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