    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George H. W. Bush (1991, Book I)]
    [March 14, 1991]
    [Pages 265-274]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference With President Francois Mitterrand of
    France in Martinique, French West Indies
    March 14, 1991

        President Mitterrand. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It was
    agreed between President George Bush and myself that we would meet again
    as soon as possible after the Gulf war. And President Bush suggested
    that he should come and see me, or come and see us, we, the French, in
    French territory, which is what has just happened in Martinique. And I
    wish to thank the American President very warmly for having
    come to see us, and we are very

    [[Page 266]]

    happy to welcome him here and to welcome him as a friend, as things
    should be.
        And, at the same time, I would like to express to the distinguished
    representatives of Martinique--Members of Parliament, the Regional
    Council, et cetera, and General Council in particular--how very happy I
    am at the way we have been welcomed here. And even before President Bush
    arrived I was able to have enough time to talk with them of the problems
    specific to Martinique. And we were able to resume a dialog that we
    started together many years ago, in particular with President Cesaire.
        Well, we talked about the questions of the day, so to speak. And
    primary, of course, we have the situation after the war in the Gulf. And
    after having reestablished the rule of law, after having achieved very
    considerable success on the part of the forces that were involved, well
    now the time has come to give thought, as we said we would beforehand,
    to give thought to a way to rebuild, or build--you can choose whichever
    you like--an equilibrium, a balance in the Middle East, a way in which
    the peoples of the Middle East can live together. And that is what
    diplomats are working at. And that is the reason for the present visit,
    or the recent visit of the American Secretary of State, Mr. Baker. It's
    also one of the reasons for which we had a lot of things to talk today
    about in Martinique, because we had to get the scale of values right
    with regard to the various problems that we have to deal with, which are
    of different kinds.
        Now we will reply, President Bush and myself, to the questions that
    you may have to ask on the subject.
        Now, we know perfectly well that the Palestinian problem and, by way
    of consequence, the relations between Israel and the Arab countries is
    the key problem through which all the other problems, in fact, arise. We
    examined various possible ways of approaching this. But all this is what
    this press conference will be about. And it's hard for me to imagine the
    questions that you will wish to ask. The best thing is for you to ask
    them, and then, of course, we'll try to answer them.
        And so, after having said once again to President George Bush how
    very happy I was to see him here in Martinique and receive him here and
    how very happy I was at the hours of talks we had together, both
    pleasant and useful, I think that probably he, himself, may wish to say
    a few words before you ask your questions.
        President Bush.
        President Bush. Thank you, Mr. President. What I would simply say is
    two things: one, express my gratitude to the hosts here in Martinique
    and also to President Mitterrand and his team for the hospitality; and
    also to say that we talked in terms of peace halfway around the world,
    about security and stability in the Gulf. We talked about peace in
    Lebanon, an area in which President Mitterrand has a profound knowledge.
    And also another area that fits that description is the Palestinian
    question, the question of the West Bank.
        So, from the American side, these were exceptionally productive
    consultations, and they are in keeping with the spirit of consultation
    that both of us put into effect in the important relationship between
    France and the United States during the war. And this gives me an
    opportunity to thank President Mitterrand for France's steadfast,
    stalwart position, not just in the diplomatic field but, clearly, under
    Admiral [General] Roquejeoffre in the Gulf itself and under his boss,
    President Francois Mitterrand.
        The American people are very, very grateful for that extraordinary--
    predictable, perhaps, but extraordinary cooperation.
        President Mitterrand. Now it will be for you to ask questions. How
    would you like us to do this? I don't know you all, so we have a lot of
    journalists who aren't the usual places that I've seen in Paris. And so,
    therefore, I have to, in fact, make a random choice. So, forgive me if
    it's not always a fair one.
        Sir, you.

    U.S. Hostages in Lebanon

        Q. President Bush, you've had a lot of success in getting the
    American POW's and hostages out of Iraq and Kuwait. After Secretary
    Baker's trip to Syria yesterday and his discussions, can you tell us, do
    you have any new hopes for getting the American hostages out of Lebanon?

    [[Page 267]]

        President Bush. All along the way Secretary Baker discussed the
    plight of the American hostages held presumably in Lebanon, but I don't
    have any specifics on that or can I say that there is any positive
    points for optimism. But rumors continue to persist, and it's clearly in
    the interest of those countries that have some control over the hostages
    or influence over the hostages to permit them to go. So, let's hope that
    as a result of the Baker trip, as a result of the inquiries we continue
    to make to countries with whom we have good relations and those with
    whom we don't have good relations, that those people will be released.
    It would be a very helpful thing and would enable the U.S. to be a much
    more constructive player with more constructive role for peace.

    Middle East Problems

        Q. I would like to ask President Bush two questions. Mr. President,
    are you determined to solve the Palestinian problem the way you were
    determined to liberate Kuwait? And if so, on which basis and what
    formula--an international conference, direct negotiations between Israel
    and the Arab countries, or a regional conference? A last point: What is
    the importance you give to the Lebanese question? Thank you.
        President Bush. The answer is, yes, to the first part of your
    question, we are determined to play a useful role. The answer to the
    second part of your question is, that is one of the reasons for my
    anxiousness to see President Mitterrand, to discuss exactly how we
    should proceed.
        The United States has expressed its position on an international
    conference over and over again, saying that at the right time it could
    be useful. President Mitterrand has surfaced some ideas of his own that
    can be useful. And to respond to the second part of the question, we
    simply have not come across or settled on one path, one single approach,
    to try to solve this Palestine-Israel question.
        It is very important that it do be solved. And we did discuss a lot
    of ideas, some of which I would not feel comfortable in bringing out
    here.
        What was the third part of your question?
        Q. The third part was Lebanon.
        President Bush. Lebanon? I assured President Mitterrand, who is an
    expert in the area, that if there's any way that we can be helpful, we
    would like to do that. It is priority. And as I mentioned in my opening
    remarks, it is the security and stability of the Gulf, it is the
    Lebanon, and it is the Israeli-Palestine question. So yes, it is
    priority. We still think building on the Taif accords is the best
    approach.
        Q. Mr. President, do you still think that Yasser Arafat remains the
    legitimate head and the only head of the Palestinian people, or at least
    the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people? President
    Mitterrand?
        President Mitterrand. It's for the Palestinians to answer that. Mr.
    Yasser Arafat remains, to my knowledge, the leader of the PLO, and to my
    knowledge, the PLO still appears as the representative organization.
    There are doubtless other forces, too, who I think they should make
    themselves known, but that's the situation as it is right now. And there
    are also, just as you know, people who are elected, who are on the spot,
    and who are expressing themselves and asserting themselves. And I think
    that one of them very recently met with Mr. Baker. But it is not for me
    to determine who should represent what. I just take the facts of the
    situation as they are.

    Syria-U.S. Relations

        Q. President Mitterrand, can you tell us your views of the United
    States getting closer, perhaps even cozying up to President Hafiz al
    Assad, and whether your view of the apparent blank check that he has
    from the United States and Lebanon?
        President Bush. At the risk of--[laughter]--it's the second part of
    his question that I would take exception to if you give me a chance when
    you finish the answer, Mr. President. [Laughter]
        President Mitterrand. Of course, I mean, you're more authorized than
    I am to speak on this, and I entirely agree, mind you.
        President Assad is part of the heads of state who have brought their
    Arab countries alongside our own forces in the Gulf war. I don't think
    the man should be reproached, and I think it was better that he

    [[Page 268]]

    should do that from the opposite.
        Now, if it's an opportunity--that gives us an opportunity to
    consider a certain number of problems of substance, and in particular
    the problem of Lebanon, well, then, the chances are that this
    rapprochement should be followed now by other rapprochements, if you
    like. And as I am expressing here myself on behalf of France, yes, I do.
    It's my hope that the sovereignty of Lebanon will be able to be fully
    asserted in accordance with the Taif agreements, which have indicated
    that that was the purpose of the exercise, and I have nothing to say
    against that.
        President Bush. With your permission, Mr. President, I would simply
    add what Mr. Hines [Cragg Hines, Houston Chronicle] said was something
    about a blank check from the United States, which, of course, is totally
    fallacious. But, I can only add to what President Mitterrand said, that
    these discussions--that we were very pleased with Syria's role in the
    coalition, very pleased, indeed, that they were side by side on the
    ground with forces. I can tell you that Secretary Baker had a very
    long--and I think--``interesting'' is an easy word--but I hope they'll
    be productive talks. And Syria is an important country in the area.
    They're vital to what happens in the Lebanon and, of course, they are
    vital a little longer-run in what solutions there are to the Palestinian
    question.
        So, having contact with this country, very openly discussing our
    differences with them as we do, but trying to find common ground, in my
    view is a very good, commonsense approach following on the coalition's
    solidarity in the Gulf.
        President Mitterrand. We can't really start a dialog on this as on
    an individual one, as there are a lot of members of the press who'd like
    to say something. But there are too many people. Perhaps I might ask a
    French journalist if he'd like to say something.

    Middle East Problems

        Q. Mr. President, I have a question for President Bush, to ask him
    if the American approach on the Middle Eastern problems has, in fact,
    changed since the war and because of the war? And I could put the same
    question to President Mitterrand, too.
        President Bush. I'm not sure our approach has changed. I like to
    think we have more credibility in the Middle East today as a result of
    our participation in the Gulf over there. In fact, I'm convinced that's
    true. But what we're now doing is trying to find the new approaches that
    you ask about, not by dictation but through consultation.
        President Mitterrand. I would also answer that question myself. I
    remain perfectly loyal to the proposals and faithful to the proposals
    that I made in September last at the United Nations, subject,
    unfortunately, to one point that you--well, my proposal was designed to
    safeguard peace. But I did see what could happen, and the same proposals
    now, of course, after the war. But they remain, the general design
    remains the same.
        An American journalist, perhaps, last.
        Q. Mr. President, in the last week you've made several distinctions
    between the PLO as an organization and its leader, Yasser Arafat. And
    I'm wondering, in line with the question President Mitterrand answered,
    whether you would be more apt to be willing to resume a dialog with the
    PLO if Yasser Arafat were not its chairman, and whether you felt that it
    would be more likely to be included in a Middle East conference if that
    were the case.
        President Bush. Well, as you may remember, I did say earlier on that
    we were very disappointed with the PLO's stance in solidarity with
    Saddam Hussein. In my view, they went further through their spokesman,
    head, Mr. Arafat, than they needed to go. And this has caused some
    concern among some of the countries that strongly supported the PLO in
    the past, some of the Arab countries. So, my view is this needs some
    time. We are not writing off anything, but we don't have any intention
    of resuming, for example, our dialog.
        I like the way President Mitterrand phrased it now, saying that
    Palestinian representatives had indeed met with the Secretary of State.
    So, we'll pursue that track for a while and just see how the healing
    process goes. But I, again, expressed my disappointment that Arafat
    aligned himself far more than he needed to to protect his

    [[Page 269]]

    flanks with Saddam Hussein. He simply bet on the wrong horse.
        And now we've got a little time here to determine it. But yes,
    there's got to be discussion with Palestinians or you're not going to
    get this problem solved. And that's what Jim Baker was about, and that,
    of course, is what President Mitterrand and I talked about a long, long
    time today.
        President Mitterrand. In any case, as far as we're concerned, the
    end of the war and the conditions under which it happened is such that
    it's not for us to try to open up all useful contacts and try to
    establish all useful contacts and try to really succeed in solving these
    very, very complex problems as we all know. So, in other words, neither
    of us--we don't reject either one or the other. All we're saying is that
    everyone must accept to abandon some of his demands.
        Q. This is a question to President Bush. Have you, today, talked
    about President Mitterrand's proposal to have a summit at the Security
    Council, and did you give the answer of the United States, and what do
    you feel about the idea?
        President Bush. I think all ideas that can make a contribution to
    peace should be put on the table and discussed. Yes, we touched on that.
    President Mitterrand--I'll let him speak to it himself, but there is
    great flexibility on the timing. I think he and I both agree that if we
    embrace a common position we want to feel that it is going to bear
    results. And so, that idea is out there. The United Nations played a
    very useful role in what's gone before. But there was no request on his
    part, nor did I state on our part when such a meeting might be the most
    timely.
        But we saw many meetings of the Security Council during the Gulf
    war, and I think the world would agree that those meetings were very
    productive. And so--I'd leave it this way--there was simply a good
    discussion of that and several other key ideas.
        Q. A question for both Presidents about Iraq. With no cease-fire in
    place and concern about civil unrest in Iraq, what will the coalition
    forces do if Saddam continues to try to put down unrest with his
    military machine?
        President Mitterrand. That's just what is happening right now.
    That's what he's doing, so it would appear. It seems to be what is
    happening with varying degrees of success. I, personally, am not
    sufficiently informed to be able to tell you who is winning the battle
    in various parts of the country of Iraq. I think with this sort of
    situational logic which is such that Mr. Saddam Hussein will end up by
    understanding that his errors of judgment and that his very serious
    military defeat will make his situation very difficult as a head of
    state in the future to discuss with other countries how to rebuild his
    country.
        But right at the outset, we said that it was not our intention to
    conquer Iraq but to liberate Kuwait. As at the outset, we said that we
    aren't heading for Baghdad, we were not aiming for Baghdad. So, it's
    perfectly clear that it is not our intention, even if very often what
    we're seeing is a very sorry spectacle very often, but at the same time,
    we cannot arbitrate by military means all the conflicts in that part of
    the world or in other parts of the world. But the fact remains that
    there are certain rules--[inaudible]--not to the cease-fire yet, but to
    the temporary armistice. And if that was to be violated--but I think
    that will not be the case--the matter is over.
        But the rules indicate clearly that Iraq is not free just to do
    anything. As far as France is concerned, that particular period of our
    intervention in the Middle East is now terminated.
        President Bush. I listened very carefully to that answer, and I
    agree with it. I mean, we are not in there trying to impose a solution
    inside Iraq. So, I would agree with the way President Mitterrand phrased
    that. I would only add that I am concerned and I expect he is, too,
    about the reports coming out of there. But what President Mitterrand
    said in the beginning is true: Nobody has all the information about
    what's going on there, who's trying to emerge. But he cited the
    coalition goals, and I agree with him.
        Q. A question for both of you, President Bush, President Mitterrand.
    Are you not somewhat irritated by the intransigence shown by Israel? And
    are you going to exercise perhaps more than friendly pressure on Mr.
    Shamir that he should perhaps be a little less intransigent?

    [[Page 270]]

        President Bush. Well, your question implies to me a little bit that
    there's only one intransigent party in the Middle East. And so, what
    we're trying to do is get those who are deemed by one or another of us
    as intransigent to come forward. We have Arab countries that are in a
    state of war with Israel. And let's hope that out of this conflict in
    the Gulf, countries will see that the answer is to cease having a state
    of war. Let's hope that countries who have been unwilling to talk with
    Israel will be willing to talk with Israel. Let's hope Israel will be
    forthcoming.
        But I just didn't want to leave the question such that there was an
    intransigence on the part of only one country. Yes, they've been
    reluctant to do certain things for valid reasons of their own security.
    But let us find ways now where we can kind of help guarantee their
    security requirements, and let's encourage those who have been unwilling
    to even talk to them, say nothing of end the state of war with them, to
    do both. So, that's what our diplomatic efforts will be aimed at.
        President Mitterrand. One has to choose between peace and perpetual
    war. And if one wants to achieve peace, two conditions have to be met.
    The first is that one must look for reasonable compromise solutions in
    everyone's interest; therefore, one cannot, one cannot be intransigent.
    And secondly, we must ensure the security of everyone. That means the
    security of Israel, too. If those two conditions are met, I think one
    should condemn those that would prefer war to peace.
        Q. For both Presidents. We've heard a lot of talk about territory
    for peace, land for peace. What exactly is it that you envision if land
    is given? Would it be a Palestinian state? Would it be an unarmed
    Palestinian state? What exactly is your vision there?
        President Mitterrand. Forgive me. Well, I was thinking of something
    else. So, first I'll listen to President Bush and then I'll get the
    meaning of the question.
        President Bush. We are not talking about a Palestinian state, per
    se. What we are doing is exploring. What Secretary Baker is doing is
    talking to the key parties, not just on the Palestinian question but on
    the Gulf and on the Lebanon. And then I hope that we'll be able to get
    with our staunch friends, one of whom is standing right here, and others
    and find a way to bring about a solution to this question.
        But we haven't gone that far. We do not have a set formula as to how
    that question should be resolved. The position of the United States has
    been--and I'll repeat it here--that a Palestinian state is not the
    answer. Others happen to think that it is the answer. So, let's find
    common ground and find a way to get to bring peace to that area.
        Clearly, you're going to have to have--address ourselves to the
    homeland question--some question for a home for Palestinians. And
    President Mitterrand had some very good ideas that he expressed to me
    privately on that.
        I would add, Jordan is an important country in all of this, not
    directly in response to your question. But though we've had strained
    relations with Jordan, I think we're in agreement that Jordan must not,
    and should not, be written off. So, we haven't gotten to the formulation
    yet. What we're trying to do is figure what will work.
        President Mitterrand. Thank you very much, my dear President and
    friends. Now I understand the question. As far as I'm concerned, yes, I
    have used the word ``state.'' And if you like, I can repeat it. I have
    been loyal to the U.N. resolutions, because when Israel was set up, it
    had been decided by the United Nations that there would be two states.
    One has forgotten one of the two parts of the resolutions since those
    days.
        Now, I'm not saying that there should be such-and-such a form of
    state in such-and-such a place, but it is--I sense, if you like,
    intuitively, and it's also based on my knowledge of the history--and the
    certain dangerous history. I know that it's dangerous to refuse to a
    people that chose its vitality--it's a danger to refuse it any form of
    identity.
        And so, all right, the next question is that one has to build in
    reality some kind of response to that concept. And that's the whole
    question. If you want to put the question to me, I would simply refer
    you to the U.N. resolutions which were adopted, admittedly, many, many,
    many years ago.

    [[Page 271]]

    But those resolutions have not been canceled.
        Q. A question to both of you, please. President Bush, could you
    clarify what you were talking about when you referred yesterday to the
    Iraqi use of helicopter gunships being in violation of the cease-fire?
    And you also implied that American troops would stay in southern Iraq as
    long as such a thing was happening. Some people could say--a devil's
    advocate could say Saddam Hussein has the right to quash internal revolt
    and that has nothing to do with any cease-fire accords.
        And, President Mitterrand, you seem to have indicated that you feel
    that at least these two powers should stay out of Iraq's internal
    affairs.
        President Bush. Well, my answer on the helicopters is: That was not
    our understanding that they would be used to quash their own citizens.
    And I have nothing more to say to it, except all that does is make it
    very, very complicated in terms of bringing about a final cease-fire--
    formalized, signed cease-fire.
        I don't think I said anything about what I'm going to do about troop
    dispositions in there, but clearly those troops are not going to be--all
    of them out there until there's a cease-fire--a formalized cease-fire.
    And I'd like to see--and we talked about this a little bit today--some
    peace-keeping arrangement. I want to get our troops home. I do not want
    to play into the hands of Iran and other countries that have suggested
    what we want is a permanent stationing of U.S. troops in the area. I
    want to bring them home.
        But I'd like to have some security arrangements in place. And all
    I'm saying is, using helicopters like this to put down one's own people
    does not add to the stability of the area and makes it very difficult.
    And besides--I'll repeat--it was not my understanding that they were
    going to use helicopters for this nature; it was represented that they
    were to be used for something else.
        President Mitterrand. France sent her soldiers alongside friends, in
    particular American friends, in order to implement the U.N. resolutions.
    The goals that you mentioned are the goals set by the United Nations.
    And, in fact, we have not been asked to reestablish law and order within
    a country once the neighboring country had been liberated, which is now
    the case.
        You, sir.
        Q. France and the United States have traditionally taken a slightly
    different position on the question of an international conference on
    Middle East peace. After the war, that question is in the air again. Is
    there still a difference between the French and the American views on
    that issue?
        President Mitterrand. Well, I repeated my own point of view so often
    that I'm almost embarrassed to be repeating myself so often. But for a
    very long time, I've thought that it was possible to achieve peace in
    the Israeli-Arab conflict by a bilateral dialog. And that is why I was
    one of the few French politicians at the time--this was many years ago--
    to have approved of the Camp David agreements, because my feeling was
    that they reestablished peace, anyway, between Egypt and Israel.
        For a very long time, it was my wish that this would be the case for
    others, and I believed this would be possible. But also, for a very long
    time now, I no longer believe that to be possible. And so, I had hopes.
    Those hopes were not fulfilled. And I gave a lot of thought to this. And
    so, I reached the conclusion, in the light of certain ways of
    approaching history, if you like, that the dialog inevitably had to be a
    multilateral dialog, that you had to bring in a multiple interest,
    different interests, which would exercise some influence, which would
    reestablish a climate for compromise solutions among the protagonists,
    getting away, if you like, from the direct force-to-force relationship
    between the protagonists. And that is why I proposed a conference or
    several international conferences, in order to try to tackle and
    approach the various problems of the Middle East.
        But I did not, mind you, ever indicate exactly how many people this
    should be, or I didn't eliminate or exclude anyone. It's not for me to
    decide that kind of thing. But I think that the procedure would probably
    turn out to be more effective than the other one that hasn't worked.
        What I'm trying to achieve is peace by

    [[Page 272]]

    general agreement and that peace should rule the Middle East. If it is
    necessary, as I think is the case, that outside powers should take part
    in such discussions, well, then that's the way to go about it. But if,
    on the other hand, the countries of the region think that they're
    capable of doing this together just among themselves--Israel, Saudi
    Arabia, and Iraq and Syria and the others, et cetera--well, so much the
    better. So much the better. The important thing is that peace should win
    the day.
        President Bush. My view, Gerry [Gerald Seib, Wall Street Journal],
    is it has not changed. We've said a conference at an appropriate time.
    But we've got a chance now to think anew. And that's what we're in the
    process of trying to do here.
        Q. You said the period of French intervention in the Middle East is
    terminated. Do you have any doubts, or do you disagree with the
    continued presence of the coalition forces in southern Iraq? Are you in
    dispute at all with President Bush on that?
        And a second question for President Bush, if I may. Sir, in the 2
    weeks since the war ended, it's only now that we've seen these pictures
    of the destruction of the convoys of Iraqi vehicles on the roads from
    Kuwait to Basra, what one of the allied pilots called ``a turkey
    shoot.'' Do you have any thoughts, Mr. President, that perhaps we let
    the fighting go on too long and too hard?
        President Bush. No. I'll answer my part now. No. None at all.
        President Mitterrand. On my side, the answer is simple. Forgive my
    repeating myself. I consider our matters as being fulfilled. We've done
    our job. If it remains necessary in view of the various movements that
    are taking place in the region to ensure that the new focuses of unrest
    don't burst up again, well, then, we'll try to help and we'll do
    whatever the Security Council decides. But we will not go beyond the
    Security Council. That's all I said, and there's no need to dwell on
    this, I think.
        Q. My question is addressed to you both, Mr. Presidents. What, in
    your analysis, is safer for the security of the Gulf area: The remaining
    of Saddam Hussein, weakened and having lost the war, or the takeover by
    fundamentalist Shiite regime?
        President Mitterrand. I don't decide about the interests of France
    on the basis of preferences of that kind. Otherwise, there would be
    tremendous upheavals, there would be constant upheavals on the day which
    I would tell you about my intimate feelings about this war or that war.
    But that isn't the point. But which would I be most afraid of--rebellion
    on the part of the Shiites for the moment--you said--you must recognize
    the fact that Saddam Hussein hasn't had too many pleasant things for us.
    He has rejected all opportunities for peace, and he is paying the price
    of war. And it's not for me to judge those who want to take his place.
    It's not for me to judge them at the moment, so I'm not going to answer
    your question.
        President Bush. I agree with his answer. I'm not going to answer
    your question either. [Laughter] But you spell out two hypotheses. It's
    a little too negative. Perhaps there's something that's a little more
    positive than either of those two alternatives. Let's hope so.
        President Mitterrand. The lady.
        Q. Mr. President, I'd like to return to the question of the hostages
    for a moment. There are reports that Iran is offering its good offices,
    its influence, in trying to secure their freedom if in exchange Israel
    would free Sheik Obeid. Can you comment on that, please?
        President Bush. No, I can't because I know nothing about it. I've
    read the reports, but nobody has come to me saying this is an offer from
    Iran.
        President Mitterrand. Soon it will be the end, so President Bush can
    go home. President Bush still has some traveling to do.
        Q. Mr. President--President Bush, that is--may I ask if you are not
    just a bit disappointed in those states that many Americans feel were
    salvaged by this coalition, specifically Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, that
    they did not approach Secretary Baker with a bit more flexibility on the
    question of making peace with Israel?
        President Bush. I would say that there's very few of us know exactly
    what they did say to Secretary Baker. And I had reported to me, by the
    Secretary, that there was some progress made. And so, I'm not going

    [[Page 273]]

    to look at any negative point there. The Saudis and the Kuwaitis have
    been very, very cooperative. And let's hope that the Baker trip will be
    the first, and then there'll will be some more steps. And then there
    will be some international action that President Mitterrand was talking
    about. And maybe the French will go off and do something. But let's hope
    that each step moves things forward.
        I am not about to say that the Saudis and the Kuwaitis were not
    forthcoming. And if you're ever going to accomplish something,
    regrettably what is discussed with them must be kept confidential. Peace
    has avoided us for far too long out there, and the last thing I want to
    do is to try to be premature in assessing what one or the other
    coalition partners might be willing to do or have said that they're
    willing to do.
        But I am not discouraged, Wyatt [Wyatt Andrews, CBS News], at all as
    a result of the report I received from Secretary Baker.
        President Mitterrand. I consider that what Mr. Baker is doing is
    very useful. Because already, they have managed to clear the ground.
    They helped to clear the ground, and it's a ground which is pretty
    cluttered up. And we intend taking part in this work that really has to
    be done. There's a lot of diplomacy that is going to have to be done in
    order to avoid, once again, people who have recourse to military force.
    So, I think that our duty is clear. And what Mr. Baker is doing is going
    to provide us with material for our assessment on what we should do in
    the Middle East. And he's establishing contacts. And we must open up new
    paths in relations with states. And it is our common duty. And we will
    greatly benefit from the type of talks that he is having.
        You, sir. Yes. And then I think this is, as you say, last but one,
    right?
        Q. This is for President Bush. To follow on your answer to John's
    [John Cochran, NBC News] question, are you at all surprised that this
    process of nailing down a cease-fire and formally ending the war seems
    to be bogging down what you called details yesterday? And secondly, is
    there any chance that we're going to have a Korea-like situation where
    some time from now we're still going to be fighting over when the troops
    leave Iraq and when there's going to be a formal end to the war?
        President Bush. I don't see a good chance for a Korea-like
    situation. I am concerned about the instability inside of Iraq. But I
    think President Mitterrand put that very well when he said that was not
    an objective for us to dictate or control the situation in there. I
    think when you look back at how promptly Iraq came to that tent and then
    followed on with several of the requirements, I think that that's a
    reason to be optimistic.
        But we are not going to permit this to drag on in terms of U.S.
    significant presence a la Korea. So, I'm not worried about that
    parallel.
        President Mitterrand. Well, I think that we'll probably bring this
    to a close. Madame, you will have the last word, right?
        Q. It's a question for both of you. I'd like to ask you whether you
    think that in this process for the establishment of peace and security
    in the whole of the region of the Near and Middle East, do you think
    there's room for the solution of the problem of Cyprus? And if so, in
    what framework?
        President Mitterrand. Well, clearly, the problem of Cyprus is a
    problem that exists in its own right. It is not a problem directly
    related to the problems that we've just been talking about since the
    beginning of this conversation with the press. It's a problem that
    exists in its own right, but it is also part of--well, it's a matter of
    international law. And United Nations have, on several occasions,
    expressed themselves. So, this is a problem that is not forgotten. But
    you, yourself, have so far centered your questions mainly on the Middle
    East. Cyprus is not actually part of the Middle East. It's not very far,
    admittedly.
        Now, I'd simply like to say in closing that we did also talk about
    other things. We even talked about Europe. [Laughter] Yes, and North
    Africa, too. Europe, which is very alive in all its diversity--the
    movements that are taking place in Europe and the awakening of
    nationalities and the attempts, already pretty well advanced, to sort of
    construct Europe in all areas. We talked about all that in very
    friendly--it was appropriate.
        I just wanted to add this information be-

    [[Page 274]]

    cause we're here on the American continent side of the ocean, so it's
    natural that wasn't the main thing that you were concerned about, I did
    want you to know that we did talk about Europe, too. We have problems
    there, too.
        Well, anyway, thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you very
    much for your presence in our midst. And thank you, ladies and
    gentlemen. We will be meeting again soon, but somewhere else.
        President Bush. Mr. President, with your permission--she asked both,
    and I didn't pop in there. But on Cyprus, again, the U.N. mandate is the
    thing, and the mandate of the Secretary-General. Those are the key words
    in terms to the resolution of the Cyprus question in terms of U.S.
    policy. And that's what we will be backing, is the Secretary-General's
    mandate, hoping that that will lead to peace in Cyprus.
        Thank you all very much.

                        Note: The President's 74th news conference began at
                            4:30 p.m. in the Bougainvillier Room at the
                            Hotel Meridien. President Mitterrand spoke in
                            French, and his remarks were translated by an
                            interpreter. In the news conference, the
                            following persons were referred to: Deputy Aime
                            Cesaire, former President of the Regional
                            Council of Martinique; Secretary of State James
                            A. Baker III; Yasser Arafat, leader of the
                            Palestine Liberation Organization; President
                            Hafiz al-Assad of Syria; President Saddam
                            Hussein of Iraq; Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir
                            of Israel; and Sheik Abdul Karim Obeid, Moslem
                            religious leader and Hizballah leader who was
                            abducted by Israeli forces in southern Lebanon
                            in 1989. Parts of this news conference could not
                            be verified because the tape was incomplete.
                            Following the news conference, President Bush
                            traveled to Bermuda.