U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #95, 97-06-25
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1299
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Wednesday, June 25, 1997
Briefer: John Dinger
ANNOUNCEMENTS/STATEMENTS
1 Welcome to Visitors
1 U.S. Conference of Mayors' Resolution Endorsing NATO
Enlargement
1 Extension of Iraq Travel Warning
NORTH KOREA/SOUTH KOREA
1-4 Talks w/U.S. in New York on 6/30 to Discuss Four Party
Proposal
3-4 Food Aid to North Korea
5 Missile Talks
16-17 N. Korean Officials' Visit to Sandia Nat'l. Labs
IRAQ
5 Sanctions/U.S. Support for UNSCOM
ISRAEL
5-7 Advanced Computer Export to Ben Gurion University
INDIA/PAKISTAN
7-8 Indian/U.S Senior Officials Meet at Department/Signing
of Extradition Treaty
8 India/Pakistan Renewed Discussions
NICARAGUA
8 President Aleman's Visit to U.S./Mtgs.
8 --Immigration/Deportation of Nicaraguans fr. U.S.
8-9 --Cuba
CUBA
9 Dengue Epidemic
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
9-11 Croatia--World Bank Loan/War Criminals
CAMBODIA
11,18 Pol Pot
CANADA
11-12 Status of Pacific Salmon Talks
ISRAEL
12-13 Arms Transfers fr. U.S.
TERRORISM
13-14 Anniversary of Bombing of Khobar Towers/Investigation
17 Reports of Attacks against Turkish Diplomatic
Facilities in Europe
17 Financing of the PKK
JAPAN
14 Comments of Japanese Prime Minister in New York
ARMS CONTROL/NON-PROLIFERATION
14-15 Establishment of Position for Special Coordinator for
Anti-Personnel Landmines
IRAN
15-16 Reported Arrest of American Citizen
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #95
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 1997 1:13 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. DINGER: Welcome to the State Department. Let me take care of a
little bit of business right at the top. First, I would like to introduce
some visitors. We have one very small group, singular -- the press
spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Qatar, Fawaz Al-Attiyya.
So, welcome.
And then we also have a much larger group, diplomats and officials from the
Israeli Embassy. I am very pleased to welcome you to the State Department
press briefing today.
I'd also like to take a moment to note that the State Department welcomes
the resolution endorsing NATO enlargement, adopted yesterday by the U.S.
Conference of Mayors at its annual convention in San Francisco. The
conference voted unanimously to "advocate and support NATO enlargement
consistent with U.S. foreign policy objectives." In its resolution, the
conference recognized NATO as the most successful defensive alliance in
history and characterized the policy of enlargement as a component of
purposeful and responsible engagement in global affairs.
As you know, President Clinton and Secretary Albright will attend the NATO
Summit in Madrid, July 8th and 9th.
We expect and welcome a vigorous public debate on the proposal to add the
new states to NATO. We're encouraged by this sign of support from an
organization that represents leaders of both parties and communities across
America. The Conference consists of 1,050 mayors, governing cities in all
50 states.
I would point out to you as well, it may not be any surprise, that we are
extending our travel warning to American citizens regarding travel to Iraq.
This is an extension of the previous warning. The Department of State
warns all U.S. citizens against travel to Iraq, and I will leave that in
the press office for you to take a look at later. Yes, questions?
QUESTION: Can you give us an update on whether there are going to be
renewed talks on North Korea? Four-party talks?
MR. DINGER: We have agreed that Acting Assistant Secretary Charles
Kartman will meet with Republic of Korea Deputy Foreign Minister Son Yong
Shik and DPRK Vice Foreign Minister Kim Gye Gwan on Monday, June 30th, at
the New York Palace Hotel.
The three have met twice previously to discuss the four-party proposal.
The first meeting, you will remember, was on March 5th at the joint
briefing on our four-party proposal.
The second meeting was April 16th through the 21st , when the North Koreans
provided their initial formal response to the four- party proposal.
Monday's meeting has been called for further discussions in which we hope
to make further progress in realizing the four-party proposal.
The latest meeting was scheduled as a result of a series of working level
trilateral meetings following the April meeting. We certainly hope that
North Korea will accept our proposal. When or if that happens, we will
make a public announcement.
QUESTION: This is a discussion, this is not a briefing.
MR. DINGER: Right. We offered our briefing on March 5th.
Since then, there has been a round where the North Koreans came back with
their formal reaction and since then there have been several working level
meetings where we have just discussed the four-party proposal, which we
briefed on March 5th.
QUESTION: What is to discuss? Are you talking about the shape of the
table or details?
MR. DINGER: Well, Jim, as you know, we do not get into the details of the
discussion. We have found that in the case of our discussions on this
issue, and other issues regarding North Korea, that we are much more
effective if we don't reveal the details of our discussions.
We have said after each of the working-level rounds that have taken place
in recent weeks, that we believe the talks are headed in the right
direction. We hope that they will continue to head in the right direction,
and we hope ultimately - it's difficult to predict exactly when - but
ultimately we will go through several other steps here and realize, first,
the four-party talks, and then ultimately peace on the Korean Peninsula.
But that is obviously, one would guess, quite a ways down the road.
QUESTION: Why aren't the Chinese taking part in the discussions on Monday
in New York?
MR. DINGER: Well, these are talks to discuss the four- party talks. The
Chinese, we believe, will participate in the four- party talks if they are
held. That is the point at which the Chinese enter into the picture
formally.
Obviously, we do have discussions with China on the situation in the Korean
Peninsula. It's on of the areas, in fact, in which we cooperate quite
closely with the Chinese.
QUESTION: John, the South Koreans are quite a bit more optimistic than
you on what these talks are going to be about Monday. They are saying that
North Korea has, in fact, signaled that it is prepared to begin the
four-party talks. And this is a preparatory meeting to iron out the site
and agenda and so forth.
What is your reaction to that?
MR. DINGER: I don't really have much of a reaction to offer on that. As
I said, we have said over the last several weeks that we thought the talks
were headed in the right direction.
We have, in fact, learned that in our discussions with North Korea it is
best to be patient and to not get ahead of the story, and that when we have
things that we can announce, we announce them. Today we have nothing to
announce besides the fact that there will be a senior-level meeting in New
York on Monday.
QUESTION: And just for the record, since you have never said it, and no
one has ever said it from this podium, what was their initial reaction to
this proposal that you referred to a couple minutes ago?
MR. DINGER: Well, actually, the Secretary has mentioned that they
expressed support in principle for our proposal, but they did not agree to
the four-party talks.
QUESTION: Why didn't they agree to it?
MR. DINGER: Well, as I have just said, we have not gotten into the
details of our discussions. We have found that it's best if we do not
reveal publicly the content of these discussions.
We find that is just more effective.
QUESTION: Are you now prepared to come forward with more aid, more food
aid to North Korea?
MR. DINGER: Well, as you know, our humanitarian aid to North Korea is
given on a humanitarian basis. It is not linked to these talks. We, I
believe, are the largest donors to the World Food Program for North Korea.
We certainly recognize North Korea has a severe food problem. We have no
plans at the moment to provide additional food aid. However, should there
be another request from the international community for food aid, we will
certainly consider it.
QUESTION: Do you think the North Koreans, however, make a link,
indirectly or directly, between the food aid which has been given and their
agreement to discuss the four-party talks?
MR. DINGER: I don't want to speak for the North Koreans on that issue.
You can ask them if they want to make such a link.
We do not, however.
QUESTION: Are you prepared to discuss it on Monday, though?
Are you prepared to discuss it once, if they agree to the --
MR. DINGER: We find that the North Koreans, on virtually every occasion
in these discussions, raise with us their severe food shortage. So it
would certainly not surprise me if the issue is raised by the North
Koreans.
QUESTION: What would be your response? What you just said, we're not
prepared - we have no plans at the moment to provide you additional food
aid?
MR. DINGER: Well, I'm not going to get into the details of our agenda or
our talking points. But our position is very clear and has been since the
beginning of this -- we don't link the two; we provide the food aid on a
humanitarian basis.
QUESTION: John, the Red Cross has made an appeal recently - I believe
within the last ten days - for food aid for North Korea. Is the
U.S. considering giving aid under the auspices of the Red Cross?
MR. DINGER: Sorry, I have not seen any report of a Red Cross appeal for
food aid. Of course, there have been the discussions between the Red Cross
Societies of North and South Korea and all of that. I have not seen that.
Obviously, we frequently see reports that international organizations or
entities are preparing a new appeal. I am not aware of any new appeal that
is under consideration by us.
QUESTION: John, how will Monday's talks differ from the working-level
talks that we have had over the past month and a half or so? Is it just
the difference in level? Or is there a difference in substance? Does this
represent a major step forward in the right direction you mentioned before?
MR. DINGER: I think what I would say is that we have felt that the talks
were headed in the right direction. We have said that after every round of
the working-level talks. Clearly, we would not be going to a more senior
level if we didn't think that the talks were headed in the right direction.
But I don't have anything beyond that, in terms of speculating about the
outcome on Monday -- just nothing I can offer you on that. We have
discovered over and over again with the North Koreans that we have
something to announce, we announce it, but not before.
I certainly don't intend to do that today.
We have said the talks are heading in the right direction. We have put a
very good proposal before the North Koreans. We think they should accept
it, the four-party talks, and we certainly hope they will. But I can't
predict for you when that might happen.
QUESTION: Did you see that the North Korean official newspaper monitored
in Tokyo said that they would be willing to discuss peace as long as there
was no provocation of war. Do you think that this is a sign that the North
Koreans are coming around to the four-party talks proposal?
MR. DINGER: I don't want to try and read the tea leaves of official North
Korean media. We have found that very difficult to do. So I don't think I
want to react to that broadcast. However, I did see that report.
QUESTION: Just a quick one?
MR. DINGER: Sure.
QUESTION: Just one more, John. On missiles, what's coming up on talking
missiles with the North Koreans? Is that off the stove?
MR. DINGER: No, not at all. I think, though, what I should do is - of
course, we did have the missile talks recently in New York. I think I had
better refer you to the record, because we did give the readout that we
could following that. I just, off the top, of my head don't remember
enough of it to recount it off the cuff.
It's best to go back to the record. We discussed that after the missile
talks. There was mention of upcoming meetings, but I just don't remember
what we said exactly about it. It's best to go back to that. Yes.
QUESTION: Iraq. Do you have reaction to the comments by Rolf Ekeus on
the continued Iraqi efforts to evade sanctions?
MR. DINGER: Not much because they speak for themselves.
Mr. Ekeus has done an outstanding job heading UNSCOM in its effort to track
and uncover Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. His
comments and report seem to be very thorough.
It certainly doesn't surprise us that Iraq continues to make every effort
to hide, obfuscate, block efforts to unravel its efforts to develop weapons
of mass destruction.
We clearly believe that Iraq remains a threat to its own citizens, to the
region, and beyond. This just confirms, once again, the need to maintain
sanctions and maintain U.S. support for UNSCOM.
QUESTION: What about the need to toughen sanctions?
MR. DINGER: Well, of course, we just pronounced ourselves, along with the
Security Council, just a couple days ago on that issue. Iraq is on notice
that it needs to cooperate with UN inspectors or else it will pay a price
-- and that price will be paid beginning October 1st. So I think we had,
in fact, an announcement on that earlier this week or last week. So I
would refer you to that. It was certainly raised in the briefing.
But Iraq is on notice. It has always been on notice. It never gets off
notice. It just won't change its way. That is sad for the region and sad
for the people of Iraq. We will remain vigilant and very supportive of
UNSCOM.
QUESTION: On Israel?
MR. DINGER: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Do you have anything there about the sale of a supercomputer to
Ben Gurion University -- to the network that runs Israel's nuclear system?
MR. DINGER: I can tell you that as a result of an interagency review last
year, access by Israeli institutions, including Ben Gurion University, to
advanced computers was significantly improved.
Israel, like all other non-signatories of the nuclear non-proliferation
treaty, receives deferential treatment under U.S. export controls governing
nuclear dual-use items. For this reason, Ben Gurion University, along with
several other Israeli institutions, previously enjoyed only very limited
access to high performance computers.
But Israel was reviewed first, under the President's October 1995 Computer
Export Control Policy for the purpose of assessing whether such
restrictions were appropriate. We gave this very careful consideration and
restrictions were substantially reduced for Ben Gurion. Licenses are no
longer required for computers under 2000 MTOPS. For computers above this
level, there is a case-by-case review with no presumption of denial. For
inter-university consortium use, there is a presumption of approval for
computers of 2000 to 7000 MTOPS.
Now, we put a notice in the Federal Register to this effect. Publication of
that is part of our U.S. policy so we can inform our industry of all
special licensing procedures. So, that's what we did.
QUESTION: You're not willing to sell Ben Gurion University a
supercomputer. Is that what you're saying?
MR. DINGER: I would send you to the experts. However, I am not at all
certain that 2000 MTOPS falls under the category of supercomputer. In
fact, while not an expert, I would guess that is not the case.
QUESTION:2000 to 7000 for university use.
MR. DINGER: Well, that is for inter-university consortium use, obviously
-- when they are joined up and using a computer jointly. But those will be
reviewed.
QUESTION: Without mincing words, whatever the MTOP is for this computer,
has the United States agreed to sell it and agreed to allow its companies
to sell it to Israel?
MR. DINGER: Yes. Well, let's - it is important to go through it with
some detail, though I certainly am not an expert on computers. However,
licenses are no longer required for computers under 2000 MTOPS. For
computers above that level there is a case-by-case review. Anything above
2000 MTOPS, that's the bottom line. Now, you can get into these other
categories of 2000 to 7000. If it's for inter-university use, there is a
presumption of approval.
It would go into the approval process presuming it would be approved.
However, there is still a case-by-case review.
QUESTION: Is there a case being reviewed now?
MR. DINGER: I'm not aware of it. I don't know. I don't know who
necessarily would be reviewing that. It could well be Department of
Commerce. So, you might want to talk to them.
QUESTION: Why do you have this lengthy guidance if there is not some
specific case here you're addressing?
MR. DINGER: I think what we have found is that around the world, the
capacity of computers has expanded just exponentially.
Anybody who deals with Japan will be somewhat familiar with this issue.
What happened is that a lot of computers that, when originally the regime
was set up, fell into export controls are now widely available -- so widely
available that, in fact, the regime got a little out of sync with what's
available on the market. So, that's what's been going on.
There is a presumption, as the guidance said, that people who have not
signed - party states that have not signed the nuclear non-proliferation
treaty receive differential treatment. So, what we've done is up to 2000
MTOPS for Israel, we have removed the differential treatment for that
category. Licenses are no longer required for computers under 2000 MTOPS.
Beyond that, they will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
I would send you to the experts, but I think you will find that 2000 MTOPS
is not an enormously large computer in today's world.
So, it just seemed a reasonable thing to do, which we have done.
QUESTION: I believe there was a meeting between India's deputy foreign
minister and Mr. Strobe Talbott. Could you give us a readout on that?
MR. DINGER: Indian Minister of State for External Affairs, Saleem
Shervani met Acting Secretary of State Talbott today at 10:30 a.m. Indian
Foreign Secretary-designate, Mr. Ragunath accompanied him and he will also
meet - Mr. Ragunath will also meet Under Secretary Pickering today and
Under Secretary Eizenstat. They discussed several issues of mutual
interest. Following the meeting, they also signed a new extradition treaty
which replaces the existing 1931 agreement. We believe our new extradition
treaty is a mutually beneficial and modern tool for enhancing law
enforcement cooperation between our countries.
QUESTION: Are there any extradition requests pending with the U.S.?
MR. DINGER: I'm not aware that we have any at the State Department. But
once again, extradition often begins at the Department of Justice, so you
might discuss it. I'm not aware of any pending issues. We've been making
an effort to update and modernized our extradition treaties around the
world. As you can see, the one with India dated from 1931. So, this is
part of a global effort and we are very pleased we were able to conclude it
with India. I would hope to be able to put it to good use as necessary.
QUESTION: Could you elaborate on some of the issues the two sides
discussed?
MR. DINGER: No, I don't have any details for you on any of the issues.
They clearly involved our bilateral relationship, regional issues and
global issues. We have a broad relationship with India and lots of things
on the agenda on each occasion.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the good news coming out of the
subcontinent, in terms of the Indo-Pak dialogue and the formation of
working groups?
MR. DINGER: We have welcomed the most recent meeting of Indian and
Pakistani foreign secretaries. Of course, we previously commended renewed
discussions between the two countries. The establishment of working groups
is a very positive step in our view in this continuing dialogue, and we
hope that this will contribute to resolving differences between India and
Pakistan. The working groups' agenda, as included in the statement issued
at the end of the talks, was quite realistic. It addressed the significant
issues which divide the countries and we certainly wish both countries well
in this initiative.
QUESTION: On the extradition treaty, can you discuss any changes from the
1931 treaty?
MR. DINGER: You know, I believe that later this afternoon, we are going
to have a nice joint communiqué on this extradition treaty. So, I
can't promise it immediately following the briefing, but we're trying to
get it ready for you. That should give you all the details you need. Just
check in the press office later.
Yes, ma'am?
QUESTION: The president of Nicaragua was yesterday here at the State
Department. Do you have anything?
MR. DINGER: Well, President Aleman is in the midst of a two-day visit to
Washington and the State Department. He met yesterday with Under
Secretaries Pickering and Eizenstat. He has also had meetings with
congressional leaders and with Attorney General Reno. The State Department
meetings were cordial and productive. They covered a wide range of issues
-- principally, Cuba, property issues we have, and immigration.
President Aleman is obviously very concerned about the deportation of
Nicaraguans from the United States and the impact of such deportations on
Nicaraguans. We assured him that there will be no massive deportations of
Nicaraguans or others and that U.S. Immigration Law will be applied
humanely and on a case-by-case basis.
QUESTION: On the Cuban discussion, do you have anything more?
MR. DINGER: No, we share along with Nicaragua -- and frankly, probably
every other nation in the hemisphere and we believe most of the nations in
the world -- a desire to see democracy come to Cuba. So, they had a good
discussion about that joint vision of finally bringing democracy to the
only remaining authoritarian state in this hemisphere.
QUESTION: Also on Cuba, there is a Dengue epidemic in Cuba. Is there any
warning for people who may travel there?
MR. DINGER: Well, our first warning to the people, to American citizens
who may travel to Cuba is, don't go. Dengue fever outbreak is just one
more reason to do that. As you know, we strongly discourage U.S. tourism
in Cuba. It is, in fact, illegal for U.S. citizens to spend money to
travel as tourists to Cuba.
The way we see it, there are any number of beautiful islands in the
Caribbean.
(Laughter.)
Most of them, in fact, all of them, feature the additional attraction of
having democratic governments that do not deny their people basic
international recognized freedoms. Of course, certain categories of U.S.
citizens can legally spend money to travel to Cuba and there is an
excellent fact sheet available from the Department of Treasury about that.
But bottom line is, we don't think people should go to Cuba anyway. I
can't see any reason to go there, myself; wouldn't recommend anybody else
going there. Dengue fever is just one on top of mountain of reasons not to
go.
QUESTION: John, have we talked about any developments in the World Bank
situation, the loan for Croatia?
QUESTION: Excuse me, could I just ask one more.
MR. DINGER: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: You said the extradition issue was - I have been following this
hour-by-hour, but I have the impression that a Florida court suspended the
planned extradition - the planned deportation. And I also have the
impression that the U.S. Government is appealing that decision. Is that
correct?
MR. DINGER: I think that has been quite a difficult issue to follow, as
you say. One does have to follow it at least day-by- day, if not
hour-by-hour. I think I'll leave that to the Justice Department to get
into the details of the case that's been underway in Florida.
We have assured Nicaraguans and others, however, that we will do our utmost
to ensure that there is no mass deportation and that U.S. Immigration law
is applied in a humane fashion.
Croatia World Bank loan. The loan was scheduled for approval under the
World Bank's streamlined procedure on June 24th.
We requested a delay on June 23rd and were granted one until June 26th.
That was a technical delay that we discussed yesterday. On yesterday, June
24th, we requested that the loan be further delayed for discussion by the
full board.
It is our current understanding that the consideration of this loan will
not come up until next week, at the earliest, when the full board can meet.
At the moment, the Departments of Treasury and State are working very
closely together on this issue. We will continue to review all of our
options.
I would just make the basic points, of course, or reiterate the basic
points. And that is that we have not been satisfied with Croatia's
compliance with the Dayton Agreement. That has been particular true in its
cooperation on war criminals, on the freedom of movement -- particularly
into Bosnia, and on the return of Serb refugees. Additionally, it is very
clear that if a state does not comply with one international agreement, for
example, Dayton, it does make it a little more difficult to feel confident
that that state will cooperate, will implement another international
agreement -- for example, through an international financial institution.
So, we hope to have a longer delay during which we can further assess
Croatia's performance; and we'll judge this on a case-by-case basis.
QUESTION: There is a little confusion over this because it is my
understanding that the word from the White House is that the Administration
is "taking no position." We've heard that phrase used in relation to the
Balkan before -- taking no position, vis-à-vis, this loan. And yet
here we have now, I guess, by my count, three requests or at least two
requests for a delay on this loan. So, can you straighten that out?
MR. DINGER: I certainly can't because I haven't seen those quotes from
the White House. I'm not aware of the White House saying that. Our
position is quite clear. I just did lay it out.
Now, you get into the technical jargon of World Bank loans and, in fact, I
have four pages, I believe, here of background for me describing the
technical aspects of this -- no objections, streamlining process, regular
process. So, it could be an issue of semantics. You probably don't want
me to bore you with going through the details of how World Bank loans work.
The bottom line is we think this should be delayed. We think we need more
time to observe Croatia's performance for compliance with Dayton and also
because this clearly has implications on its willingness to implement other
international agreements. We would like to have a longer period to watch
this.
QUESTION: One follow-up. There is also some confusion regarding the
arrest of war criminals. The administration is telling people on the Hill
that we don't know where the war criminals are. However, there are
American diplomats being quoted in news stories saying we do know where
they are -- that we know that they spend 20 percent of their time in
Croatia and the rest of their time in Bosnia. And I am just wondering
whether or not, in fact, we do know where people like Mr. Kordic and Mr.
Rajic are.
MR. DINGER: We certainly, to the best of our ability, do try to follow
where war criminals are. It is certainly not a perfect - we do not have
perfect ability to do that. We are quite confident, however, that in the
case of Croatia - well, there are two sides to that issue as well. One is
whether Croatia can use its influence over war criminals that may be in the
parts of Bosnia that are associated with Croatia. That's one issue.
The other issue is whether war criminals, as you state, perhaps don't live
in Croatia, but do spend time there, and whether they are apprehended by
Croatia as obligated under the Dayton Agreement or not. On both those
issues, we are not, at the moment, satisfied with Croatia's efforts. Yes,
sir?
QUESTION: Two questions. First of all, has the State Department heard
back from Canada on its request to help get Pol Pot back into that country
for a trial?
MR. DINGER: We have never gotten into the details of the options that we
are looking at regarding assistance to the Cambodians on Pol Pot, so I
can't confirm for you what options we're looking into or any responses
we've had on any of those options.
QUESTION: Did the Secretary of State make a request to the Canadian
Government to see if they could bring him to Canada?
MR. DINGER: We have not given any of the details on the options that we
are looking at in order to help the Cambodians pursue bringing Pol Pot to
justice.
QUESTION: And just a second question dealing with Canada.
The salmon talks, again, are off; and now both sides are accusing each
other of being inflexible. Is there any hope of resuming these talks or
are we at a stalemate that they are going nowhere?
MR. DINGER: I have not seen reports that the talks are off. We held
talks, as you know, last week, Wednesday through Friday. Those talks
recessed last Friday while both sides went to their capitols to consult. I
understand that there has been contact by telephone at various levels in
the interim. Of course, the President mentioned this to the Prime
Minister, and Secretary Albright mentioned it to the Foreign Minister.
We try to remain optimistic about this. We, as you know, are very, very
confident that we went into these negotiations some months ago with an
attitude of good will, good faith and compromise.
We do not believe that the Canadian negotiator met us in that same spirit.
We are very disappointed that the Canadian negotiator walked away from the
table May 20th. Frankly, we had a very good proposal on the table -- one
that involved real compromise certainly on the U.S. side and probably on
the Canadian side as well. If the Canadian negotiator had not walked away
from those meetings, we think we would have an agreement today. We are
very disappointed.
QUESTION: The Canadians argue that your negotiator doesn't have the
authority to make the deal; that the deal has to be agreed to by various
parties and that is what is really holding this up.
MR. DINGER: That is a bogus argument because since the outset of these
negotiations in 1985, the process has been very, very clear that we act on
behalf of our stakeholders in these negotiations. It is an essential
element of these negotiations that any agreement must go back to the
constituents, the stakeholders for their confirmation.
We regret very much the Canadian negotiator walked away from the process on
May 20th, just as we felt we had an agreement that we could take back to
the stakeholders and get approval.
QUESTION: Besides talking, you are no further along the line of getting
the talks re-started again?
MR. DINGER: We are very hopeful. The problem here is that we went into
these talks with two main, and very directly related objectives. One was
to preserve the salmon fishery, the fish, off the west coast of Canada and
the United States. The other was to do that in a way that allowed for
continued salmon fishing. That was the objective. The United States aimed
squarely at that objective in a very transparent process, in a very good
faith process.
We do not feel that Canada has taken the same aim at those objectives that
we have -- the objective of one, preserving the fisheries; and two,
preserving a salmon fishery. We really regret that.
Let's go to Talal.
QUESTION: I just want to see if you have any comment on the investigation
published yesterday by The Independent, which is a British newspaper,
that revealed that most of the American bombs on air-to-ground missiles
fired by Israel in Lebanon last year were sold to the United States Army
forces and not to Israel.
And as you know, in this operation 200 civilians and 14 guerrillas were
killed from pro-Hezbollah people. One thousand seven hundred bombs and
missiles were transferred from U.S. military stocks with no prohibition on
their use against civilians. That's what the paper alleged.
This also says (Inaudible) -- the system of weapons transferred from the
United States (Inaudible) -- become that massive shipments to ordnance to
Israel are now undertaken with no publicity or debate. I wonder if you
have seen that report?
MR. DINGER: I haven't seen the report. Our security relationship with
Israel is, obviously, very well known and I would think very transparent.
You might want to check with the Pentagon to see if they have any
information on how arms transfers are conducted.
I don't think I want to get into that sort of debate because I don't see
that it is essentially a State Department issue.
QUESTION: I don't know why you say it's not a State Department because,
well, the paper says the State Department gives the orders and the
acceptance of every Israeli request and desire. Whatever it wants is
acceded to, quoting a senior retired U.S. general.
MR. DINGER: We have a very, very close relationship with Israel; that's
for certain. I believe this is fairly transparent.
I would also point out, of course, the United States, in terms of the issue
of civilians being involved in this, the United States was an essential
player in setting up the monitoring group regarding Southern Lebanon. That
group is operating very, very well. In fact, we just issued a statement
yesterday or the day before on the latest meeting in Ankara.
So I haven't seen that report. I think our relationship across the board
with Israel is very transparent --
QUESTION: I am very surprised, because the paper is saying that despite
four weeks of inquiries to the State Department and the Department of
Defense seeking clarification, neither department had felt able to respond
to The Independent's inquiries.
MR. DINGER: Well, with all due respect to The Independent, I haven't
seen that report. I think our relationship with Israel is very, very
transparent in most cases, when we can be. We also set up the monitoring
group to try to help avoid or resolve issues involving civilians in
Southern Lebanon.
QUESTION: Could you confirm that shipments are transferred without any
limitation on their use?
MR. DINGER: No, I think I have to send you to the record, or to maybe
DOD. I am not quite sure who is involved in arms transfers to Israel. But
I think it's all there. I think if The Independent or any journalist
wants to explore this issue, there is probably more than enough on the
record to --
QUESTION: It states they made about 30 phone calls to both departments,
and neither of them wants to - every one of them sent the reporter to the
other department.
MR. DINGER: I don't think I can help you. Maybe they just need to do
some independent research.
(Laughter.)
No pun intended with The Independent newspaper. Bill.
QUESTION: Yes, thank you, John. Regarding the alleged eyewitness to the
Khobar bombings, Mr. Al-Sayegh, who will be in district court tomorrow
morning in Judge Sullivan's U.S. District Court, John, are the reports
accurate that the Saudi Arabians were sending some of their law enforcement
people here to Washington to interview Mr. Al-Sayegh? And has it happened
yet?
MR. DINGER: Bill, you know I am not going to get into that. However,
this does offer an opportunity to note that I believe today is the one-year
anniversary of the terrorist bomb exploded in front of the Khobar Towers in
Dhahran. That, of course, killed 19 Americans.
We share the special grief this day must bring to the families of the
airmen who died a year ago. Since then we have made every possible effort
to bring those responsible to justice. That process, as we know, is still
ongoing.
As we have pursued this investigation, we have received cooperation from
Saudi authorities. We continue to give this investigation absolutely top
priority. We have reached no conclusion regarding responsibility for
Khobar. Just as we have in other terrorist cases, we will take all the
time necessary to complete a thorough investigation. Because it is an
ongoing criminal investigation, I can't comment on any of the details of
that criminal matter.
QUESTION: But, John, the comment about Saudis being invited or welcome to
come here and interview this particular witness?
MR. DINGER: No, you might talk to the Department of Justice or the law
enforcement authorities. I don't have anything for you on that.
QUESTION: Is there any reciprocation if this the case, from the Saudis?
Or can you say --
MR. DINGER: The FBI is in charge of our investigation.
It's an ongoing investigation on which I have no comment. But we do want
to express our condolences to the families, again, one year later today.
It's a terrible incident.
QUESTION: Any reaction to the comments of the Japanese Prime Minister in
New York the other day that brought down the stock market?
MR. DINGER: No.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the state of play in Geneva at the
UN Conference on Disarmament where a U.S. effort to start work on a global
ban on landmines apparently has hit another snag?
MR. DINGER: The issue, I think, to which you are referring is a decision
on a special coordinator -- the establishment of a position of special
coordinator for anti-personal landmines.
We expect that decision to be taken Thursday, tomorrow, June 26th, before
part two of the 1997 Session of the Conference on Disarmament concludes on
Friday. The United States strongly supports the appointment of a special
coordinator, and we are working to try to make that happen.
As you know, we are committed to a ban on anti-personnel landmines.
We continue to believe that the Conference on Disarmament offers the most
practical and effective alternative for negotiating a conference of global
ban on landmines. We believe a special coordinator for that purpose is
necessary; and we look forward to working hard toward reaching that goal.
QUESTION: And if this effort to get a special coordinator appointed
fails, will the United States take another look at the fast track Ottawa
conference approach?
MR. DINGER: Well, first, of course, we never like to speculate in the
negative about it failing. We hope to reach an agreement on the special
coordinator for anti-personnel landmines. Nevertheless, if Thursday's
action does not result in that, there is part three of this year's
Conference on Disarmament, which begins in late July. We will, if
necessary, take it to part three.
Regarding the Ottawa process, you probably know our position very well. We
believe the Conference on Disarmament, for several reasons, is the best
venue to negotiate a ban on landmines. Nevertheless, we do participate in
Ottawa meetings, because we believe those processes can be complimentary.
Yes, Betsy.
QUESTION: John, do you have anything more on the American that was
reported to have been picked up by Iranian authorities?
MR. DINGER: We, of course, are aware of the report. The reports that
we've seen in the press do not give the name of the American allegedly
detained. That makes - do you have a name?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. DINGER: That will make it easier --
(Laughter.)
-- to try to track the information down. I can nevertheless still point
out that U.S. interests in Iran are represented by the Swiss Government.
We have asked the Swiss protecting power in Tehran, via our embassy in
Bern, to verify the report. If the report proves true, the Swiss
protecting power will ask for counselor access to the American on our
behalf.
Now, I would like to point out that our consular information sheet
regarding Iran states very clearly that the Department of State warns all
U.S. citizens against travel to Iran. We don't think Americans should
travel there. Nevertheless, if an American has ignored this warning and
traveled to Iran and gotten into trouble, we will make every effort to
assist that American through our protecting power - the Swiss.
There is also an issue, as you know, of Privacy Act. We obviously do not
have a privacy act waiver on any American that may be detained.
That will be one of our first steps since - and that is what we are working
on through our embassy in Bern, Switzerland.
QUESTION: Have you heard back from the Swiss, John, from your inquiry?
MR. DINGER: Well, this may be added news because, frankly, it was very
difficult. There are several American citizens detained in Iran. Most of
them are dual nationals. None have given us a Privacy Act waiver. So
that's where we are.
QUESTION: Have the Swiss gotten back to you on your specific request
about this person?
MR. DINGER: No.
QUESTION: I mean, didn't you - and when did you ask them?
MR. DINGER: I think we asked them yesterday.
QUESTION: Yesterday?
MR. DINGER: Yeah.
QUESTION: And now 24 hours later, they haven't been able to --
MR. DINGER: Well, Iran's a big country. Perhaps this -- what we're
talking about here is trying to verify whether an American, previously
completely unidentified to us, was arrested someplace in Iran. That's a
tall order. We have a lot of faith in the Swiss. But I think we ought to
give them a break here.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: John, can you confirm that reportedly the North Korean
delegation for the missile talks recently visited a U.S. military control
center?
MR. DINGER: I can absolutely deny that. That did not happen.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. DINGER: A military control center?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. DINGER: No, that's not true. There was a report in the press
yesterday about a visit by a North Korean delegation to an unclassified,
private installation, I'll call it, a center.
That did take place. That was part of an effort on our part to bring the
North Koreans into the global arms control community.
We did arrange this. We have a key objective of the United States
Government of trying to, as I say, bring the North Koreans into the global
community on non-proliferation.
We did arrange a visit to a private, unclassified facility in order to show
them some of the confidence-building measures that are used elsewhere in
the world to try to avoid proliferation of weapons. So that did happen.
But as you described it, that simply did not happen.
QUESTION: They didn't go back to North Korea?
MR. DINGER: I refer you to the North Koreans for where they are now. I
don't know.
QUESTION: Sorry, John, what kind of a site was this?
MR. DINGER: It was a private site, I believe run by Sandia - Sandia, I'll
leave it there. That part of it, I believe, was described accurately in
the press article. The name of the private firm that was involved,
however, was a completely unclassified facility. It was absolutely in the
vein of trying to further one of our top priorities of this Administration.
That's the non-proliferation of weapons. So, yes, absolutely we did that,
and hope it helps toward achieving our goal.
QUESTION: But what does this site actually do? It monitors U.S. missiles
or --
MR. DINGER: No, on June 16th, six North Korean officials visited an
unclassified facility - the Sandia National Laboratories Cooperative
Monitoring Center. They had a one-day workshop on general arms control
principles.
Another private organization - the Atlantic Council - organized the
workshop. The Atlantic Council is based in Washington; it's a research
organization. Sandia National Laboratory is not a United States Government
entity. It does have a relationship with the Department of Energy,
however.
At no time did the North Koreans have access to any classified information,
nor to any sensitive U.S. technology. All items displayed at the
Cooperative Monitoring Center are commercially available technologies. The
intent of the workshop was to introduce North Korea to general principles
of arms control confidence-building measures that have been widely used in
other regions of the world.
This was in the furtherance of one of our top national priorities.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: New subject. Recently several attacks happened in Europe
against the Turkish diplomatic facilities. According to the wire report,
some of the unknown Armenian terrorist organizations and the PKK cooperated
with each other on this attack. Do you have any reaction on the subject?
MR. DINGER: We condemn terrorism wherever and whenever it takes place.
I'm not familiar with those reports. I certainly hope that there was no
one hurt or injured. We condemn terrorism wherever and whenever it takes
place.
QUESTION: Another wire report mentions that the PKK earn $500 million
selling drugs to the United States. Do you have anything on this subject?
MR. DINGER: I don't have anything for you on that. We certainly believe
the PKK is a vicious terrorist organization.
I don't have anything I can offer you on how it may gain financing.
I would refer you to our annual terrorism report for any comment it may
have on sources of revenue for the PKK. It's a vicious terrorist
organization. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Could I ask, MIA talks, which starts today in New York --
MR. DINGER: I think I'd refer you to DOD. They have the lead on POW-MIA
issues.
QUESTION: John, will the Secretary be seeing the Japanese special envoy,
appointed by the Summit of the Eight, to Cambodia when she's there?
MR. DINGER: I'm not aware that she has an appointment along those lines.
QUESTION: Is one of her objectives in Cambodia to find out what really is
going on with Pol Pot?
MR. DINGER: I think it's best to leave details of the Secretary's trip
and travel and schedule and agenda to the traveling party, which is on the
road right now - in the air, as a matter of fact. In terms of Pol Pot,
that issue, if you want I could try to get you an update. I don't have
much new to offer, though.
QUESTION: Do you know if the Secretary is even going to Cambodia?
MR. DINGER: I think I'll leave that for the party to discuss.
Obviously, it's their trip, the Secretary's trip, and I'll leave that to
them for any updates. Yes.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the visit of the Australian prime
minister this week in D.C.?
MR. DINGER: The prime minister?
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MR. DINGER: I think I'll refer that to the White House.
QUESTION: All right.
(The briefing concluded at 2:01 P.M.)
(###)
|
