[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.