Browse through our Interesting Nodes of the Hellenic Government Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923) Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923)
HR-Net - Hellenic Resources Network Compact version
Today's Suggestion
Read The "Macedonian Question" (by Maria Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou)
HomeAbout HR-NetNewsWeb SitesDocumentsOnline HelpUsage InformationContact us
Friday, 29 March 2024
 
News
  Latest News (All)
     From Greece
     From Cyprus
     From Europe
     From Balkans
     From Turkey
     From USA
  Announcements
  World Press
  News Archives
Web Sites
  Hosted
  Mirrored
  Interesting Nodes
Documents
  Special Topics
  Treaties, Conventions
  Constitutions
  U.S. Agencies
  Cyprus Problem
  Other
Services
  Personal NewsPaper
  Greek Fonts
  Tools
  F.A.Q.
 

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #80, 97-05-27

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article

From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>


989

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Monday, May 27, 1997

Briefer: John Dinger

ANNOUNCEMENTS
1                Referendum in Slovakia
1                Town Meeting on Foreign Policy in Topeka, Kansas
1                This Day in Diplomacy: Anniversary of SALT I Signing

IRAN 2-3 Presidential Election Results and the Possibility of U.S.-Iran Dialogue

MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS 4 Reports of the Use of Torture by Palestinian Police 4 Update on the Case of Jailed American Journalist, Daoud Kuttab 4 Death Threats to Palestinians Who Sell Land to Israelis

AFGHANISTAN 5-6 Update on Taleban Military Alliance Advances and U.S. Recognition of States 6-8 Treatment of Women and Children Under Taleban Authority 7 Reconstruction of Afghanistan 8 Requirements Previous to the Renewal of Foreign Investment in the Oil Industry

SIERRA LEONE 8-9 Update on Situation in Freetown After Weekend Coup D'Etat

THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO 9-10 Ban on Public Demonstrations and Political Party Activity 9-10 Visit of Ambassador Richardson and Interagency Team to Aid Transition

KOREA 10-11 Agreement Between North and South Korean Red Crosses on Food Aid

CANADA 11-15 Ships Seized in Relation to Negotiations Over the Pacific Salmon Dispute 14 Closing of Missile Testing Range in British Columbia

BURMA 15 Delay of Burma's Application to ASEAN

UN 15-16 Disagreement Between NYC and Russia Over Expansion and Renovation of Russian Mission to the UN's Residential Compound

CYPRUS 16 Reports of Cyprus Importing Parts of Russian Missile Systems

NATO 16 Command of AFSOUTH in Italy


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #80

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 1997 1: 27 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. DINGER: Good afternoon. Sorry for the slight delay. Welcome to the State Department briefing. I have two or three things I'd just like to start off with.

First, I'd like to say something about the referendum in Slovakia. Slovakia's May 23 and May 24 referendum is a matter of serious concern to the United States. The process was gravely flawed. As a result, Slovak voters were unable to express their will on two issues of obvious importance to them. The government's failure to comply with the decisions of the Referendum Commission, which is the authority responsible, under Slovak law, for overseeing the referendum, shows a lack of respect for the rule of law by the Government of Slovakia.

The United States views the government's conduct during this referendum as a step backward from the democratic record of free and fair elections in Slovakia since 1989. That statement will be available in the press office, following the briefing.

Also, just a reminder that there will be a town meeting on U.S. foreign policy in Topeka, Kansas, on Thursday, May 29th. In cooperation with the International Center of Topeka, Incorporated, and Washburn University, the Department is cosponsoring a town meeting on U.S. foreign policy. The program will include our Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, Thomas Finger; our Regional Security Affairs Officer, Bradley Freden; and our Policy Planning staff member, John Sammis - open for press coverage. We have an announcement with more details in the press office.

Finally, on Friday, the Secretary had no diplomatic history event of note to bring to your attention; but I do today. This day - or yesterday, I should say - marked the 25th anniversary of the signing of two U.S.-Soviet arms control treaties on the limitation of anti-ballistic missile systems and of strategic offensive weapons that launched the two major nuclear powers on an uneven but committed course toward the creation of a more disarmed world. Discussions leading to the two agreements, which were signed by President Richard Nixon and Soviet Communist Party Secretary Leonid Brezhnev in Moscow on May 26, 1972, came to be known as the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks, and the treaties came to be known as SALT I. We have more information on that available in the press office.

QUESTION: What about today?

MR. DINGER: Today I don't have anything, but yesterday's was so auspicious that I decided to give it to you today. George, your question.

QUESTION: Do you have a definitive response to the outcome of the elections in Iran over the weekend?

MR. DINGER: There are quite a few comments from U.S. government officials on that. I can tell you that we, of course, have watched this election and developments in Iran. We do not have any independent basis for a judgment on many aspects of the vote which took place. We also know of no international observers to the elections.

Nevertheless, we have made clear that the standard against which we measure Iran, virtually all developments in Iran, is regarding its objectionable international behavior. What we will look for and what we have looked for regarding Iran is that it stop its state sponsorship of terrorism; that it end its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction; and that it stop its efforts to undermine the Middle East peace process. That is what we watch most closely regarding Iran and that is what we will continue to watch most closely.

QUESTION: Does that mean that there is no review analysis of the Iranian election underway in the U.S. Government as to whether this man truly is a moderate, and whether the U.S. ought to make an overture?

MR. DINGER: Our analysis of the election and the new government in Iran will be based on Iran's international behavior, first and foremost. That involves its efforts to undermine the Middle East peace process, its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, and its state sponsorship of terrorism. That is the standard against which we will measure this government - full stop. We look forward to that.

The ball is in Iran's court regarding any future contact with the United States Government. We have said for some time that we are willing to enter into a dialogue with Iran. But top on our agenda will be Iran's objectionable international behavior. If Iran is willing to bring that to the table, then we are willing to engage in a dialogue.

QUESTION: Well, wait. Does that mean you will discuss these things with Iran? Or they have to commit first, and then you will have talks?

MR. DINGER: They have to commit to a real dialogue on those issues, and we are willing to discuss it.

QUESTION: But they don't have to say, we're sorry about what we have done in the past -- no more terrorism, let's talk?

MR. DINGER: I think the way I would clarify that is to say that we are willing to discuss those issues with them. It would be virtually impossible for us to move beyond those issues to any other substantive issues until they have resolved them.

QUESTION: Sir?

MR. DINGER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Richard Murphy, assistant secretary of state between the years '83-'89, who recently led the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force and Gulf Policy said that the Administration should respond with new overtures to show it was serious about its stated readiness to reopen a dialogue with Iran. Do you agree with him?

MR. DINGER: With all due respect to Assistant Secretary Murphy, our position is clear, and that is that Iran engages in clearly objectionable behaviors -- one of which was just reinforced recently by a court decision in Germany -- and that there can only be a hope for a dialogue and progress and momentum, any sort of momentum in our relationship with Iran, once those three areas are adequately addressed.

QUESTION: So don't expect any overtures - American overtures towards Iran in light of the new elections for a moderate leader in the country?

MR. DINGER: The ball is in Iran's court.

QUESTION: But France, one of your close supporters, still supported open dialogue with Tehran.

MR. DINGER: Of course, there are issues regarding Iran policy with which we do not see eye-to-eye with several of our allies. We, of course, do not engage at all with Iran. There are some of our allies in Europe which do. Our position is simply that if those countries or any country does engage in a dialogue with Iran, that they should make clear the importance of Iran altering its objectionable international policies. We certainly hope and call upon those countries to ensure that that is at the top of their agenda, as well.

QUESTION: New subject.

QUESTION: One more. The word "open dialogue" used to be in the guidance. Is that still part of the approach, that any dialogue would be open with the Iranians?

MR. DINGER: I don't think we have intentionally put in or removed any words. Our policy towards Iran is unchanged. Let me go back here first.

QUESTION: The U.S. ambassador to Tel Aviv said that now it's time to reassessment the policy towards Iran. So based on what you have just said, you disagree with him?

MR. DINGER: I'm sorry, but I have not seen any comment like that. So I can't react. I'm sure that Ambassador Indyk represented U.S. Government views - he is an excellent, excellent ambassador. To be fair to everybody involved here, I have not seen those reports. So I just simply can't react to it at all. Howard.

QUESTION: Still on the region. John, a Palestinian human rights group had a news conference the other day - essentially a long expose, a recitation of the abuses going on in the Palestinian Authority. Do you have any comment on that?

MR. DINGER: Only that the United States Government opposes any use of torture against detainees or prisoners anywhere in the world. I mean, that is standard, broad U.S. policy. The American Government and the American people oppose the use of torture. Our views on the human rights situation in the territory administered by the Palestinian Authority are contained in our annual human rights report. I took a look at that report this morning, after reading this report, and it does address these issues quite forthrightly, as our reports generally do on every area of the world.

Also, we regularly discuss human rights issues with the Palestinian Authority. This particular report we have not had a chance to analyze closely. We certainly will do that and in that context, will continue our dialogue with the Palestinian Authority on those issues.

QUESTION: Just to follow up, any progress on the case involved Daoud Kuttab?

MR. DINGER: I cannot report to you any progress. I would say that to the best of our knowledge, he remains in detention. Now, we have heard reports that he may have been released. I cannot confirm them to you at this moment. The last we knew, he had not yet been charged with any crime. As you know, we have been deeply disturbed by his detention; and we have called for his immediate release. If that has happened; clearly we hope that has happened.

It's important that the Palestinian Authority demonstrate its commitment to the rule of law, and also that it show respect for the freedom of the press. We will continue to insist in the strongest terms on Mr. Kuttab's release, and certainly hope it has just occurred - although I cannot confirm it.

QUESTION: One more still on the region?

MR. DINGER: Yeah.

QUESTION: The justice minister from the Palestinian Authority who started the whole brouhaha over land sales, I guess about a month ago now, seems to have extended his reach by calling on a ban on land sales by Arabs to Jews in Israel proper. Do you have any comment?

MR. DINGER: I'm not sure I have anything to add on our position, because our position has been fairly clear. Certainly the issue of a death penalty - well, two issues. One is any extra-judicial action or killings or murders regarding this issue is absolutely unacceptable, obviously. Additionally, if there is a penalty of that severity, it is clearly outrageous and unacceptable. I have not seen the report about his extending, but I think our position would apply regardless of where the issue stands today.

QUESTION: On the Taliban - are now in control of almost the entire Afghanistan. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia recognize the Taliban government. What is the U.S. position on that?

MR. DINGER: If I can go through what I have, we do of course acknowledge that the Taliban militia and forces aligned with it have occupied almost all of the territory previously under the control of General Dostam, including the city of Mazar-e-Sharif. We do understand that the city is quiet and that there has not been a significant flow of refugees out of Northern Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, we have seen reports of tensions between the Taliban and their new northern allies over control of the North. We're following the situation as closely as possible, given the fact, of course, we have no official U.S. representation in Afghanistan. I would also note that there are two remaining factions opposed to the Taliban. It is not yet clear what those remaining factions are going to do.

Meanwhile, and really to the point, the United States continues to urge an immediate end to fighting. We call on all Afghan parties to avoid violence, repression or reprisals in the aftermath of the fall of General Dostam. We also urge the Taliban and other Afghan groups to join together to establish a broadly representative government that will protect the rights of all Afghans and abide by Afghanistan's international obligations.

We also want to express our support for the United Nations in this effort, particularly its special representative for Afghanistan, Norbert Holl. The UN and the special representative in particular are obviously very well placed to assist in this process. I would note that as a general policy, the United States recognizes states not governments. We have been engaged with the Taliban, as we have with other Afghan factions, since it was established almost three years ago. We will continue to do so. So we acknowledge that the Taliban now controls much of Afghanistan's territory. The issue of recognition is not actually germane since we recognize states, not governments.

QUESTION: When are you sending an ambassador?

MR. DINGER: We have no plans at this point to send an ambassador. The Taliban have not asked to take control of the Afghan embassy in Washington. If they do so, we will deal with that issue. I don't want to speculate on that issue now. The other issue where the aspect of recognition might come up is regarding the United Nations seat. That obviously would be a decision to be taken by the United Nations, in conjunction with all UN members. Once again, we're not aware that the Taliban has asked to occupy Afghanistan's seat at the United Nations. Should that happen, we will take an appropriate position.

QUESTION: The U.S. is not recognizing at this time the Taliban's government?

MR. DINGER: That's correct. We do not -- as a general policy we recognize states, not governments.

QUESTION: But what do you think about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan -- ?

MR. DINGER: I have no reaction to that whatsoever. It's not our decision. I do want to stress, we have been in touch with the Taliban as a faction since its inception some three years ago. We have been in touch with all of the factions in Afghanistan.

QUESTION: You are waiting for the rest of the world? More countries will come forward to recognize - or when the U.S. will recognize, you think?

MR. DINGER: I don't want to speculate on that at the moment. It's not an issue that is before us, because the two venues in which it might be before us would be if the Taliban asked to send an ambassador to the United States, which it has not; or if it asks to take over the seat at the United Nations - at which point, as a member of the United Nations, with all other members, we would address that issue - neither of which is before us at the moment.

QUESTION: Any moment the Taliban could fill three of the courses of recognition, even sending an ambassador to Kabul would be recognizing that government. So they control the capital, they control most of the territory and there is peace in that territory - so these three. What other considerations U.S. would have to send an ambassador there?

MR. DINGER: At this point, I really don't want to speculate about the U.S. sending an ambassador or a diplomatic representative or stationing in Kabul. We have maintained contact with the Taliban. You all know that we have met with them in the region. We've met with them in Afghanistan. We've met with them in Washington on many occasions. We will continue to do that. Beyond that, I don't want to speculate.

QUESTION: There have been reports that the Muslim clerics in Mazar-e- Sharif made some very strong statements that the women have to go back into the homes, the aid workers cannot get out, et cetera. Do you have any comment on that? And were these issues raised in your contacts with the Taliban?

MR. DINGER: Well, we have made quite clear that we object to the severe restrictions put on women and children by the Taliban. We have objected quite strongly and publicly on that. And, yes, we certainly do raise those issues whenever we meet with the Taliban, on every occasion.

QUESTION: And what has been their response, in general?

MR. DINGER: To the best of my knowledge, we have not seen any change in the Taliban's practices.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. ready to take some more steps to protect the rights of women and all Afghans?

MR. DINGER: I think what the Taliban should recognize is that by, I would think, most international standards, the restrictions that it places on women and girls are extreme and unacceptable by international standards.

What Afghanistan is going to need in order to recover from the many years of war is international assistance, international engagement, international involvement. And I think the Taliban should see it as being in its interest to adopt policies that are going to encourage international engagement. I would think that an easing of the restrictions on the activities of women and girls would certainly be one of those steps.

QUESTION: I just have one more question on the region. Do you see any role in reconstruction in Afghanistan for, let's say, Pakistan and India?

MR. DINGER: Of course we're getting way out in front of the issue here, because although the Taliban has seemingly taken control of the vast majority of Afghanistan, we certainly are not at the point today of discussing in concrete terms reconstruction or assistance. What I would say again is that what we have seen throughout the world, when a country has been at war for such a long period of time, is that the key to recovery and reconstruction is international involvement - both on a government level, but more importantly on a private level.

Once there is peace, once there is hopefully a broad-based democracy in Afghanistan, then I would certainly think that there is a role for the entire international community, public and private, to play a role in the reconstruction. But there are quite a number of hurdles that need to be overcome before that.

QUESTION: Well, what kind of government do you think Afghanistan will have? Is it radical Islamic?

MR. DINGER: I don't want to speculate. I can tell you, though, very clearly what we want to see there, and what I think the international community wants to see there, and that is a broadly representative government that represents the rights of all Afghanistans. That is what the United States Government looks for for everyone in the world. That is what the American people believe its government should support, and that is what we will do regarding Afghanistan.

What we will be looking at now is what transpires in the coming weeks, months and perhaps years in Afghanistan. But what we fundamentally believe in - whether it is in Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world - is democracy, free-market and respect for human rights. We certainly hope that any government in Afghanistan also supports those principles.

QUESTION: Back to the question of the Taliban's treatment of women. When the Taliban took control of Kabul, they imposed the Draconian separation, segregation of the sexes. But it also said, you know, it's an unstable time, give us six months and we'll come up with - we will codify these kinds of things and it won't be as severe. Have you seen any moderation in their treatment of women in areas they have occupied over a period of time?

MR. DINGER: I am not aware that there has been any moderation. Of course, we have seen reports today that they have imposed quite strict rules elsewhere. I guess you're saying maybe -- that is in the new areas, has there been any change in the --

QUESTION: Well, that is what they said - but have you? I asked if you see any evidence at all?

MR. DINGER: I should say I am not aware. I am not knowledgeable enough to comment. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no easing of those restrictions.

QUESTION: The oil companies, U.S. oil companies, are sort of raring to go in Afghanistan to make these two big oil pipelines. Now, recognition of the Afghan Government, would that be required before they can sign deals? Or do you have any role to play in that?

MR. DINGER: I don't think there would be any direct U.S. Government role in that. However, it is an excellent opportunity for me to stress once again, that if there is going to be international investment anywhere in Afghanistan in this instance, companies, businesses -- whether they are American or transnational or based elsewhere - are going to look for stability.

The history has shown -- particularly recent history has shown that companies invest where there is stability, and that stability is present where there is respect for democratic principles, for the principles of free-market economics, and respect for human rights. So I would certainly hope that any new government in Afghanistan would recognize that it's in its interest, across the board, to respect those principles. I think that's really undeniable. Still on Afghanistan?

QUESTION: Do you have any meetings coming up?

MR. DINGER: I'm not aware of any scheduled meetings with the Taliban or of the other remaining factions. But we have met with all the factions on a relatively regular basis.

QUESTION: Sierra Leone?

MR. DINGER: All right, Sierra Leone.

QUESTION: Can you bring us up to date on the situation there? Can you also give us a breakdown of the number of private Americans you think are in that country, and official Americans?

MR. DINGER: Let me run through what I have on Sierra Leone. Of course, there was a military coup d'etat of the government in Sierra Leone on May 25th. The capital has been taken over by a group calling itself Armed Forces Revolutionary Council, under the leadership of Major Johnny Koromah. There were reports of sporadic shooting in Freetown over the weekend. A dusk to dawn curfew is in effect. There has been no shooting, to our knowledge, in the capital today. We understand that President Kabbah has left Freetown and is in Guinea.

The United States condemns the coup, which overthrew Sierra Leone's first democratically elected government in three decades. We call upon those claiming power in Freetown to return authority promptly to the country's elected leadership and parliament. Also we hold the AFRC responsible for the safety and well-being of all Americans, all foreign residents and of course, ultimately, for the safety of the civilians of Sierra Leone. We are not aware of the arrest reported today of civilian ministers.

Our charge at the American embassy in Freetown, along with other diplomats, met with Major Koromah on May 26th. At that meeting, all the diplomats urged the AFRC to ensure the safety of all foreigners, and return authority to the country's elected leadership. Thus far, thankfully, we are aware of no American citizen casualties during the coup and the events of the weekend. There are approximately 38 embassy American citizen employees in Sierra Leone. We believe there are approximately 400 other Americans in Sierra Leone. I think it's safe to say that they are affiliated with international organizations and missionaries, primarily. There has been - might be speculation about an evacuation. There are no plans at the moment to evacuate Americans at this time; although, of course, we are trying to be prepared for any contingency.

I'd also add that although we do not believe it was the target of an attack, one rocket-propelled grenade did hit our embassy, damaging the ambassador's office and an air conditioning unit, and also blowing out many, if not most of the windows in the embassy over the weekend. As I say, we do not believe the embassy was a target of the attack, but was probably hit in the crossfire. There were two embassy Marine guards in the building at the time. They were uninjured. That's probably the bulk of what I have to say. Anything else on Sierra Leone?

QUESTION: Africa?

MR. DINGER: Okay.

QUESTION: Kabila has - he knew right where to go. Kabila has banned demonstrations, apparently, in Kinshasa. Is he beginning to flunk the democracy test?

MR. DINGER: It's clearly still premature to make a statement like that, or to really speculate on the outcome of events in Congo. The government of the Democratic Republic of Congo did announce a number of steps to strengthen its authority in Kinshasa and restore public order. This includes a ban on public demonstrations and political party activity.

The United States hopes this will be a short-term ban. Clearly, free political activity is essential as the Congo embarks on a democratic transition, which will lead to elections. I will also note that, regarding Ambassador Richardson, that Ambassador Richardson was instrumental in our recent efforts to encourage a peaceful transfer of power in Kinshasa. We believe he can also play a useful role in engaging the new transitional government at this crucial early stage as it begins to set up institutions of government. In that respect, we are preparing for a visit by Ambassador Richardson, leading an inter-agency team, to Kinshasa. However, we do not have any specifics yet on when that visit might occur.

QUESTION: Has he been invited, or are you just offering him up?

MR. DINGER: We are anxious to visit, and strongly reiterate our policies, which you know quite well, regarding Zaire -- that policy including that there be an inclusive transition to early democratic elections; that the country respect free market economics, economic policy; and that there be respect for human rights and humane treatment for refugees.

QUESTION: But it sounds like - I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like the U.S. is prepared to tolerate a ban on demonstrations and other undemocratic activities if they're short-term and restore public order. Is that fair to say?

MR. DINGER: It's not, of course, up to us to tolerate or not tolerate something. The important thing here is what Zaire needs is democracy, free markets and respect for human rights. The path towards that is going to be an inclusive transition government, leading to the democratic elections. Clearly an element of this - and it actually harkens back a little bit to what we were saying about Afghanistan - is that the future of Zaire is going to hinge on international involvement, both public and private. The way Zaire is going to realize international involvement is going to be if it shows respect for democratic principles, for free markets and human rights.

One of the things that Ambassador Richardson, when he goes, will be emphasizing is this - that it is in Zaire's self-interest, and what it needs is engagement by the international community, private and public. As Ambassador Albright mentioned on Friday, the transition is still a work in progress. We want at an early stage to once again show that we are forcefully engaged here, and forcefully making our points that these are issues of the utmost importance to the international community and of the utmost importance to the future of Zaire.

QUESTION: You keep saying Zaire. I assume that is just a slip of the tongue at all times --

MR. DINGER: Read Congo. Sorry.

QUESTION: Okay. You haven't changed the policy on that?

MR. DINGER: I did not change the policy of the Department. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Korea. Any comment on the agreement between South and North Korean Red Cross regarding food aid in North Korea?

MR. DINGER: We welcome the agreement between the North and South Korean Red Crosses. We hope it will facilitate the delivery of food to those in need.

I would remind you that the United States announced, on February 19th, a contribution of 27,000 metric tons of rice, corn and corn-soy blend. That was worth approximately $10 million, and it was in response to the WFP appeal for North Korea. That contribution has already arrived on two ships - - one May 6th and one May 18th.

On April 15th, the United States announced a second contribution to the DPRK in response to the WFP appeal. That response was for 50,000 metric tons of corn, valued at approximately $15 million. That contribution is also being transported in two ships. The first is scheduled to arrive in North Korea on June 4th. The second ship carrying the remaining 25,000 metric tons of corn is still loading and will arrive in the DPRK, we believe, on approximately June 26th.

QUESTION: John, the European Union on Friday announced a donation of 155, 000 tons, which is a rather substantial contribution. As a matter of fact, I think it's about twice the U.S. contribution. Given U.S. interests in the area and the fact that you have all of these North Korean troops within striking distance of American troops, do you have any observations about the size of the European Union contribution?

MR. DINGER: We absolutely welcome it. The WFP has made a sizable appeal. Even that, it has speculated, will not meet the needs of the people of North Korea. The United States has led by example, as I just recounted, some nearly 77,000 metric tons of food. We certainly welcome any other contribution from the international community, certainly including this one from the EU.

QUESTION: Pacific Salmon. You would be aware, sir, of the activities of the weekend, obviously -- the arrest of some boats and activity in British Columbia. Can you tell us where this building is in regard to that issue?

MR. DINGER: Well, I will in a second. Well, there have been quite a few events since Friday. But let me first go through our position on the negotiations themselves, because the actions which Canada has specifically imposed are in retaliation for the suspension of salmon talks and are obviously extremely disruptive to our ability to go forward in negotiations with Canada to resolve the Pacific salmon dispute.

Most recently there have been four U.S. vessels detained by the Canadian authorities. Prior to these seizures, we believe that, based on the outcome of the stakeholders process, the two nations were closer than at any time in recent years to resolving these issues. We regret that the Canadian actions may poison the atmosphere on the West Coast. We certainly hope that Canada will release these vessels immediately and refrain from seizing any more.

As I said, Canada's actions are extremely disruptive to our ability to have productive talks. The United States is anxious to continue negotiations in a productive atmosphere, an atmosphere that gives the two sides the time we need to reach agreement. The United States at the present is assessing the impact of the Canadian actions on our ability to go forward.

I would just remind you that Canada suspended these talks when it was unwilling to allow time for a proposal on the full range of Southern salmon fishery issues under discussion to be submitted to the tribes and states for review and approval. We regret that action.

As a result of the stakeholders process, the two governments were closer than they have been for many years to finding a way to resolving the Pacific salmon issues. We believe the stakeholders made forward-looking proposals that entailed sharp reductions in key U.S. fisheries and a radical restructuring of a significant part of the U.S. industry. These proposals, we believe, would also provide for long-term conservation of natural salmon stocks and sustainable fisheries in both countries.

The United States does not want to lose this opportunity. We hope Canada will refrain from retaliatory actions so that the two of us can then find a way to engage in productive discussions on these issues.

QUESTION: When you use the term that the Canadians did not want to let the time go by so that this agreement could be passed off to stakeholders in the tribes and the states involved, from the Canadian position, of course, it was that their negotiator had the ability to make a deal. Your negotiator did not. Was it a diplomatic mistake to have the meeting on these talks and send someone to the talks who could not formulate an answer?

MR. DINGER: I think the important point here is that going in to the talks it was clear that the representatives of the stakeholders would have to go back and consult with the stakeholders before agreeing to any resolution of this issue. That was known going in to the talks. That is why we really regret that somehow when we were making progress, and when the stakeholders stated that they needed to go back and review this, that the talks broke down.

It is, I guess I would say, a little bit inexplicable to us why this seemed to be a new development when that was well known going into the talks.

QUESTION: Well, you know that there is another side to that issue, of course, and we could belabor that for some time. There have been calls on the part of U.S. fishermen that some support be given them because of these arrests at sea and the possibility or promise that there will be more. Are you considering, in some way, protecting U.S. fishermen in that area so that there will not be any more arrests?

MR. DINGER: To the extent that we are calling upon the Canadian Government to refrain from making any more seizures and to release the boats that have been seized, to that extent - and we are doing this privately and publicly - we are really saddened that at a point when we were, we believe, making real progress, that the issue of taking a little more time to make sure that the stakeholders approved the progress that was being made seemed to have caused the Canadians to walk away from the table. That is regrettable in our point of view.

We really had a lot of hope for these talks. We entered them in a very good faith effort. We would hope that nothing is done now to further poison the atmosphere and that what we can do is get back to the table and continue the progress that we have been making.

QUESTION: No gun boats?

MR. DINGER: I don't want to speculate about something like that.

QUESTION: You said that you will reassess or assess whether to continue with the talks. Are you assessing taking any other actions -- punitive actions against Canadian fishermen or against other Canadian interests? Or will you just let the talks slide and U.S. fishermen will continue to fish as they have in the past? That is punishment in itself.

MR. DINGER: We are actively engaged in trying to get Canada back to the table here. I would stress that it was Canada which walked away and broke off these negotiations; it was not the United States. We were engaged, we feel strongly, in a very good faith effort to bring this to a resolution. We believe that we had made real progress for the first time and we are simply very, very disappointed that Canada chose to walk away from this effort.

QUESTION: How does a misunderstanding of that kind come about, Mr. Dinger, when two governments sit down and it seems so clear that both sides do not now understand? Accepting your explanations for what they are, there is a completely reversed set of explanations in Canada. How did it come that two great nations with presumably able diplomats screwed it up?

MR. DINGER: I wish I could explain that.

QUESTION: There must be some assessment here in the building of how it happened.

MR. DINGER: Our assessment is that Canada walked away from the talks that we were making progress in, so I think I would have to refer you to the Canadian Government and perhaps their representatives at these talks for any better explanation of why this happened.

QUESTION: Have you been given any assurances by the Canadian government? You said you have been in active discussions with them. Have they said they will cease seizing American fishing vessels off the Pacific coast, or have you had any response at all?

MR. DINGER: I would guess that the response we would have likely had is that just before coming out here I understood that a fourth vessel had been seized. So perhaps that was the response. This is all very, very regrettable. As I would just repeat again, we feel strongly that we were engaged in a good faith effort that was making progress. We are very sorry that this action, which clearly threatens to disrupt our ability to go forward, that these actions have been taken.

QUESTION: Could you clarify for us who is talking to who since, obviously, Mr. Fortier and your representative are no longer speaking to each other on this issue? Who is talking to who on this issue, as far as the Americans are concerned?

MR. DINGER: Well, of course, the Canadian embassy in Washington and our embassy in Ottawa are very, very actively engaged in this. I can also tell you that I believe Secretary Albright spoke with Foreign Minister Axworthy on Friday.

QUESTION: And that, of course, was well in advance of the rather startling developments over the weekend. I'm wondering who is speaking to who now.

MR. DINGER: Well, of course, those threats were still being - were already on the table from the Canadian side.

QUESTION: But who are the people, though, that are dealing with this, Mr. Dinger? I mean, who is speaking to who?

MR. DINGER: I don't have the specific names for you, but it is certainly through our embassies in Ottawa and Washington.

QUESTION: Has there been any official response from the American Government about the BC government announcing it will shut down the torpedo testing range in Nanoose Bay? It is related to this, but it has obviously different effects.

MR. DINGER: Well, there are a couple of points I would make about that. First, this is clearly an issue unrelated to Pacific salmon. So not only do we believe it inappropriate to link two unrelated issues like this, but we are sorry that happened. Second, my understanding is that this is an issue between the province of British Columbia and the Central Canadian Government, so I would refer you to the government of Canada for details regarding that issue. Finally, because this was a testing range used by the United States Navy, I would refer you to DOD for any comment they may have on that aspect of the issue. Is that it for Canada?

QUESTION: I just want to ask one more question about this. Is the U.S. going to be at the table on Friday when the negotiations resume? And, secondly, if Canada continues to seize these boats, is the United States going to take some sort of retaliatory measure, or are they going to walk away from the table on Friday? Maybe we can get a clear-cut answer if you're going to be at the table, first of all.

MR. DINGER: I will have to look into any talks that are scheduled for Friday. I didn't realize that any were scheduled, so we can look into that. Regarding the retaliation, I don't want to speculate on that.

QUESTION: I'd like to follow on that, if I may. Do you know if there are any immediate plans for Secretary Albright to speak to Mr. Axworthy again or if Ambassador Chretien might be called here to talk about it?

MR. DINGER: Ambassador Albright, as you may remember on Friday if you were here, mentioned her interest in the issue and, at that point, that she hoped to speak with Foreign Minister Axworthy, which she did. Certainly, that remains an option for them to speak again. We want to get talks back to the table. There is no question about it. We didn't walk away from this issue. We were there engaged, a good faith effort, making what we thought was real progress; and we really regret that the Canadian representatives walked away from this opportunity to finally perhaps come to terms with this very difficult and important issue.

QUESTION: Thanks, John. Last week the Secretary and Nick Burns as well were talking about events in Burma. There were some arrests of opposition leaders and so forth. Nick Burns reiterated U.S. policy of calling for a delay to Burmese admission to ASEAN. Reuters' report today says that, in fact, both Burma's, Cambodia's and Laos' applications will be delayed until the end of the year, as opposed to July as was previously expected. Is this the outcome that the U.S. had wanted? And did the U.S. have any hand in getting this delay?

MR. DINGER: I have not seen that report of the delay. So without addressing that specific issue I can, nevertheless, reiterate what our policy is, and that is that we have real concerns, obviously, about Burma, particularly its pitiful human rights record and pick up of people engaged in political activity -- utter disregard for internationally recognized standards of human rights. We have been very concerned that Burma not be admitted prematurely to ASEAN. We have certainly made those concerns well known to the members of ASEAN. Of course, we are not a member of ASEAN so, ultimately, the decision is not ours. So not having seen the report that you referred to, nevertheless, I think there is an implicit answer within our standing policy.

QUESTION: The mayor of New York is once again going to war with the Russian mission in New York City. Now it's not parking tickets any more, but the Russians apparently want to expand their residential compound in New York and the mayor has said no, it violates New York City's zoning laws and, besides, the Russians are bad neighbors, they are noisy and get into fights with cops and blah, blah, blah and so on and so forth. Is this complicating U.S.-Russian relations? Is there a problem here that the State Department needs to address?

MR. DINGER: Well, there is an issue in which we are involved. My understanding is that the Russians do have a residential complex in Riverdale, New York. The Russian government proposed to expand that complex and the State Department, in 1994 -- December of 1994 -- approved that plan, subject to compliance with New York's zoning and land use regulations. My understanding is that the project includes construction of additional buildings, as well as improvements to existing facilities.

Since that time, December 1994, the Russian mission and its attorneys have been unable to obtain the necessary permits from the municipal government to embark on its expansion and renovation of its project. We have consistently supported the Russian construction project at Riverdale. What our role is and what we will continue to do is to facilitate efforts to resolve these issues and this impasse between the attorneys and the Russian mission and the municipal authorities.

QUESTION: Be the mediator?

MR. DINGER: We will try to use our good offices, obviously, as we always do in these cases, through our mission to the United Nations in New York to try to see if we can't facilitate a mutually agreeable resolution. We certainly hope there is one to be found.

QUESTION: A different subject. Some wire services this weekend report that the government of Cyprus begin to import some part of the Russian anti- aircraft missile system and, if I am correct, the government of Turkey brought this issue to UN. And I wonder what is your reaction, because you were the broker of some kind of temporary relief on this island. Do you have any reaction on this subject?

MR. DINGER: No, I haven't seen the report, but we can look in to the report that you are citing and see if we have any reaction for you. Is that it? Mr. Lambros, you have something?

QUESTION: Yes. Anything on the new French request that European countries should control the NATO south (inaudible) of South Naples, Italy?

MR. DINGER: No, I saw our spokesman, Nicholas Burns, quoted on that issue on the wires, so I would refer you to what he said.

Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 2:17 P.M.)

(###)


U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article
Back to Top
Copyright © 1995-2023 HR-Net (Hellenic Resources Network). An HRI Project.
All Rights Reserved.

HTML by the HR-Net Group / Hellenic Resources Institute, Inc.
std2html v1.01a run on Tuesday, 27 May 1997 - 21:46:30 UTC