U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #94, 97-06-23
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
858
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, June 23, 1997
Briefer: John Dinger
ANNOUNCEMENTS / STATEMENTS
1 Welcome to Visitors
1 This Day in Diplomacy-U.S.-Soviet Summit on Middle
East/Nuclear Weapons
1 Initiative on Democracy & Human Rights
1 Next Summit in Birmingham
1-2 Statement on Proposed Serbian Election Law
2 UNSC Adoption of Res. 1115-Iraq's Violations of
UNSC Resolutions
CAMBODIA
2-8 Situation Update/Pol Pot/Yale-Cambodia Genocide
Program/Albright's Trip to Region
TURKEY
8-9 Reports of Russian Weapons Sent to PKK
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
9-10 U.S. Engagement/Contacts
GREECE
10 Deputy Secretary Talbott/Minister of Defense
Tsohatzopoulos Mtg.
CYPRUS
10 UN Talks w/ Clerides & Denktash
CHINA
10-11 AFL-CIO Trade Union Campaign re: Banning of Goods
from Chinese Army Factories
SAUDI ARABIA
11 Anniversary of Khobar Towers Bombing/Saudi
Suspect/Security at State Dept. Facilities
CUBA
12 Foreign Relations Volume on U.S.-Cuba Relations
CANADA
12-14 Pacific Salmon Talks
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #94
MONDAY, JUNE 23, 1997 1:13 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. DINGER: Welcome to the State Department daily briefing.
I have a couple of things that I'd like to run through with you before we
get started in earnest. One is, I'd like to welcome an intern we have
visiting with us today. Hyland Hunt is an intern, working in Lynn Davis'
office, Under Secretary for Arms Control.
She's from Atlanta, Georgia, studying government at Harvard University.
Always delighted to have the interns with us.
I'd also like to bring your attention to this day in diplomacy.
Thirty years ago today, President Lyndon Johnson and Soviet Prime Minister
Alexei Kosygin and their diplomatic and military advisors met at Glassboro,
New Jersey. That impromptu summit addressed the Arab-Israeli tensions in
the Middle East following the Six Day War of June 1967, and took steps
toward serious U.S.-Soviet arms limitations and agreement to prevent the
proliferation of nuclear weapons to other nations. So, 30 years ago today
- - and with a more complete description of that meeting available in the
press office following the briefing.
Next, I would just like to bring your attention to an aspect of the Denver
Summit that perhaps did not receive as much attention as it deserved. That
was the initiative on democracy and human rights. I would refer you to the
communique that goes into further detail on this. But the Eight in Denver
did decide that they have a unique opportunity -- with the upcoming 50th
anniversary of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights - to take
action to strengthen young democracies in human rights and to encourage the
evolution of non-democracies.
As I say, this is all outlined in greater detail in the communique, and I
certainly refer you to that. But it does make recommendations for our next
summit in Birmingham. Aiming towards Birmingham, we will focus on
promoting good government and the rule of law; strengthening civil society;
expanding women's political participation; and boosting business and labor
support for democracy and human rights. As a part of this effort, the
United States will be convening a meeting of experts in the Fall to
implement that initiative.
I would also like to read a statement regarding a Serbian election law. On
June 30th, Serbia's Republic Assembly is scheduled to consider passage of a
new law on local self-government. This law, if passed, would alter the
system of local elections to favor the ruling Socialist party. It would
require that new elections be held in key opposition-controlled cities.
The re-running of local elections would violate the spirit of the
Gonzalez-OSCE report and constitute another serious blow to democratization
in Serbia.
The law would also create bi-cameral legislatures, organized along ethnic
lines in 28 municipalities in Kosovo. This arrangement would ensure a
local Serb veto over the majority ethnic Albanian population in the
municipalities affected. Passage of such a law, arrived at unilaterally by
Milosevic's governing party, is unlikely to further reconciliation and
would only further inhibit Serbia's integration into the world community.
That statement will be available in the press office, following the
briefing.
Finally, I would just like to note that the United Nations Security Council
unanimously voted, on Saturday, June 21st, to adopt Resolution 1115,
concerning Iraq's violation of Security Council resolutions. Under that
resolution, the Security Council condemned Iraq's repeated refusal to allow
UNSCOM access to sites designated by the special commission, demanded that
Iraq cooperate fully with UNSCOM, and suspended the regular 60-day
sanctions reviews until after the combined UNSCOM-IAEA report is submitted
to the Council in October. By adopting this resolution unanimously, the
Security Council has demonstrated its firm dedication to the UNSCOM
mission. The Security Council has sent a clear message to Iraq: when the
authority of the Security Council is challenged, it will react in a
decisive manner.
The UNSCOM chairman has been given a clear mandate and the Council's full
support to continue to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
program. The Council has put Iraq on notice that continued obstruction of
UNSCOM will result in the imposition of additional measures in October.
These new measures demonstrate that Iraq cannot move backwards without
paying a cost. The Council expressed its firm intent to impose additional
measures in October if Iraq fails to heed Resolution 1115. We want Iraq to
recognize the seriousness of this message and to cooperate full with
UNSCOM. George.
QUESTION: Could you tell us what you know about the situation in
Cambodia? What the United States is doing to bring Pol Pot to justice?
And also the question of whether Secretary Albright still plans to go there
at the end of the week?
MR: DINGER: The situation in Cambodia revolving around Pol Pot remains
very unclear, I think, to everyone. To the best of our knowledge, he
remains in remote areas of Cambodia. We, at least, have no independent
information regarding his status there or, frankly, much else to do with
his situation.
So in terms of what the United States plans to do regarding Pol Pot, we're
getting a little bit ahead of the story since his situation is still very
unclear. I do want to emphasize, however, that the United States
Government strongly supports the efforts of the Cambodian people to deal
with the terrible genocide that took place in Cambodia. We have made and
continue to make every effort we can to assist the Cambodian people to come
to grips with that terrible past. We strongly support the objectives of
the 1994 Cambodian Genocide Justice Act. That aimed at bringing those
Khmer Rouge responsible for genocide and crimes against humanity to justice
for the heinous crimes committed from 1975 to 1979.
We will support any decision the Royal Government of Cambodia makes to
request assistance from an internationally sanctioned prosecution of former
Khmer Rouge leaders responsible for committing genocide and crimes against
humanity. That, of course, would include Pol Pot. I would like to point
out that we understand that the joint prime ministers of Cambodia have, in
fact, sent a letter to the United Nations requesting a UN tribunal. If
that is the government of Cambodia's request, the United States will
support it.
I would also like to point out that as part of our effort to assist the
Cambodian people come to grips with what took place there, the United
States has provided considerable support to the Yale Cambodia Genocide
Program. That is a mechanism aimed at revealing information surrounding
the genocide. We have given thus far just over $1.5 million to the
genocide program, including, just the other day, an additional $1 million.
Beyond that, all I can say, I guess, or reiterate is that we want to help
the Cambodian people in this effort. We are willing to explore any option
available to help them come to grips with the genocide that took place
there. But I don't have any details for you on any of those options.
QUESTION: Secretary Albright's plans?
MR: DINGER: Secretary Albright, as you know, plans to visit Cambodia, and
I don't have anything to announce in terms of any change in that schedule;
although we are reviewing the situation closely.
QUESTION: John, although you said that George's question was getting
ahead of the story, you really didn't answer the point.
Is the United States having conversation with Canada and other governments
about a means to get Pol Pot out of the country and bring him to justice
ultimately?
MR. DINGER: We are exploring every option that might be available to try
to help the Cambodians bring the perpetrators of that genocide to justice.
But I simply don't have any details to offer you on what those options are.
QUESTION: And when you say that there's no confirmation on Pol Pot's
current status, could you be a little more specific about that? I mean,
the leaders of the Cambodian Government have said that he's in custody.
What are you looking for for confirmation?
Does the United States have to have somebody on the ground see him
themselves?
MR. DINGER: We're not the judges, really, of this, of course. The fact
is that he, as far as I know, remains in a very remote area of Cambodia.
There have been many conflicting reports over the last week or so -- not to
dismiss the latest reports, which may well be true. I can't rule out that
he is custody, and I can't rule it in. If he is in custody, if we are
requested to provide any assistance, we will certainly be willing to help
in any way we can the Cambodian people to deal with this terrible history.
QUESTION: John, there was a report that I saw on the wire out of Cambodia
that said that the Secretary was canceling her visit. Is that incorrect?
MR. DINGER: The Secretary has not canceled her visit.
We are reviewing the situation closely. Obviously, the Secretary has said
for some time that she would like to visit Cambodia in order to demonstrate
American support for efforts by the Cambodian people to develop democracy,
stable democracy and prosperity for that country.
At the same time clearly we have to take into account other factors and at
the present, I have no change in her schedule to announce.
QUESTION: Is safety one of the considerations?
MR. DINGER: Sure, security is one of those considerations; no question
about it.
QUESTION: The main one?
MR. DINGER: That's one of the considerations. We need to balance them
all. But at the moment, I have no change in her schedule to announce.
QUESTION: What other considerations would there be?
MR. DINGER: Well, there are two main considerations. One is the strong
desire by the United States, and certainly by Secretary Albright, to
demonstrate our commitment and support for the Cambodian people and their
efforts to continue to develop democratic institutions. That's the main
one. And the other one, of course, are security considerations. We have
to balance the two.
QUESTION: That's the main reason to go and the main reason not to go.
The only reason not to go would be security.
MR. DINGER: I think that is the - those are the primary ones. It's a
question of balance.
QUESTION: John, are you all sending anyone from the embassy in Phnom Penh
up to try and eyeball Pol Pot, if he indeed is in custody? Or will you
wait until he is brought into the open by the Cambodian authorities?
MR. DINGER: There are very active and engaged staff in our embassy in
Phnom Penh, led by Ambassador Ken Quinn. We're in close contact with the
Cambodian Government. I don't have any reason to believe that we are
thinking of dispatching somebody to Northern Cambodia - I believe it's
northern - anyway, to the remote area where Pol Pot is reported to be. At
the moment we are relying on that conversation through the Cambodian
Government, I believe.
QUESTION: Can you confirm a report I read that the Secretary asked the
Canadian foreign minister to explore the possibility of exercising an
extradition mechanism they have in their country that would apply to this
case?
MR: DINGER: I don't want to get into any of the details about the options
that we are exploring.
QUESTION: John, yesterday, Senator Torricelli said that the United States
is the only country that has the capacity to extradite Pol Pot and put him
on trial somewhere. Could you respond to that? Do you agree with
statement?
MR: DINGER: Well, I think I heard reports on the radio this morning about
a proposal by Senator Torricelli . I haven't seen anything more concrete
than that. Even in terms of the words that you just used -- extradition
and power -- it is difficult, without seeing what the proposal was, to know
exactly what the Senator was suggesting.
Obviously, we consider any proposal by a United States Senator.
That goes without saying. But I don't have anything beyond that for you.
QUESTION: You don't know whether it is legally possible for Pol Pot to be
tried in the U.S.?
MR. DINGER: I would have to send you to the international lawyers for
that. We have, I understand, ratified an international either convention
or treaty on genocide. I believe that we do not have implementing
legislation in place. But I don't want to get too far out in front of the
issue. I haven't seen the Senator's specific proposal or what it involves.
So I think I had better leave it at that.
QUESTION: John, a few newspaper reports this morning are saying that
there are only two countries that have genocide as a domestic crime, and
those are Canada and Denmark. Is that your understanding, as well?
MR: DINGER: My understanding is that it's not quite as clear cut; that
there is an international either convention or treaty on genocide that
many, many countries have ratified. But the implementation language varies
dramatically from country to country. So I don't want to be in any way in
the position here to be commenting on how individual countries may have
established implementing laws or procedures. I'll refer you to those
countries regarding their own implementing legislation.
QUESTION: John, the Secretary General is willing to help in this effort.
But he says it is going to take a Security Council vote. Have you - along
those lines - have you spoken to the Chinese about that, who, of course,
were great supporters of the Khmer Rouge?
MR. DINGER: Once again, I think we are getting out ahead of the - perhaps
a little bit out ahead of the story since Pol Pot is not - well, is not
clearly in custody, or is not clearly at the point where he would be
brought before a tribunal.
Nevertheless, we have said that we would support any effort or any desire
by the Cambodian Government to resolve this issue, whether it's Pol Pot or
any of the other perpetrators of the genocide in Cambodia. If the
Cambodian people want a UN tribunal, we will work with them to try to make
that happen. I am not aware of any preliminary discussions that we have
had with any of the members of the Security Council. They may have taken
place. I am not aware of them. I don't have any details for you.
QUESTION: So you have no problems with going to the Security Council on
this?
MR. DINGER: I am not familiar with exactly what is necessary in order to
establish a UN tribunal. That obviously would be one of the things that
would have to be explored about who authorizes it, who sets it up. There
are many other details that obviously would have to be taken into account.
I don't know if we've engaged in any exploratory talks in this at all. As
I say, we're not there yet, I don't believe.
QUESTION: Dealing with the chronology of this event, you mentioned that
you have seen reports that the Cambodians are seeking a UN tribunal. At
the same time, it is a fact that the Secretary of State did meet with the
Canadian foreign minister. Which of those events came first? And if the
Cambodians are second on that list, does that diminish the prospects of the
United States making requests of Canada?
MR. DINGER: Gosh, I think I've got to send you back to the record. I
believe that the Prime Minister sent a letter to the United Nations on - my
impression is that that was last week.
But I'm not positive about that, so I guess I'd have to let you explore the
record on the chronology. I didn't quite get, I don't think, the
diminishing aspect of your question.
QUESTION: Well, I'm just wondering if the United States had contacted
Canada before realizing that the Cambodians had another mechanism that they
were concerned about.
MR. DINGER: Well, of course, you're also asking me, in effect, to confirm
that we contacted Canada, which I don't have anything for you on.
QUESTION: Are you denying that there was such a contact?
MR. DINGER: I'm saying I don't have anything for you on discussion
between Secretary Albright and Foreign Minister Axworthy on that subject.
Obviously they did meet in Denver. The Secretary, I believe, had
bilaterals with all of her counterparts among the Eight. But I don't have
anything for you on whether that was an option that she explored with the
Canadian foreign minister.
QUESTION: Why not, John? I mean, this is a major goal of several
Administrations - to bring Pol Pot to justice. Everyone on background in
this government - plenty of people who refuse to give their names are
willing to confirm it. And yet the government, who purports to be so
behind this effort won't even say it on the record. Why won't you all say
on the record that you'd like the Canadians to help you extradite Pol Pot?
MR. DINGER: Well, you know, I think that we're missing the point here.
The point is --
QUESTION: Yeah, I think you are missing the point.
MR. DINGER: We are missing the point, and the point is that the
perpetrators of the genocide in Cambodia be brought to justice. How
exactly that happens is something that the Cambodian people should deal
with. Now, there are obviously all sorts of options and proposals that we
are reading about in the press - whether it's a UN tribunal, whether it's a
third country becoming involved. The point is that the Cambodians be
allowed and assisted to deal with this issue. The United States fully
supports their efforts, whether that be a domestic tribunal, whether that
be an international tribunal, or whether that be some other mechanism.
As part of our effort and support for the Cambodian people, we have been
very, very supportive - particularly through the Yale Cambodia Genocide
Project, trying to give them the tools that they need to bring this to a
resolution. That's where we are; and that's the important point - not any
of these other things.
QUESTION: Who are you talking to in the Cambodian Government?
And who's doing the talking on your side?
MR. DINGER: Ambassador Ken Quinn certainly is the lead for us, other
members of the embassy, as well. I think we are discussing these issues
with the highest levels of the Cambodian Government.
QUESTION: There's nobody above ambassador from this government has been
in touch with the Cambodian Government?
MR. DINGER: Well, first of all, I sort of don't like the implication that
no one above ambassador - the ambassador is the President's representative
to Cambodia. I think that's certainly sufficient. Frankly, I don't know
if anybody else has been. But I certainly believe that our ambassador - and
our extremely able ambassador - has full stature to take this on for us.
QUESTION: It's not really a question of stature, but in high-profile
cases like this, usually the Secretary will get on the telephone, sometimes
even the President or someone along those lines.
MR. DINGER: I guess I'm not even sure where this conversation - towards
where this conversation is drifting. The point is --
QUESTION: You don't have to be sure --
MR. DINGER: Well, maybe we should even bring more closure on this. The
point is that the Cambodian people should be assisted in dealing with this
issue and whether it's a domestic tribunal, whether it's an international
tribunal, whether they require any help beyond what we are already
providing. That's something that's yet to be determined. But we will be
there and we will help the Cambodians, as we have been already, come to
terms with the terrible genocide that took place.
QUESTION: John, does the United States believe that Pol Pot - presuming
he is in custody - can be brought to Phnom Penh, held by the Cambodian
Government and tried domestically without stoking more political violence
and unrest in that country?
MR. DINGER: I think those are undoubtedly the sorts of issues that the
Cambodian Government and the people of Cambodia are dealing with today.
And so our point is that this is an issue for the people of Cambodia to
deal with, and we will support them all the way.
QUESTION: But they haven't given you their opinion on this particular
subject?
MR. DINGER: I believe the prime ministers have been in touch with the
United Nations and have suggested that they believe an international or a
UN tribunal would be the best means to deal with this. If that's the case,
we will support them.
QUESTION: Why did you bring up this idea of domestic tribunal?
MR. DINGER: Because we were getting ahead of the story here. We do not
even know what Pol Pot's current situation is for certain. Once we do,
once the Cambodians have expressed themselves - or clarified, I believe
they have - once it's a little bit clearer, we will support them in any way
we can. I really don't think there's too much more I can say other than we
support them. If it's an international tribunal, we will support them and
we will support all the options available to support them.
QUESTION: Are you waiting for the king - King Ranariddh to weigh in on
this? Is that --
MR. DINGER: I think we're getting far too specific here on how this is
going to transpire. We're in touch with the Cambodian Government. I
understand the Cambodian Government is in touch with the United Nations as
well. This will all be into the mix.
And if Pol Pot is in custody, if it does come to that, we will help the
Cambodian people in any way we can. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: What can you tell us about reports that weapons from Russia are
making their way to Kurds in Turkey?
MR. DINGER: That would appear to be a question based on a article that
appeared in the press this morning that was allegedly based on alleged
leaked intelligence information. I just have nothing for you, under those
circumstances.
QUESTION: Not necessarily commenting on that report, but do you have any
information, independent of it, that this is true or has been happening or
U.S. officials know if it?
MR. DINGER: It's very difficult to address the issue without commenting
on the report, which I don't want to do. What I can say is that the PKK is
a vicious terrorist organization and no one should assist the PKK in
carrying out its terrorist activities.
That's about all I can say on that issue. Yes, Crystal.
QUESTION: Over the weekend and maybe - I don't know exactly when it
started. The President - President Clinton was criticized as putting
Middle East issues on the back burner. In light of this comment and attack
toward him from other countries and the fighting in the West Bank, has the
United States given any thought about re-engaging in the talks of late?
Any other thinking on this? And what do they think of the fighting going
on? I mean, they're saying it's like a sore - it's festering, it's getting
worse and worse.
MR. DINGER: Well, you give me so many opportunities to make a long-winded
declaration, particularly starting out with knocking down virtually every
one of the assumptions there - I think two major assumptions that you made.
I will try to stop myself from doing that, other than to point out in the
strongest terms that we are engaged in the Middle East peace process. We
have been for a long, long time. The President and the Secretary remain
personally engaged. Our record in promoting the peace process is
unparalleled, and stands up to, I think, virtually any criticism.
QUESTION: Were there any calls made over the weekend to the area? Maybe
to the prime minister or Arafat or --
MR. DINGER: Well, of course I can't - I would have to check with the
White House, regarding calls from the President.
QUESTION: Contacts from our folks over there?
MR. DINGER: Secretary Albright is in very, very frequent contact with all
the leaders in the Middle East - both Israeli, Palestinian and well beyond.
We're very much engaged. The bottom line is that we cannot want to get
back to the peace process more than the parties themselves want to get
back. You've heard this many, many times so I won't repeat it too often
here. What we want to do is help them find a way to return to the table.
We have been engaged, remain engaged and will remain engaged in a strong
effort to do that.
QUESTION: John --
MR. DINGER: Still Middle East, I guess.
QUESTION: Yes. The Japanese ambassador in Saudi Arabia, whose name
escapes me now - he said over the weekend that he blamed the United States
for the stagnation in the Middle East peace process. And he said that the
reason for stagnation is because of the blind support of the United States
to the Israelis. Now, this was a surprising statement, coming from
Japanese ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Does this - I don't know if you know
about it, but does this constitute a shift in the Japanese stand, position?
Or is it just a personal remark the ambassador was making?
MR. DINGER: I certainly don't know, and I think it would be far better
that you talk with the Japanese foreign ministry in Tokyo, perhaps the
embassy here, regarding any comments that a Japanese ambassador in Saudi
Arabia may have made. Very clearly, though, there is nothing we want more
than to see the parties return to the negotiating table, re-engage and push
forward towards peace. We are very actively engaged in trying to get the
parties to find ways to get back to the table.
QUESTION: The Greek Minister of Defense Apostolos Tsohatzopoulos is going
to meet today with the Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbott, here at
the State Department. I would like to know who initiated this meeting and
the purpose of it.
MR: DINGER: I have seen that the Greek defense minister is in to see Mr.
Talbott. I presume that he is here primarily to see officials at the
Pentagon. It is very common when that happens that a call is also made at
the Department of State. I don't have any details for you beyond that.
QUESTION: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stated today to the Security
Council that talks will be held somewhere in New York City from July 9th to
13th between the Cypriot President Glafcos Clerides and the Turkish leader,
Rauf Denktash, with the presence of Mr. Richard Holbrooke. Any comment on
that?
MR. DINGER: Did I pick up somewhere in there that Mr. Holbrooke would be
involved in the talks?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. DINGER: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Holbrooke has said that he
does not expect to participate in those talks.
Of course, we do support the effort by the UN Secretary General to host
these talks and to try to facilitate a solution to the problem on Cyprus.
Yes, David?
QUESTION: A group of trade unions under the AFL-CIO today launched a
campaign to try and get imports to this country from factories owned or
partially owned by the Chinese army or the Chinese police banned by law.
They sent a letter to the President and they are - at a news conference,
they called on retailers such as Macy's and Nordstrom's and various others
to stop stocking goods that are produced in these factories and they have
made public a list of what they say are factories owned by the PLA and the
PAP and retailers who have their products. What is the administration's
view of such proposed legislation and such a proposed campaign to get
retailers to stop stocking these products?
MR. DINGER: I have not been able to find any more details than you just
explained on that. I'll be happy to look into it and see if we have any
reaction to this proposal, but I just have not seen it and do not have
enough details to give you a reaction today.
QUESTION: Are you not ready to say you are against legislation that would
ban the importation of goods from Chinese army factories?
MR. DINGER: I'm not prepared, without seeing the proposal, to off-the-
cuff give you a reaction. Best to see what the proposal is and then give
you a considered opinion, just to be fair to the AFL-CIO.
QUESTION: As long as I have got your attention, may I also raise
something else? The anniversary of the Khobar Towers bombing is coming up
this week. Obviously, people will be asking this at the Pentagon as well,
but at the facilities that the State Department has to concern itself with
around the world, are you satisfied that the appropriate lessons have been
learned and the appropriate security measures have been taken, that
facilities are now protected against the kind of huge explosives that were
used in Khobar Towers?
MR. DINGER: Well, that is a sad reminder of the Khobar incident in which
19 Americans were killed. We always try to take the appropriate level of
security. There are all sorts of things that can be done, some easily, some
more difficult. I can assure you that we have not forgotten Khobar both in
terms of its emotional impact, the death of 19 Americans and also its
implications for the security of our State Department personnel and I can
assure you that we have made every effort to provide the greatest possible
security for our personnel. As you know, as a general policy, we don't go
into any detail about our security precautions for obvious reasons.
QUESTION: Would it be fair to say that there have been some changes, some
substantial changes made in the security arrangements since then?
MR. DINGER: We were at a very high level of security because, as you will
remember, just a few months before that, there had been an explosion at a
U.S. embassy-related facility and we had been and continue to be on a very
high level of emergency - I shouldn't say emergency - of security.
Certainly, following Khobar Towers bombing, as well, we have made every
effort to provide the maximum possible security. It is very difficult to
do that, and still have a lot of people go on with their lives and their
work; but we have made every effort, I can assure you of that.
QUESTION: Is there still virtually nothing you can say about the Saudi
suspect who's come from Canada to here and what his status is and what your
view of him is?
MR. DINGER: That's right. We will leave that to the Department of
Justice to address.
Yes, sir?
QUESTION: John, the State Department is expected to publish soon a report
called, "Volume IX, Foreign Relations with U.S.-Cuba." The front section
of USA Today published a story about that report saying that newly
classified government documents outlining the disastrous Bay of Pigs
invasion of Cuba revealed that President Kennedy's hands-on involvement
helped doom it. What is your knowledge of what is going to be in that
report and is that an inaccurate assessment of it?
MR. DINGER: You know what I ought to do is get the details, and what I
will do is try to get the details of when - I have heard that that volume
is due out, soon. I will try to be able to confirm for you when it's due.
Then, of course, we'll leave the record to speak for itself.
dQUESTION: But you do not have any advance word about what might be in
it?
MR: DINGER: No, I don't. We will try and find out when that's going to
be published so that you can - I'll take a look at it and let the words and
the documents speak for themselves.
Betsy?
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the salmon talks?
MR. DINGER: On Friday, June 20th, talks were recessed between the
U.S. and Canada over Pacific salmon to permit the delegations to consult
with their capitals. That's what's going on right now.
As you know, officials of the two governments met in Richmond, British
Columbia, from June 18 through 20th in the resumption of talks that had
been suspended by Canada on May 20th.
The talks had been part of a continuing effort to find a long-term solution
to resolve salmon conservation and sharing issues.
Agreement has not yet been achieved. We believe it's because Canada has
been unable to make or accept a proposal that would meet the minimum
requirements to conserve salmon stocks off the West Coast. To reach an
agreement that does not conserve depleted stocks is simply not in either
country's interest. So we are both consulting with capitals.
I understand that this was a subject of conversation between the President
and Prime Minister in Denver. The United States throughout has made a very
good faith effort to try to find a workable solution.
We are sorry that Canada broke off the talks on May 20th.
We frankly believe that if that had not happened, an agreement could have
been in place by now. That didn't happen.
QUESTION: Do you have any idea when these talks will resume?
How long these consultations will last?
MR. DINGER: I don't think we have a specific date set.
But we can see if we do.
QUESTION: How would you describe the - your hopes for some resolution to
this? Do you think they are good or --?
MR. DINGER: These are very tough issues with straightforward and
important financial implications for both sides. We believe that if the
Canadians join us in a good faith effort and in a spirit of compromise,
that we can come to a solution. I understand that the President and Prime
Minister, when they spoke about this, declared their intention to bring
that spirit of good will and compromise to the negotiations. We certainly
hope that we can come to an agreement that preserves the stocks and
benefits both countries.
QUESTION: Just to follow up on Betsy's question about the sort of tenor
of the talks, and not to get into an argument about the specifics, but
nonetheless, what you have said about Canada's unwillingness to participate
et cetera, et cetera, is exactly what is being said this morning in Ottawa,
believe it or not, by the Canadians about the United States -- that,
indeed, the United States is the culprit in these talks.
Given that there are two so divergent opinions of who is at fault, one
would have to assume that these talks are of a very low level in terms of
any hopes for achievement at the moment?
QUESTION: I don't want to be so pessimistic. The President apparently
spoke with the Prime Minister on this issue. I understand that it came up
in the discussion between the Secretary and Foreign Minister Axworthy. You
know they have spoken before. I think both sides at that level have
pledged their good faith efforts -
MR. DINGER: Well, excuse me, Mr. Dinger, that isn't exactly what
happened. According to the External Affairs Minister Axworthy, he said
that after his meeting with the Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, he
felt there was little progress that had been made and little hope that
Canada would return to the table because they didn't see much fruit there.
MR. DINGER: That is not my understanding of the conversations in Denver.
So with all due respect to the Canadian foreign minister, I think we have
seen in the past, at the senior levels of both governments, an interest in
bringing this to resolution through good faith efforts. We were very
disappointed in May when the Canadian negotiator walked away from the
table, when we felt that we had a very, very good proposal under
consideration.
We wish that hadn't happened. As I say, I think now we are at June 23rd.
I think perhaps we could have had this wrapped up by now if that hadn't
happened. What we want to do now is have both sides engaged in good faith
negotiations and in a spirit of compromise. We think we have done that
from the beginning. Obviously there is a difference of opinion with the
Canadian negotiators. The important thing is to not, I think, bicker over
those sorts of things but to return to the table and make a maximum effort
to get this issue resolved. It's in both countries' interests.
QUESTION: Just to follow up. It's two weeks from the time the nets go
into the water. Are there any contingency plans of any kind that this
country is intending, in terms of the actual harvest of those fish?
MR. DINGER: Well, I don't want to speculate that we won't have an
agreement by then. Of course, we do have to keep in mind that the American
negotiator will have to take any proposed agreement back to the
stakeholders. So it's important to keep negotiating, to find a conclusion
as quickly as possible so that we also have time to consult with our stake
holders, which as you know, has always been a requirement for our side.
QUESTION: And the Canadians would say an impediment?
MR. DINGER: This has been the same situation for more than ten years. So
it certainly does not come as any surprise, and it just emphasizes the
importance of getting back and getting the agreement that we can then take
back to our constituents, the stakeholders, and get their approval.
QUESTION: John, you're saying there is no date set for resumption?
MR. DINGER: Let me double-check. I didn't hear of another date. So
we'll have to double-check on that.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:52 P.M.)
(###)
|
