what should not be a contentious dispute over territorial waters. I will check further.

Q But not that kind of statement?

MR. McCURRY: We'll check further into that comment.

Q Back to Haiti. Before the U.S. entered Haiti, there was this sort of standing offer to the trio that we would help them go someplace else. Did the U.S. facilitate Michel's departure? And is that sort of offer still available to the other two now that we're in-country there?

MR. McCURRY: I am told that we did not facilitate that departure; that they made their own arrangements and it was their own choice. It was Francois own choice to leave.

We have, through General Shelton, discussions with Cedras and Biamby. I don't know whether the subject of arrangements for any possible departure have been broached in those discussions, but I can check that.

Now, back to getting it right. Nine seventeen said that Cedras had to retire as Commander-in-Chief of the Haitian armed forced, and the chief of the metropolitan zone of Port-au- Prince, i.e., Michel Francois, and the chief of staff of the Haitian armed forces, Biamby, would either have to resign or depart from Haiti. That was 917.

I believe that's the same formula that existed in Governor's Island. Is that right, George (Gedda)?

Q If my memory is right.

MR. McCURRY: That was the formula embodied in the original Governor's Island agreement. Nine Forty then offered the new phrase "Departure from Haiti," but also referenced again the Governor's Island agreement. So there's been some ambiguity on that point in the legal structure of the U.N. resolutions.

As a practical matter, though, as I say again, we've just said that their remaining in Haiti is not consistent with the changes that are taking place there nor with the spirit of national reconciliation that is going to proceed and also define President Aristide's return.

Q Two quick questions on Israeli aid. First, October 1 is when you're supposed deposit $1.2 billion to Israel. Has that been done this year? Last year it was delayed three weeks by the Dotan affair.

Secondly, on the deductions from the $2 billion loan guarantee, last year it was $334 million. Can you confirm that amount has been determined as to how much is to be deducted from the 1995?

MR. McCURRY: I've got the exact amount in yesterday's package, where we had the loan guarantee stuff -- Dave? Credit David Johnson who is ever faithful in fetching all those things. He's probably got better things to do, but that's an important question. We actually have a precise answer. We'll get it.

Q While we're waiting for this one. If we haven't dealt with China and this upcoming signing ceremony within the hour, would you care to tip your hand -- have you already done this?

MR. McCURRY: I kind of tipped it about as much as I think I can tip it a little bit earlier. I just ran through some of the parameters of the discussions that we've had so far as they relate to our proliferation concerns.

I also mentioned, by the way, that we've had discussions with them on the production of fissile material. So I wouldn't want to indicate that it's just confined to proliferation issues.

Q Is it going to touch on human rights at all?

MR. McCURRY: Shattuck had a good meeting. Just before you came in, I did a little readout on that.

Yes, there's a signing ceremony. I think we've arranged pool coverage; is that right?

Q What time?

MR. McCURRY: 2:15.

Q (Inaudible)

MR. McCURRY: Let me answer the question. I'm going to have to read large portions of this. Some of this, I recollect from our discussion of this last year but I'm not entirely fresh on this.

The President has determined, pursuant to the authority and requirements of Sections 226(d) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, concerning loan guarantees to Israel, that $216.8 million will be deducted from the loan guarantee authority to Israel for Fiscal Year 1995.

For those of you who are not familiar with the statute, the statute requires that the amount is reduced by an amount equal to the amount estimated to have been extended by the Government of Israel during the previous year for activities which the President determines are inconsistent with the objectives of the section or understandings reached between the United States and the Government of Israel regarding implementation of the loan guarantee program.

Q What was the last -- $300-something?

MR. McCURRY: $437 million, I believe, last year. That's from memory. It's less this year because of the non-security expenditures by the Government of Israel in FY-94 in areas not under Israeli administration prior to June 5, 1967 were lower in the 1994 fiscal year.

Q Can I have a follow-up on that? Does that include east Jerusalem settlements?

MR. McCURRY: It includes Israeli Government non-security expenditures in areas not under Israeli administration prior to June 5, 1967.

Q Not private building -- government building?

MR. McCURRY: Israeli Government non-security expenditures.

Q Can we go back to China for just a second, just for background. The sanctions, as you'll recall, prohibited Chinese military basically from buying American aerospace products? Is that what it basically was?

MR. McCURRY: It was, as I recall, incredibly complicated. The specific sanctions were on two entities. It was the Pakistani Ministry of Defense and the Chinese Ministry of Aerospace -- let me get it right here.

I hate that when you just put something and you know right where it is and then it's not there anymore.

Q It's the tie.

MR. McCURRY: You think this tie is throwing everybody off?

Q It's distracting.

MR. McCURRY: Distracting? Okay. Mary Ellen (Glynn), you were right about the tie. The tie didn't make it.

It was the Chinese Ministry of the Aerospace Industry and the Pakistan Ministry of Defense. These were the two entities that were sanctioned in August of 1993.

Under those sanctions, they require the denial for two years -- this was two years from August 1993 -- of new export licenses for MTCR annex items. These are all the items covered on the MTCR annex list. It's a fairly detailed and comprehensive listing. It also required the United States Government to deny contracts related to MTCR annex items with either one of the sanctioned entities. So it prohibited U.S. contracts with the two entities and also the award of new export licenses for those two entities.

Q I wasn't here, of course, for your earlier statements on what this agreement might be. If I may ask you sort of a hypothetical, let us say that the Chinese agree that they will stop doing what we say they've been doing and what they say they haven't been doing. Let's agree that the Chinese will stop.

Are they stopping at a point where the Pakistanis will not be able to build an M-11 missile?

MR. McCURRY: That broaches right on the nature of the information we have available to us about what did transfer which led to the imposition of our sanctions. Some of that is, obviously, intelligence-related, so it's hard for me to comment in any great detail. But several things that we've said -- and we continue to say -- we have never established with concrete proof that there has been a transfer of a complete Category I system.

Obviously, if that had occurred under our law, we would have had to impose Category I sanctions under MTCR -- or under the guidelines, under our law reflecting the MTCR guidelines. So that has not happened.

The degree to which the missile components or items related to that missile system transferred and then led us to impose the sanctions in August of last year is precisely the types of subjects that we wish to discuss in an extended non- proliferation dialogue with them to clarify what exactly did transfer.

You'll recall the problem has been the Chinese say: "This is not a problem. Everything we've done is consistent with the MTCR which we adhere to." The problem comes in interpreting what the guidelines really require of an individual adherent, and part of it relates to the range of a missile, how the range of the missile is affected with different size payloads. There are ways in which you can have some ambiguity about what actually are the characteristics of a certain missile.

The 25 participants in the MTCR have now agreed or over time have come to agree on what's called the inherent capability standard of a missile, and that's one which would be highly significant if China were to acknowledge that criteria in making its own missile export decision; and it would be highly significant if they also agreed to discontinue the export of that type of weapon system.

So we'll see if those highly significant type things are going to happen.

Q But I'm not sure that gets to my question. Pakistan still insists it doesn't have nuclear weapons, and we believe -- the United States believes that it does.

MR. McCURRY: That's a separate question. Let's kind of keep focused in on this.

Q I know that's a separate question. What I'm trying to find out is has the United States caught this problem at a time when we can prevent Pakistan from building one missile that might carry one bomb?

MR. McCURRY: I think that most of the dialogue that's occurred in the last several days has been aimed at the Chinese export program and trying to ensure that the Chinese export program is consistent with MTCR guidelines and the world community's concern about non-proliferation and especially proliferation of weapons of mass destruction systems capable of delivering that.

To try to make it a little clearer than that, Saul, things conveyed that led us to impose the Category II sanctions. We have not established an entire weapons system conveyed, but there is technology and components that are now available as a result of the transfer that did take place; and were we to establish that any of those involved a Category I violation, there's nothing about any of these discussions that we've had that would prohibit us from imposing Category I sanctions.

The importance of our dialogue with China on this is to ensure that that type of transfer does not occur, and we would hope to reach some type of agreement in which an M-11 missile would not convey.

Q I'm trying to find out if Pakistan has the technology now to build a missile.

MR. McCURRY: With the information that we have that we understand, they do not have an entire Category I -- and in this case we're talking about the M-11 -- a Category I missile system. We have not determined that they're in the possession of that type of technology.

The acquisition of expertise related to that type of technology is also covered by the MTCR. In other words, we have not established that, because that would (inaudible) under our law.

Q (Inaudible) to build the missile.

MR. McCURRY: We have not established that they do. If we established that as a result of this transfer, we would have to sanction the relevant entities. The reason, Saul, I can't say for a fact is that we don't know. That is exactly one of the things that we would want to try to resolve in the dialogue that we would have on these non-proliferation issues.

Q If we drop sanctions against China, let's say, would you keep them on Pakistan?

MR. McCURRY: The same offer that we made to China to enter into a dialogue that could lead to some type of an agreement to resolve these issues is also available to Pakistan. We continue to hope to have that type of dialogue with Pakistan. But any steps that we take to waive sanctions as they relate to China would not affect the sanctions imposed on the Pakistani entity.

Q Haiti. General Shelton yesterday alluded to Americans who were caught up in the sweeps of the attaches. Do you have any further information on that? How many Americans, who they are?

MR. McCURRY: I don't, and I would defer. My understanding was that General Shalikashvili was going to do a briefing over at the Pentagon at 1:00 today, and he might have had more information on that. I just don't have anything further.

Q Mike, when are you going to announce the Middle East trip?

MR. McCURRY: How about right now?

Q Okay.

MR. McCURRY: Secretary of State Warren Christopher will journey to the Middle East on or about the 8th of October. I think his current thinking is that we would depart some time Saturday and plan to spend roughly one week in the region, returning most likely the 15th of October. We have not completely firmed up the itinerary, and it depends on some other discussions that we're having out in the region. But the general planning is to depart on Saturday, some time probably p.m. on Saturday, with returning the following Saturday.

(TO STAFF) Is that still true as of today?


MR. McCURRY: Mary Ellen Glynn confirms that that's correct.

Q What about talk of his travels to Haiti this week? Have you any more on that?

MR. McCURRY: I haven't heard anything that leads me to believe he'll be making any trip to Haiti.

Q Could I ask one on Bosnia, please?

Q Can we go back to the Middle East for a second. Can you tell us the countries or stops that you know of?

MR. McCURRY: I believe he's thinking of an itinerary that would include Israel, Syria, Jordan and Egypt, similar to some of his previous travels, and in fact with a similar purpose in mind. There are various aspects of the peace process that are ripening and some that need to ripen further. Obviously, as a result of a trilateral meeting yesterday, the enormous progress that Jordan and Israel have been making in their discussions, and the Secretary will certainly be doing some things that will further those developments, as we hope the parties conclude a formal peace treaty as soon as possible.

On the Israel-Syria discussions, the progress has been much, much slower, because it's a much different type of dialogue. There have been very dramatic developments in the Middle East peace process in recent months, but in the Syria- Israeli discussion, it's our assumption that the progress that occurs will be very incremental, which is to say barely discernible. That type of dialogue requires the very patient, diplomatic effort that the Secretary has been pursuing, and we don't anticipate that this trip will be any different than previous trips; that the work will be slow and steady.

But there will also be opportunities to work on some other aspects. We've clearly had just in the past week with the very significant announcement by the Gulf Cooperation Council that they were going to discontinue enforcement of the secondary and tertiary aspects of the boycott of Israel. We've got a new climate that is developing across the whole region as we look ahead to the end of the month with the conference that will take place in Morocco.

We have a lot of developments that show that the peace process is deepening, and that the contacts that are developing between Arab countries and Israel are strengthening, and those are all things that the Secretary hopes to advance and enhance with his coming travels.

Q Is there any plan to meet with Arafat?

MR. McCURRY: Specific meetings and specific itinerary I just don't have at this point.

Q Thank you.

MR. McCURRY: You're welcome.

(The briefing concluded at 2:01 p.m.)


Tuesday, 10/4/94

To the top of this page