U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #97, 97-07-01
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1333
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, July 1, 1997
Briefer: John Dinger
ANNOUNCEMENTS/STATEMENTS
1 US-Cuba Migration Talks, July 16-17
1-2 July 2 Mtg of Secretary's Advisory Committee on Religious
Freedom
HUMAN RIGHTS
1-2 Agenda for Advisory Committee Meeting
BOSNIA/CROATIA
2,7 Karadzic Leadership of Government/Indicted War Criminal /
Responsibilities of
2-3 Rep of Srpska Under Dayton Accords/Gelbard's Meetings in
Bosnia/President Plavsic
5,7 US Troop Withdrawal Schedule/SFOR Activities
7 Detentions of War Criminals/Target Date for Study of Options
on Apprehending War Criminals
CROATIA
3-4 World Bank Loan Postponed/Necessity to Comply with Dayton
Accords
CUBA
5-6 Details on Migration Talks/ Bilaterals on Other Issues/US
Views on Cuban Future
CAMBODIA
6-7 Whereabouts of Pol Pot/Defense Secretary Cohen's Meeting
with Swedish FM
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
8-9 US View on Secret and/or Public Talks
9 Chairman Arafat's Comments on US or French Involvement in
Process
9 French, EU Mediation Possibilities
KOREA (NORTH)
10,18 Bilateral Talks Open Tomorrow in NY/Headway on Issues in
Trilateral Talks
10 Issue of Food/US Response to International Appeals
10-12 Preparatory Meeting for Four-Party Talks/Ultimate Objective
12-13 Firing New Cruise Missile/Issue of Missiles in Talks
13 Press Freedoms
13 Connection Between Agreement to Enter Talks for US Easing
Sanctions/Relationship to Trading With the Enemy Act
ALBANIA
13-14 Election Process/OSCE Assessment/Second Round Sunday/
ARMS CONTROL
14-17 Experiments Permitted Under CTBT/Sharing Technology and
Results/Compliance with CTBT/Monitors
SECRETARY
17-18 European Trip Schedule
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #97
TUESDAY, JULY 1, 1997 1:11 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. DINGER: Welcome to the State Department. I have two announcements.
First I'd like to announce that the United States and Cuba will hold the
seventh in their current series of migration talks in New York, July 16th
and 17th. The purpose of this round of talks will be to review technical
details and ensure the continued smooth operation and implementation of the
migration agreements.
The talks deal exclusively with migration issues. The September 9, 1994,
and May 2, 1995, migration accords have proved successful in discouraging
the dangerous outflow of migrants on unseaworthy vessels while preserving
protections for refugees. The accords have also significantly expanded
opportunities for safe, legal and orderly migration from Cuba to the United
States. As a result, many lives that would have been lost at sea have been
saved and many families separated for decades across the Florida Straits
have been safely reunited in the United States.
Also, I would like to mention that tomorrow, July 2nd, beginning at 9:00
a.m., there will be the second public meeting of the Secretary's Advisory
Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad.
That will be an all-day event in the Loy Henderson Auditorium.
We expect that Under Secretaries Pickering and Wirth, Assistant Secretary
Shattuck and Deputy Assistant Secretary Coffey, from our Democracy, Labor
and Human Rights Bureau will make remarks.
It is open to the press and interested press should contact the Public
Affairs Officer in our DRL Bureau, Yehudah Mirsky. His phone number is
647-1403.
QUESTION: What is open? The whole session?
MR. DINGER: The session is open. It is a public meeting and it's all
open to the public, to the press.
QUESTION: Will she be addressing them?
MR. DINGER: No plans for the Secretary to address it, no -- Under
Secretaries Pickering and Wirth and Assistant Secretary Shattuck and Deputy
Assistant Secretary Steve Coffey.
QUESTION: Is this - are they kicking - there's a report pending from this
commission. Is that what is going to be the subject of the --
MR. DINGER: I'd suggest you call Yehudah Mirsky for any details on what
may be on the agenda for the meeting. Barry?
QUESTION: Well, a couple of things. Karadzic is still running the
government, according to the Bosnian Serb president; and, surely, the State
Department must have been aware of that.
But do you have any reaction to that?
MR. DINGER: Well, Radovan Karadzic promised to stop all political
activity and to withdraw from public life. We wish he would do that. We
believe he should do that. We believe it is in the interest of Republika
Srpska, the people in Republika Srpska and the people of Bosnia that he
fulfill that promise.
Frankly, it doesn't surprise us too much that he tries to break that
promise. Karadzic is an indicted war criminal. He should be in The Hague.
QUESTION: Well, the official -- the Bosnian president who announced this
is somebody - the Bosnian Serb president is somebody that the State
Department sometimes feels it can deal with. Are you disappointed by her
performance?
MR. DINGER: Are we disappointed in Madam Plavsic? I think rather than
personalize it, what I would like to say is that we are disappointed in the
Republika Srpska's performance under the Dayton accords. There is a whole
host of issues in Dayton that the Republika Srpska has not dealt with
forthrightly and, very frankly, this has been very much to the Republika
Srpska's detriment.
QUESTION: Is there anything you have? Any kind of leverage?
Any way you could fix the situation?
MR. DINGER: What the people and the leaders of Republika Srpska need to
understand is that it is in their interest to comply with the Dayton
accords. The Republika Srpska is paying a price for its failure to comply
with Dayton; that is clear. If they had, if they would, I think it's an
inescapable conclusion that they would be far better off than they are
today.
It is in their self-interest. We just have to convince them of that. We
make every effort to do that. In fact, Bob Gelbard was just in Bosnia. He
met with the leadership of Republika Srpska, and he certainly made these
same points very strongly.
QUESTION: But that's the rub, isn't it? I mean, you are approaching this
from the viewpoint of Washington and assuming that if they behaved as you
want them to behave, that aid would flow in and everything would be
hunky-dory. But, you know, sitting in Pale, the view is different.
MR. DINGER: I think that we are approaching this certainly from our view,
but also frankly, from the view that the Republika Srpska should have. It
is so clearly in its self interest to get the international aid, the
international cooperation that, frankly, it dumbfounds us that they don't
see that.
QUESTION: Well, but, I mean, that kind of nationalism seems to play well,
that, you know, rejects much of Dayton and rejects the overtures that you
make.
MR. DINGER: Well --
QUESTION: I mean, we could argue that point.
MR. DINGER: We could. I don't think anybody has any complaint with
cultural pride et cetera, et cetera. But what we are talking about here is
an international accord signed by all the parties.
Compliance to it is clearly in their interest. We are just very
disappointed when they don't see that.
QUESTION: John, there were reports yesterday that Madam Plavsic was
either arrested or detained by paramilitary forces loyal to Karadzic. Do
you know anything about that?
MR. DINGER: There seems to be considerable confusion surrounding the
incident that apparently took place. I cannot clarify that confusion for
you. What I can say is that we believe that, frankly, Mrs. Plavsic and the
people of Republika Srpska are paying a price - a price in terms of
confusion and chaos, perhaps, and lack of rule of law through their failure
to implement fully Dayton. Hopefully, they can come to that conclusion and
realize that if the implemented Dayton, incidents such as this, we believe,
could be avoided.
QUESTION: Given whatever it was, what does it tell you about this
country? That the president can be detained, arrested, stopped, whatever,
by paramilitary troops loyal to a war criminal who is supposed to be
underground?
MR. DINGER: It tells me exactly what I have been saying to you -- that we
believe the Republika Srpska is paying a price for its failure to comply
with Dayton. If they had, we think it's entirely possible that an incident
like this could be avoided, because there might be political stability;
there might be economic recovery; there might be a brighter future for the
people of Republika Srpska. It is clearly in the interests of the
Republika Srpska to begin to comply with Dayton now. With that, we believe
they will see much more aid, much more investment from the international
community. It's in their interest.
QUESTION: On that - a similar subject in the Balkans.
There are reports that the World Bank is returning today to the question of
the $30 million loan to Croatia. Is the United States still opposed to
granting this loan at this time?
MR. DINGER: Well, we believe that that loan should be delayed
indefinitely while we continue to observe the performance of Croatia. Now,
I understand that the bank board did decide, in fact, to postpone
indefinitely consideration of a $30 million loan to Croatia. I understand
that there was broad, multilateral support for the bank's decision, in
light of Croatia's insufficient compliance with its obligations under the
Dayton agreement.
Of course, as you know, the U.S. sought this postponement because of
Croatia's unwillingness to encourage return of refugees, freedom of
movement, and also it's failure in an effort to put more pressure on the
Bosnian Croats to hand over indicted war criminals.
Also, of course, we have pointed out that if a entity fails to comply with
one international agreement, it has to bring into question its willingness
to comply with other international agreements.
For example, failure to comply with Dayton may have an implication
regarding compliance with an international financial institution.
QUESTION: Was that decision to delay - was that taken today?
MR. DINGER: I understand that it was taken today.
QUESTION: Makes you wonder -- the President's remarks about not focusing
on the date of withdrawing the troops, but focus on the problems. And that
was, what? Just a couple of weeks ago? Here you have two of the key
players, and you only have a negative situation. You want to take a long
view and tell us how likely you think that the Dayton accords will ever be
implemented?
MR. DINGER: Well, Barry, you know I could never improve on what the
Secretary and the President have said, as you point out, fairly recently.
QUESTION: They didn't say. They said, let's work on it.
And they rallied the seven summit partners and they all stood up and
cheered for democracy and implementation of the Dayton accord.
MR. DINGER: Absolutely.
QUESTION: And here we are two weeks later, look at the situation on the
ground.
MR. DINGER: They pointed out that there is much work to be done,
particularly the civilian implementation side, and that the important thing
now is to focus on that, not what happens a year from now. So that's --
QUESTION: Any hope - have you see anything positive that hasn't been
reported? Any bridge opened or something?
MR. DINGER: I wish I could report consistent and significant positive
movement. I can't report that to you today. Bob Gelbard was just there as
part of this effort; you know he is in charge of that effort now. We are
absolutely committed to working in the upcoming year to push forward
civilian implementation so that the people of Bosnia can have the future
that all people deserve.
QUESTION: John, what mechanisms can do that? As far as going --
MR. DINGER: Well, there are several things. For example, on return of
refugees, there is the - I believe it's called the Model Open Cities
Proposal - where there will be incentives for communities to take back
refugees. There were a series of initiatives, and I would probably refer
you to Bob Gelbard's briefing where he laid those out. I think there was
also - yes, I think his briefing --
QUESTION: Is SFOR cooperating and helping with civilian implementation?
MR. DINGER: There was also part of that. I would refer you back to
Mr. Gelbard's briefing --
QUESTION: Not, but I'm asking you to assess since that briefing, because
that was one of the points he made.
MR. DINGER: SFOR was always engaged, if somewhat indirectly, in the
civilian implementation aspect of it. They continue to be.
QUESTION: There were suggestions that SFOR should do more, helping with
refugee return --
MR. DINGER: We are completely satisfied with SFOR's performance in
Bosnia.
QUESTION: John, just for the record, can you, as a State Department
spokesman, say why in these talks with - these talks with Cuba will deal
exclusively with migration issues?
MR. DINGER: That's what they are for. The migration agreements have been
very successful. We have found, since they were concluded, that it is very
useful once in a while to take stock of the agreements and make sure they
are continuing to work well. This is the seventh in this series. The last
one was in November 1996. They deal exclusively with migration issues.
The people that attend them are primarily experts on those issues.
QUESTION: If they were useful, and you have this long history of useful
talks, why wouldn't the United States want to use the talks as a
springboard for trying to resolve some of its differences with Cuba?
MR. DINGER: That's not what these talks for, Barry. These talks are --
QUESTION: No --
MR. DINGER: -- to focus on the migration issue because it has been - it
was and is a very, very important issue. These talks deserve to stand
alone.
QUESTION: Well, I guess what I am asking is a statement from you why the
United States is unwilling to talk to Cuba about other issues?
MR. DINGER: We talk to Cuba. We have an Interests Section in Havana.
They have an Interests Section here. For formal talks along these lines,
these are for migration issues.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. want relations with Cuba to improve?
MR. DINGER: We would love to see a democratic Cuba. It's the last
authoritarian state in this hemisphere. We believe the Cuban people
deserve a democracy and free markets. We would love nothing more than to
see a democratic Cuba and have regular relations with that country.
QUESTION: Not to drag it out, but you have very good relations with
dozens of countries that aren't democratic. Can't you have an improvement?
Can the State Department or can the Administration not improve relations
with Cuba unless there is a democracy in Havana?
MR. DINGER: It takes two to tango. We do have representation in Cuba.
We operate under the Cuba Democracy Act of 1992. That lays out very
clearly what our priorities are. Our top priority is assisting the Cuban
people to exercise their rights and to foster, to the extent we can,
democracy in Cuba. We would love nothing more to see the Cuban people be
able to exercise fully those rights.
QUESTION: Different topic?
MR. DINGER: Mm-hmm.
(Telephone rings.)
QUESTION: It's Havana.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: They heard your answer.
QUESTION: Tass' website today had a report that said Pol Pot was in
Sweden seeking asylum. No, seriously. Is that anything you --
MR. DINGER: I saw the report. I wasn't sure whether Pol Pot had a web
site. It was not Pol Pot's web site.
QUESTION: No. He had a web, not a web site.
MR. DINGER: I see. No, I saw that report, but I certainly can't confirm
it. To the best of my knowledge, Pol Pot remains in a remote section of
Cambodia and we frankly cannot confirm exactly what his status is there.
QUESTION: This report has nothing at all to do with Mr. Cohen's meeting
with the Swedish defense minister?
MR. DINGER: I don't believe there is any relationship.
QUESTION: John, back on Bosnia. Doesn't this situation with the Serb
president beg the question of whether you should step up efforts to
apprehend Karadzic? You meaning the protection force?
MR. DINGER: Well, SFOR's rules regarding the detention of war criminals
are well known. They haven't changed. We have no intention of changing
them.
Regarding a different effort, you know that Secretary Albright has said
repeatedly that we are exploring all options that may be available to us to
strengthen the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. We continue to examine
those options.
QUESTION: Do you have the target date for the results of that study of
options?
MR. DINGER: It's a continuing effort, Barry.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, it's a continuing effort. Well, I mean we -
everybody in this building I'm sure has thoughts that they explore on all
sorts of issues. But I mean, is there any realistic expectation that this
administration will come out with some formula that might lead to the
apprehension of these war criminals?
MR. DINGER: I can certainly take you through the war crimes issue which,
of course, begins with the fact that the parties have first responsibility
for detaining war criminals and sending them to The Hague. That is where
we begin this discussion.
QUESTION: But you wouldn't have expected Germany to turn over Hitler,
would you?
MR. DINGER: Well, I'm not going to compare or contrast.
QUESTION: Has there been a more apt comparison since World War II and
what happened in Bosnia?
MR. DINGER: As a matter of policy, I don't compare things.
What I would say is that what we have is an agreement that was concluded in
Dayton in which the parties committed to detaining war criminals and
turning them over to The Hague. We want them to fulfill that commitment.
QUESTION: We have just discussed the parties' compliance with Dayton in
this briefing.
MR. DINGER: And it's lack of compliance with war criminals is one of the
major areas in which we are not satisfied.
QUESTION: How about the Ariel Sharon-Mahmud Abbas talks, the secret
talks? Was the Clinton Administration, any member of it, any mediator,
anybody aware that these private talks -- because State Department has
spoken fondly of its interest in secret diplomacy as a way to maybe move
the peace process along.
Not everything can be open. You know that's Dennis Ross' - one of Dennis
Ross' principles that you have to do a lot in private; you can't do
everything out front. Were you all, Dennis or anybody aware that - the
foreign minister wasn't aware, but he's just the foreign minister -- was
anybody in the building aware of what was going on?
MR. DINGER: Well, Barry, you made probably my first couple of points
there. But the main thing is I don't have anything for you on that.
QUESTION: No, no. They're your points. Please say them.
If you support private diplomacy, it would be apropos to say it now.
MR. DINGER: We have found that in our efforts to advance peace in the
Middle East that it has been most effective when we have not - when we have
not commented extensively in public on them.
We do believe, though, as a fundamental principle that meetings between
Israeli and Palestinian officials are an excellent way to advance the peace
process. Beyond that, I just don't have anything to add.
QUESTION: Thank you. That helps, but let me try one footnote to that.
We all recall that there's a lot of telephone diplomacy going on here.
When the Administration is asked why the Secretary doesn't go to the Middle
East or whatever, and the answer is, telephones operate well, too, and
there's a lot of calling.
MR. DINGER: And also many of the leaders have --
QUESTION: And they come here and, indeed, if we mention any connection
between parties, we are then simply told Dennis Ross is on top of that,
he's following that directly. Was the administration following these
talks? Were they getting reports on them?
MR. DINGER: Barry, I just don't have anything I can give you on that. As
you know, and as I just repeated, we have found that often our diplomacy in
the Middle East is most effective when we don't go into the details of what
we know or don't know.
QUESTION: And one last thing, is there any - does the State Department
have any special attachment to structure as a way to conduct diplomacy? I
mean is there a reason sometimes why a foreign minister -- or I suppose a
Secretary of State on this end -- wouldn't know what's going on on a
particular front at a particular time?
MR. DINGER: I don't even know what that question was.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Well, the question is, do you think - well, then let me put it
more directly. Do you think, given the situation that foreign ministers of
countries involved in the Middle East peace making should be informed of
negotiations that are going on in private?
MR. DINGER: Thank you for being clear.
QUESTION: I mean, should it be a structured thing or is it, you know,
maybe Jimmy Carter is going to go there next week?
MR. DINGER: It won't surprise you that I don't want to get into a
discussion on something that is so sensitive within Israel.
QUESTION: Yasser Arafat says that essentially the U.S. isn't doing
anything right now in the peace process and he thinks maybe the French
ought to give it a shot. Do you have a comment on that?
MR. DINGER: Well, with all due respect to Chairman Arafat, the
fundamental responsibility here is for the two sides -- Palestinians and
Israelis -- to take the steps necessary to get the process back on track.
We are doing everything we can to assist them to do that, as Barry has
pointed out in a very detailed way -- telephone calls, the leadership here,
Dennis Ross being closely
involved. But it is important, I think, to focus on the key issue and that
is that the fundamental responsibility here is for the parties to make the
decisions necessary to get the process back on track.
QUESTION: Do you have a sense of how much the European Union negotiator
is involved? He has moved from Tel Aviv to Cyprus, which suggests some
distancing from the scene. In the sense that if the French don't go down
easily with at least one party, maybe the Europeans as a group would be an
acceptable helpful mediator?
MR. DINGER: No, I don't have anything at all; no reaction at all.
QUESTION: To follow up on how true - (inaudible) -- support any mediator
who could get the process going would be --
MR. DINGER: The goal here is peace, lasting peace in the
Middle East. Obviously, we support any constructive effort to that end.
We would support - we do support any constructive effort.
Clearly, the past has shown that the United States has been the most
effective actor. That just seems evident. And we are closely involved,
heavily engaged, but we support any effort that helps the parties get back
to the table.
QUESTION: New subject?
MR. DINGER: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Could you preview for the record your talks tomorrow your talks
tomorrow with the North Koreans in New York?
MR. DINGER: There will be a bilateral U.S.-DPRK meeting on Wednesday,
July 2, in New York. Acting Assistant Secretary of State Charles Kartman
will head the U.S. side. Vice Foreign Minister Kim Gye Gwan will lead the
DPRK delegation. The meeting will be held at the U.S. mission to the
United Nations.
We expect to discuss with the DPRK the full range of bilateral issues,
including missile non-proliferation, POW-MIA matters and exchange of
liaison offices. We do not anticipate any press availability surrounding
this meeting. However, we do hope later in the afternoon that the press
office here at Washington could give you a brief readout - emphasis on
brief.
These bilateral meetings are part of an ongoing series of such meetings at
the working and senior levels. As you know, we do not expect to have
something new to report after every meeting.
QUESTION: Does the headway on peace talks suggest, maybe, headway on
other areas? Or does one necessarily flow from the other?
MR. DINGER: I don't think one necessarily flows from the other. We
intended to have bilateral talks because there's a fairly broad agenda, as
you can see, bilaterally with the DPRK, that clearly doesn't fall into what
can be discussed in the trilaterals.
We take advantage of the opportunities for bilateral talks.
QUESTION: Will you discuss the food aid tomorrow?
MR. DINGER: The North Koreans routinely bring up the issue of food, so it
would not surprise me if they bring it up on the --
QUESTION: But now that they've accepted the offer for peace talks, are
you all ready to fulfill your promise to normalize these food deliveries -
make it a routine?
MR. DINGER: We will respond to international appeals.
As you know, we have responded to I think every World Food Program appeal
for food aid. I believe we're the largest contributors to the World Food
Program. We, at the moment, have no plans to give any additional food aid
to North Korea. But should there be a new appeal, we will certainly
consider it.
QUESTION: Do the North Koreans ask, John, for this, I believe 32, 33-day
period before the preparatory talks? And can you define what, in fact,
will be the nature of these preparatory talks?
MR. DINGER: Just to briefly go through the four-party talks and the
preparatory meeting, certainly the United States Government welcomes North
Korea's acceptance of the U.S.-ROK proposal.
You remember that President Clinton and President Kim made this proposal.
We think that these talks are aimed at creating a permanent - well, we know
that these talks are aimed at creating a permanent peace in the Korean
Peninsula. As an important step toward that end, we think that they can
make a valuable contribution to the entire region.
The U.S. and South Korea explained that they will continue to consider
humanitarian assistance, as we have in the past, based on appeals by
recognized relief agencies, such as the World Food Program.
We anticipate that the delegations to the preparatory meetings will be
similar in composition to those that have met in New York - with the
obvious and important addition of a Chinese delegation.
We have consulted at every stage of this process with the PRC.
All four parties will attend the preparatory meeting.
Our meetings so far have focused on the aims of four-party talks.
We now need to make detailed arrangements for the talks themselves.
Also, obviously, the meetings so far have not included the Chinese.
All four parties need to consult now together, face to face, to make the
detailed arrangements.
We expect the talks will set the date, the level of representation, the
agenda, the venue and the procedures for conducting four-party
negotiations. The United States is prepared to be flexible and take into
account the desires of the other three parties in this process.
QUESTION: What is the - about the agenda? I thought the point of the
talks was to draft a peace treaty.
MR. DINGER: Well, eventually, yes. The hope, ultimately, is to replace
the armistice with a permanent peace.
QUESTION: Well, that's the agenda; isn't it?
MR. DINGER: Yes, but I think we can be a little more detailed.
As you can anticipate, these will be very complex talks. We'll need to
consider very carefully how to approach them and how to advance towards
what ultimately will lead to a permanent peace in the Korean Peninsula.
QUESTION: Is there a problem about a table and seating and --
MR. DINGER: We hope there won't be any problems like that.
It's the venue, the procedures, the agenda - that's what we'll be
addressing August 5th in New York with the other three parties.
QUESTION: So you don't actually have an agreement for where the talks
will be - full peace talks - when they will be held, what the agenda will
be. What is it that you have an agreement from North Korea on?
MR. DINGER: We have agreement to start the planning with the Chinese
included for four-party talks. As you can understand, the talks thus far
have been three parties. The Chinese have not even been there. Obviously
we could not move ahead with any more detail planning without the Chinese
being present.
Also, the talks thus far have been of a more general nature - focused on
the aims of the four-party talks. Now we need to get into the details.
QUESTION: So it's not exactly accurate to say that North Korea has agreed
to participate in the four-party talks.
MR. DINGER: They have agreed to participate in the four-party talks. The
first step is a preparatory meeting for those talks.
QUESTION: But they're still talks about talks, right?
MR. DINGER: We're now preparing for the plenary talks.
And the Chinese have not been involved thus far. They're one of the four
parties; obviously, they need to be brought in now to move forward.
QUESTION: It's a process, right, John?
MR. DINGER: It is a process. We are now in the beginning of the next
stage of the process.
QUESTION: According to The Washington Times, North Korea fired a new
cruise missile recently. So, do you have any comment about that?
MR. DINGER: No special comment. I think that report that you're
referring to was allegedly based on alleged intelligence information. So
as you know, as a matter of policy, we don't comment on alleged
intelligence.
QUESTION: Do you have something that allegedly might come up tomorrow?
(Laughter.)
Hypothetically?
MR. DINGER: Missiles --
QUESTION: Missiles are important. If they hit you, you get hurt, you
know?
MR. DINGER: Missiles have routinely been a part of our discussions with
North Korea and that topic, in general, we expect to discuss tomorrow. As
you know, we have not usually given details of our talks, particularly the
missile talks.
QUESTION: Yesterday, North Korean authorities threatened repeatedly
throughout the - (inaudible) -- to close the daily newspaper. Do you have
any further comment about that?
MR. DINGER: I don't have any further comment. Obviously, the United
States believes fundamentally in freedom of the press.
That's one of the reasons why we do this briefing for you everyday.
And so, that is our basic principle. We believe in freedom of the press,
and certainly hope that journalists can pursue their vocation without fear
of retaliation or threat or reprisals.
QUESTION: Now that there is some agreement on Monday, is there any more
thought of creating some humanitarian holes in the U.S. embargo in time for
flood season in North Korea?
MR. DINGER: I have nothing to announce on any change in our fundamental
policy towards Korea. As you know, we contribute and are the largest
contributors to the World Food Program of humanitarian appeals.
QUESTION: John, it has been suggested by a senior U.S. official that
once North Korea agreed to these talks, then the sanctions placed on them
under the trading with the enemy act could be lifted. Is that - are you
all moving to do that now or have you changed your mind?
MR. DINGER: I'd have to go back to the record to see what we've said on
the issue of sanctions. Thanks for the opportunity.
I do not believe that we are at the stage now of fundamentally reviewing
our sanctions towards North Korea.
QUESTION: Will you take that question -- whether the trading with the
enemy act sanctions are now going to be lifted?
MR. DINGER: We'll see if there are any implications for the sanctions
against North Korea.
QUESTION: That one in particular.
QUESTION: One more, one more on Korea.
MR. DINGER: Let's go to this gentleman - Korea? Okay, Bill, one last
one. Okay, go ahead.
QUESTION: The outcome of elections in Albania?
MR. DINGER: The OSCE, of course, has issued a preliminary statement.
They issued it Monday, saying that the vote was an adequate and acceptable
reflection of the will of the Albanian people despite some flaws.
The OSCE's report noted strong voter participation, noted a general lack of
intimidation, albeit with a number of violent incidents reportedly
occurring, noted that the elections were generally correct. They generally
reflected the correct conduct of electoral commissions and access for
international observers. So, the report emphasized that a commitment of
all parties to respect the results as well.
I understand that the OSCE will issue a formal assessment of the first
round of voting, probably tomorrow in Copenhagen. A final assessment of
the entire election, including the second round which is scheduled for this
coming Sunday will be issued probably next week.
We had a U.S. delegation in Albania, headed by Assistant Secretary John
Shattuck. Assistant Secretary Shattuck has told us that he agrees with the
OSCE's preliminary assessment. The United States, of course, has worked
closely with the OSCE in the task of preparing and observing the elections.
We also note and welcome President Berisha's decision to accept the results
without contention. That is an important step in the election process. We
certainly expect all parties to abide by the commitments they've made, to
respect the will of the electorate.
We hope very sincerely that this is the first step in a process of
political and economic reconstruction. The U.S. and the international
community are eager to reengage Albania as it moves ahead on the path of
democracy and economic reform.
QUESTION: Should Berisha step down?
MR. DINGER: I'm not going to get into that quite yet.
QUESTION: Well, he said he would if his party lost.
MR. DINGER: I'll leave that to President Berisha.
QUESTION: John, on a different subject -- how is - is the United States
upholding the spirit of the Test Ban Treaty by conducting a subcritical
nuclear test tomorrow?
MR. DINGER: That test will be conducted, I think, under the auspices of
the Department of Energy. I would refer you to DOE for the details.
However, we are confident that subcritical experiments are not experiments
that - I should say are consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treatment.
I understand that a subcritical experiment is not an experiment performed
on a nuclear weapon. In fact, it is designed to insure that nuclear
materials will remain subcritical. This quickly gets very complex. I
would note that an independent group of scientists called the Jasons has
concluded that there is no conceivable scenario in which these experiments
could lead to criticality.
But I would refer you to the Department of Energy for any details on this
experiment.
QUESTION: Is it something that you would welcome or you would share this
technology with other nations with nuclear arsenals that don't have the
supercomputers to do it?
MR. DINGER: I'm not sure. Maybe the Department of Energy could comment
on their bilateral cooperative agreements with other countries. I am not
aware that this has anything to do with sharing information with other
countries, though.
QUESTION: So, would it be okay with the United States for other countries
with nuclear weapons to conduct subcritical nuclear tests?
MR. DINGER: We would hope that other countries would comply with the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty just as we are.
QUESTION: And if they conduct subcritical nuclear tests, they will still
be complying and you won't have any complaints?
MR. DINGER: I don't think I want to speculate about tests that aren't
taking place.
QUESTION: And what is this complying?
MR. DINGER: We are complying.
QUESTION: What about countries without nuclear programs that want to
conduct subcritical nuclear tests? Is that okay with you, as well?
MR. DINGER: I think we will watch and we believe everybody should comply
with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
QUESTION: Is it the U.S.' position there is no other -- the purpose of
the test is supposedly to make sure that the weapons arsenal is safe. The
argument has always been used for testing.
Is this the only way to do that?
MR. DINGER: Well, what I can say --
QUESTION: I thought we crossed this bridge a long time ago.
MR. DINGER: -- is that these are experiments using high explosive and
nuclear weapon materials, including special nuclear materials like
plutonium. The experiments are designed to ensure the nuclear materials
will remain subcritical. That is, there will be no self-sustaining nuclear
chain reaction. Therefore, the experiments will be consistent with the
provisions of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty signed by President Clinton
on September 24, 1996.
The first experiment has been reviewed by technical experts at the Los
Alamos and Livermore Laboratories to insure it will remain subcritical.
Each subsequent experiment will be reviewed in a similar fashion.
In addition, a review of the first two planned subcritical experiments has
been conducted by the Jasons, which is an independent group of eminent,
qualified scientists. The Jasons concluded that these experiments will add
valuable scientific information to our database relevant to the performance
of our nuclear weapons and that there is no conceivable scenario in which
these experiments would lead to criticality.
Now, the Department of Energy does have some points it can make describing
how these will contribute to its national defense-related mission. I will
leave all these details, which are very technical, and the Department of
Energy's mission in this context to the Department of Energy. But we are
absolutely confident this does not violate the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty.
QUESTION: Is this an American group? Do you happen to have --
MR. DINGER: I don't know.
QUESTION: Do you know if anybody but Americans have been monitoring or
will monitor these tests?
MR. DINGER: I am, frankly, not concerned about that because we are
absolutely confident that these fall within the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty.
QUESTION: It sounds like you'd be eager to share the results of these
tests?
MR. DINGER: Perhaps. I refer you to the Department of Energy. I think
they conduct our bilateral programs.
QUESTION: To make sure other nations' nuclear arsenals are safe?
MR. DINGER: I won't speculate about that because I believe those would be
programs that the Department of Energy would --
QUESTION: But you don't think this will set off a chain reaction?
MR. DINGER: No.
QUESTION: People playing at the edges of the agreement and just have
teeny, teeny, little tests? And then maybe little bigger ones?
MR. DINGER: No.
QUESTION: No? I thought - I don't know. I missed something.
I thought there was a huge debate in the Administration, and the proponents
of teeny, teeny, teeny, little tests lost. Apparently, they won.
MR. DINGER: I really don't want to get into the details.
QUESTION: No, I --
MR. DINGER: But I believe that that is not accurate. But I think if the
issue that you may be referring to were teeny, teeny, little nuclear tests.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. DINGER: This is sub-critical. This is not - it does not fall under
that category.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. DINGER: But I believe you need to go --
QUESTION: Computers - that's what they agreed on.
QUESTION: Oh, these are totally computer tests?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. DINGER: Well, this debate, perhaps, could move to the Department of
Energy.
QUESTION: John, for the sake of enlightenment, and this may be - maybe
this is being supplied on the airplane, but can you add anything so far as
the Secretary's travel plans?
MR. DINGER: Travel?
QUESTION: To the little that's known. Yeah, where is she going?
MR. DINGER: No, I'm sorry. We have not announced her travel.
QUESTION: I know you haven't.
MR. DINGER: We will try to do that as quickly as possible.
I know you want to make plans, but I don't have anything to announce.
QUESTION: Well, do you at least know whether she will be with the
President when he makes his stops? Or will she go off from Madrid on her
own?
MR. DINGER: We will announce it and put up a sign-up sheet the moment
that we can.
QUESTION: May I ask about Prague? She is going there; everybody knows
that.
MR. DINGER: Well, I can't announce that.
QUESTION: Can you tell us what she is going to do in Prague?
Or is it going to be a big surprise?
MR. DINGER: No, I can't announce for you that she is going to Prague.
QUESTION: You can't even announce whether she is going to Prague?
MR. DINGER: We have not announced her travel.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. DINGER: Thank you.
QUESTION: One - let me go back - let me go back to Korea for just a
moment. I missed it. I missed this. Okay, John, back to what I was
asking about last week -- the squabbling between the North and the South
Koreans. Here, once again, there is an editorial by a South Korean
newspaper has caused an editorial counter from the North that was
essentially a declaration of war, it says in this article. This comes from
Pacific Stars and Stripes. And it says the North Koreans are burning
with the desire for revenge --
MR. DINGER: Okay, Bill, is there a question?
QUESTION: -- et cetera.
MR. DINGER: Could I --
QUESTION: Well, yeah, the question is, what happened yesterday in New
York between the two Korean delegations? What was the tone? Did they
talk? What did they talk about? Or can you say?
MR. DINGER: Yes, they talked. We had trilateral discussions.
Both were fully engaged, along with the United States. They agreed to move
on to preparatory talks for four-party talks. We welcome that. I cannot
explain for you the North Korean rationale for making this move. I leave
that to the North Koreans. But we are pleased that we are now ready to
move another step within this process that hopefully will lead to a
permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula.
QUESTION: But there was not bilateral talks, that you know about?
MR. DINGER: I'm not aware of any bilateral talks.
QUESTION: All right.
MR. DINGER: Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:49 P.M.)
(###)
|
