Browse through our General Nodes about Greece Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923) Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923)
HR-Net - Hellenic Resources Network Compact version
Today's Suggestion
Read The "Macedonian Question" (by Maria Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou)
HomeAbout HR-NetNewsWeb SitesDocumentsOnline HelpUsage InformationContact us
Wednesday, 13 November 2024
 
News
  Latest News (All)
     From Greece
     From Cyprus
     From Europe
     From Balkans
     From Turkey
     From USA
  Announcements
  World Press
  News Archives
Web Sites
  Hosted
  Mirrored
  Interesting Nodes
Documents
  Special Topics
  Treaties, Conventions
  Constitutions
  U.S. Agencies
  Cyprus Problem
  Other
Services
  Personal NewsPaper
  Greek Fonts
  Tools
  F.A.Q.
 

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #97, 97-07-01

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

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


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.)

(###)


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

HTML by the HR-Net Group / Hellenic Resources Institute, Inc.
std2html v1.01a run on Tuesday, 1 July 1997 - 23:18:52 UTC