U.S. Department of State 95/09/22 Daily Press Briefing

From: [email protected] (Dimitrios Hristu)

U.S. State Department Directory

Subject: U.S. Department of State 95/09/22 Daily Press Briefing

Office of the Spokesman

[...]

FORMER YUGOSLAVIA

  Peace Process on Bosnia

  --Upcoming Discussions in New York .......................  2-5,7-9

  --Deputy Secretary Talbott/FM Sacirbey Mtg. ..............  2

  --Roberts Owen/Chris Hill/FM Sacirbey Mtg. ...............  2

  --Owen/Hill Travel to Belgrade ...........................  2-3

  --Assistant Secretary Holbrooke return to Region .........  2

  --Constitutional Principles/Apportionment of Land ........  3-4,6-12

  --U.S. Position on Military Offensives ...................  5-6

  --Geneva Document of September 8 .........................  5-6,11

  --Report of Bosnian-Serb FM remark re: Sarajevo ..........  10-11

  --Strengthening of Federation ............................  11

[...]

[...]

Q A few minutes ago, Secretary Christopher said he'd play an important role in the talks in New York on the Balkans. Could you give us a better idea of how those talks will proceed? I mean, who talks to whom? Do they talk together? Is there a Contact Group meeting?

MR. BURNS: Barry, I can say that in general, before I get to the specifics, we're continuing today in Washington our intensive efforts to push forward the peace process on Bosnia. The Secretary very shortly is going to meet with a group of his advisers to review our plans and our objectives for next week's discussions in New York between the United States and all the parties to this conflict, and between the Contact Group and the parties to this conflict.

The Bosnian Foreign Minister, Minister Sacirbey, has been in Washington this morning. He met with the Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbott -- had a very good meeting with him. He is also meeting with Roberts Owen and Chris Hill, two of the key members of the U.S. diplomatic team.

Mr. Owen and Mr. Hill are traveling tonight to Belgrade where they intend to have this weekend a good -- we hope a good round of discussions with the Serbian Government on the constitutional issues that will be at the center of the peace process -- that are at the center of the peace process and on the issues of territory.

Next week, as you know, the Secretary, Secretary Christopher, and his negotiating team will have a series of meetings about Bosnia with many of the central actors. I don't have at this time any announcement about when these specific meetings will take place. We're still working on logistics, trying to make sure that we've got agreements for all these meetings -- at least agreements to the extent that we can coordinate schedules.

I believe that after these series of meetings next week on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, Dick Holbrooke and his team will return to the region for another round of shuttle diplomacy. Our objective here again is to promote the peace discussions. It's to try to make progress on the substantive issues towards our goal of a peace conference.

I would just add one editorial note. There's been a lot of talk about what might happen at the ultimate end of this process, namely, if peace does break out, how would you secure it militarily. And it's certainly appropriate for NATO to begin planning for that, as NATO has, and you've heard a lot of senior people in this Administration talk publicly about that issue this week.

It's very important, however, that all of us focus on the intermediary steps which are considerable in number and which are very difficult indeed; and that is, there is no agreement now to even go to a peace conference. That's what we've got to work on now. Once we get to a peace conference, we and the parties will have to deal with extraordinarily difficult issues, given the history and the geography and the politics of that area.

I simply wanted to note that in addition to all the concentration about what happens at Step 140 at the end of the peace process -- how do you guarantee a peace, how do you implement it -- we have got to pay attention to all the steps in between, and that's a very difficult process indeed.

Q Nick, my recent question was, you know, partly logistical, but if the three main governments will have their Foreign Ministers meeting together and Christopher is in that meeting, how distinct is that from a peace conference? I mean, won't next week be peace negotiations, even though you're not calling it that?

MR. BURNS: There will certainly be discussions and negotiations, but it won't be a peace conference. The peace conference will be something quite different. That will be when these countries agree that they have made enough progress on the substantive diplomatic agenda that they want to sit down in one place, and for probably a very long time, and negotiate a final solution -- a final resolution of all the problems.

That's not where we are, Barry, where we are right now is trying to look at a number of issues that will play a role in the peace process and try to make progress on them next week, in anticipation, perhaps, of at some point in the future of convening a peace conference. But next week is not a peace conference. It's a continuation of the American-led diplomatic offensive here.

Q You mentioned that Owen and Hill are going back to discuss, among other things, constitutional issues. Are they actually at the point of drafting a proposed constitution? Is that where things are at?

MR. BURNS: They have taken a very aggressive role throughout the last couple of weeks, "they" being members of our negotiating team, our diplomatic team; and at several points along the way, they've offered ideas -- sometimes orally, sometimes in writing -- about aspects of this.

As I think I've said before, Mr. Owen is a distinguished attorney and constitutional scholar, and he is providing American expertise on the constitutional questions of how to set up a state, how to apportion powers among the various entities in that state.

Mr. Hill is a very fine Foreign Service Officer whose expertise is on the question of land, which is really the central question in the middle of this peace process; and that is, that if they do make peace and if they do decide they're going to live together in one state -- "they" being the Bosnians and the Bosnian Serbs -- who will get what part of the land, how it will be apportioned, how will that be done geographically, especially considering the military offensive of the last seven or eight days. So he's concentrating on those issues.

Q Is he drawing up a new variation on the Contact Group Map?

MR. BURNS: I don't know if he's gotten that specific. We certainly have for ourselves -- for our own reference use -- a new version of what we think the Map of Bosnia is, and it's changed considerably over the last week. I think one of the major papers here published a comparison between the Map on September 1 and the Map on September 19, and here we are a couple of days later, and it's changed even further.

So we do have an appreciation, a rough appreciation, of what the general breakdown now is in terms of land, but that is just for the beginning of a peace conference. The parties have agreed in writing at Geneva that 51/49 will be the starting point. It doesn't mean it will be the ultimate end point. It's up to them to decide that.

Steve.

Q Going back to Barry's question to ask you about a specific premise in it: Will there be a meeting that includes all four Foreign Ministers -- the Serbian, Bosnian Serb, Croatian and Bosnian Foreign Ministers -- including Christopher in New York?

MR. BURNS: That is something that's a possibility but that we have not decided on definitively. What we know is that there will be a confluence of diplomatic actors next week in New York. You'll have the Foreign Ministers of the key countries in the Balkans. You have some of the Foreign Ministers and all of the political directors of the Contact Group countries, and you'll have the American Secretary of State, Warren Christopher.

So what we are planning is an intensive round of discussions -- diplomacy -- over the first three days of next week -- Monday through Wednesday -- and we are now trying to work out a schedule for those meetings. I had hoped to have that available to you today for announcement. I don't. That will probably be nailed down Saturday or maybe even as late as Sunday when the Secretary arrives in New York. As soon as we've got it done, we'll make it available to you.

Steve.

Q To follow a slightly different subject in the same area, Sacirbey, apparently, as he left here today was asked about the offensive in the northwest and said that he was not asked to give guarantees about ending it nor were any guarantees given by him.

Shortly thereafter, Secretary of State Christopher said all parties had been urged to end the fighting. How do you square those two comments?

MR. BURNS: I would square them by saying very clearly that we have been given indications from the Croatian and Bosnian Governments that there will not be an attack on Banja Luka. And we have urged -- Secretary Christopher has urged the parties to cease their military operations in and around central and western Bosnia. That's the very clear and firm view of this government.

We don't think there is much to be gained, frankly, from further military operations. We think it's time for all the parties to move on to the peace table, and that's the message that's been given quite clearly to these governments.

Q Nick, what do you mean by "indications," indications different from promise or even a statement to that effect?

MR. BURNS: When Dick Holbrooke met with President Tudjman and President Izetbegovic in Zagreb a couple of days ago, they indicated -- they told him, indicated to him -- use a couple of verbs -- that there would not be an attack on Banja Luka.

I didn't use the word "commit," because I don't think they put it in writing. It's not part of a document that emerged from the meeting, but it was our very firm indication, which we quickly made public and have since repeated, that we don't believe that will happen.

Q They did say that face-to-face to Holbrooke?

MR. BURNS: Yes, they did.

Q Nick, I came in late. Excuse me if you've covered this. I'll just get it off the transcript. But you said the U.S. now has a Map that represents the way they think the land currently is divided after the (inaudible) fighting .

Two questions. Does that Map represent the 51/49 split that you all are looking for? And if not, what percentage do you see on the Map? And will you expect the Bosnians to still come to the table and agree to the 51/49 split?

MR. BURNS: I was just referring generally to a Map that we've been using to look at the current reality on the ground. I don't believe it's been blessed by any cartographers. I'm not aware it has.

When Dick Holbrooke came to brief Secretary Christopher yesterday on his trip and on his appreciation of the situation, he brought a Map which he laid out in front of the Secretary and which he went through and in which the discussions centered. That was, "How has this Map changed over the last several weeks because of the offensive in Western and Central Bosnia, and what diplomatic questions now flow out of that changed Map?"

I don't believe that that Map indicates the direct proportions that each side now appears to hold. It's a very rough estimate, if you look at it, but it's certainly an altered Map.

Q Mr. Holbrooke did not offer a percentage?

MR. BURNS: He did not. No, he didn't.

Q On the central question there, is 51/49 still relevant to anything? And are the Muslims clearly willing to give up land if they have to to bring it to 51/49?

MR. BURNS: Fifty-one/forty-nine is very important. It remains important because what we have going here, since we got involved so intensively on the diplomatic side, is a peace process that now has one seminal document. That is the document that was agreed to, in written form, on September 8 in Geneva, which declares that the three countries agree on the principles that will be at the heart of any peace conference.

One of those principles is 51/49 will be the starting point for discussions in any peace conference. Despite the fact that the Bosnian Serbs have lost a lot of ground since September 8 on the ground, and the Bosnian and Croatian Governments have gained a lot, we're not going to change -- and we don't want the parties to change -- that rough basis for the beginning of a peace conference. It took a lot to get to September 8. We certainly don't want to reopen that issue. We want to build on it, in fact, next week in New York and go beyond there towards a peace conference.

Q You say you don't want to reopen it. It's open and moving as we speak.

MR. BURNS: It hasn't moved way beyond 51/49, in this respect. While Dick Holbrooke has not -- I don't believe anyone else has given the Secretary exact figure on what the current breakdown is, because I'm not sure anybody knows, most people believe it's roughly, at this point, even.

Therefore, 51/49 is not such a bad place to start peace discussions after all.

Q Nick, is it your aim next Tuesday to produce an agreement on constitutional principles?

MR. BURNS: No, I don't believe that it's that specific. An agreement on constitutional principles, I assume, will not come until a peace conference because it's one of the most difficult and critical issues for both sides.

We're just trying to make progress. We're trying to get the parties to go beyond the Geneva statement and to fill it out with an agreement on a substantive agenda, and we hope agreement on some of the issues in that agenda. But I think the two critical ones right now are the final constitutional arrangements and the apportionment of land. I don't believe there will be an agreement on either of those until there is a peace conference.

Q You'd like the meeting to produce an agenda for the peace conference; is that it?

MR. BURNS: That is one of the things we're trying to determine, but I'm not offering that today as one of the things that we even expect to have ready next week. If we get them to agree to an agenda, then we may be very close to a peace conference. I'm not sure we'll be there next week.

Next week is a continuation of a peace process that is extremely difficult. I know there is this sense in some quarters that we're just around the corner from a peace conference and just around the corner from a NATO implementation force. We are far away.

We need to make up a lot of ground between now and those two points on a timetable.

Q Have the Bosnians expressed hesitation or asked to change the 51/49? Have they said flatly that they are not going to give up territory they now occupy?

MR. BURNS: No. I've not heard that at all.

Q You've never heard anything remotely --

MR. BURNS: I've never heard that idea proposed to a senior American official. I haven't been in all the conversations but I've been in many of them. I've not heard that.

Q As far as the Bosnians are telling you, they are gung-ho, go forward at 51/49?

MR. BURNS: I've not heard anything to the contrary. That's certainly the American view and the Contact Group view.

Q Nick, no Bosnian Serbs present?

MR. BURNS: In --

Q In the meetings?

MR. BURNS: In New York?

Q Yes.

MR. BURNS: I don't believe there will be Bosnian Serbs there. I haven't been told there will be Bosnian Serbs there.

Q Will there be (inaudible) the last time?

MR. BURNS: Because these are complex, dynamic discussions and negotiations, I can't discount the possibility but I'm not aware that there are any plans for that.

Q Do you want to have, or did you try to have -- what you had when Holbrooke went out there -- which was that the Serbs would deliver the Bosnian Serbs?

MR. BURNS: Milosevic has formed a joint negotiating team. In many points along the way, we'll be dealing with Serb officials from Belgrade who represent the Bosnian Serbs.

Q That's true of next week, too?

MR. BURNS: I think it's going to be true of next week.

Q The negotiating team wasn't just four?

MR. BURNS: I don't have complete knowledge of who is in which delegation. I do want to leave the door open a little bit to the possibility that there might be some Bosnian Serbs in New York City next week.

Q I have trouble with the Map, and I've listened to this. I get the point that it's basically a representation of where the lines are now. But doesn't it give the lie to the notion that there's no point in fighting, you can't gain anything from it?

If the U.S. is now studying a Map that reflects the gains and the losses of the last few weeks, why wouldn't the parties keep fighting and try change the Map even further in a favorable direction? Because, obviously, it registers on the U.S. Government.

MR. BURNS: I think it gets back to self-interest. They have to calculate if it's in their interest to continue a military offensive. In the last two days we've seen a dramatic stiffening of the Bosnian Serb defensive positions west of Banja Luka. I don't think anybody -- least of all the Bosnians and Croatians -- underestimate the fighting capacity of the Bosnian Serbs. The capacity that they clearly have retained despite the fact that they've lost ground and they've withdrawn heavy weapons from Sarajevo.

I think self-interest would dictate, Barry, that these military offensives cease and that the peace negotiations quicken.

Q That's a good answer about realism on the ground. This conflict is motivated not entirely by realistic forces but very emotional forces. If they know the prime peacemaker is watching closely every surge or every fallback, I would think that would motivate them to not put down their rifles?

MR. BURNS: I don't agree. Because the prime peacemaker has also said, along with all of its partners, that 51/49 is the starting point for territorial discussions. So I think that's an important point for everybody in the region to remember and understand.

Q Nick, could you take the question on the Bosnian Serb representation, if there had been visa requests by any Bosnian Serbs? And, if so, how do you issue a visa to someone who doesn't hold a passport?

MR. BURNS: I'll be glad to look into that. I'll be glad to look into that question.

Steve.

Q Have you heard anything -- let me back up. There is a report from Paris that says the Bosnian Serb Foreign Minister said today that there is agreement that Sarajevo will not be divided, which would be a gigantic, sort of diplomatic move, although the suburbs might still be apportioned to the various ethnic groups. Have you heard that? Do you know if that's a truthful statement from him?

MR. BURNS: I haven't seen that particular statement, Steve. But it's our very firm position that Sarajevo must remain a united city and not become a divided city. We've had bitter experience over the last 50-odd years with divided cities -- Berlin and Jerusalem just being two.

So I think it's the very firm position that we have been communicating to all the parties, that Sarajevo ought to be a united city and certainly ought to be the capital of the future state.

I can't tell you exactly what we've heard in the private discussions because some of those must remain private. But if this statement from Paris is, in fact, genuine, then it's certainly a step in the right direction.

Q Is Sarajevo (inaudible) 51 percent -- excuse me?

MR. BURNS: It's part of Bosnia-Herzegovina, so it's a part of the 100 percent. Whether it's part of the 51/49, that's an issue for the negotiators.

Q That's the question we're all -- it's a question. You deal with the capitals in very clever ways -- the State Department does.

Is Sarajevo a Muslim city or isn't it? Will it remain the capital of the mostly Muslim or Muslim majority country? Or is it now everybody's city?

MR. BURNS: It's always been a multi-ethnic city.

Q I know. People of all types live there.

MR. BURNS: It's always been a multi-ethnic city, and I assume it will remain such. We can't dictate before a peace conference has even begun what the final status of Sarajevo will be. It's up to the Bosnians and the Bosnian Serbs to do that -- to negotiate that.

Q Nick, what kinds of discussions are going on or have gone on between the Bosnian Government and the Croatian Government about how they will divide up the land between them? Are you confident that you can avoid fighting between them again over territory?

For example, just to get you started, there were comments in one of the newspaper articles --

MR. BURNS: I need prodding along today -- not being forthcoming today?

Q The comments in one of the newspaper articles that suggested that there might be a dispute over who would get Banja Luka if it were to be conquered, or if it were to be given in a peace treaty to the 51 side rather the 49 side that currently hold it?

MR. BURNS: We are assuming -- in fact, the Geneva document of September 8 states that there will be one country and two entities, two dominant entities, within that country -- one Serb and one Bosnian.

The Bosnians have a Federation. They've got to work out their own problems with the Croatians within that Federation. But, certainly, I think we're talking about all of these three countries -- well, the three countries and all the ethnic groups being a party to the negotiations. I can't get ahead of those negotiations and predict how each of them are going to get along.

We would like to see the Federation strengthened. The Federation has been useful to both sides. It does have a number of problems within it and there are some strains in the Federation that are well known. We have worked -- in fact, that's why Dick Holbrooke met with the two leaders the other day in Zagreb -- to try to narrow the differences on some of the issues within the Federation itself.

Q Just for the record, you oppose, do you not, any changes in the borders of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

MR. BURNS: We do. We believe that the state should survive and, in fact, continue beyond a peace conference within it's current internationally recognized borders.

Q No piece for Croatia?

MR. BURNS: We believe that the current borders should be the final borders. Within those borders, the Bosnian Government and the Bosnian Serbs need to work out constitutional arrangements and land arrangements towards a final settlement. Those are the key issues.

[...]

(The briefing concluded at 2:03 p.m.)

END