U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #168, 97-11-24
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
783
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, November 24, 1997
Briefer: James B. Foley
IRAQ
1-3 Iraq refusal of access to Presidential sites
2-3 Update of UNSCOM Operations and access to sites
3 American build up of military in region
3-4 American participation in UNSCOM inspections
12 CIA presence in Northern Iraq
CYPRUS
4-5 Miller travel plans and agenda
MEXICO
5,7-8 Deportation of Jose Luis Del Toro
TURKEY
5-6 Refah Court Case
BOSNIA
6-7 Status of bridge at Brcko opened by Sec. Albright in July
7 SFOR involvement in keeping bridge open
CUBA
8 Mas Canosa
RUSSIA
8,9-10 Russian Submarine intercepts US carriers
ISRAEL
9 Redeployment of troops
9 Ceding of territory to Palestinian Authority
CLIMATE CHANGE
10 Leader of USDel to Kyoto Conference
NORTH KOREA
10-11 Four Party talks representation in Geneva and agenda
11,12-13 Bilateral talks this week in Washington and agenda
13 North and South Korean Bilateral
CAMBODIA
12 Return of opposition leaders to Cambodia for elections
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
OFF-CAMERA DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #168
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1997, 12:50 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: Welcome to the State Department. I don't have any
announcements to make, and I see our dean or deans are not present. So,
Sid, are you the acting dean?
QUESTION: Anything to say about Iraq's refusal to allow inspection of
presidential sites?
MR. FOLEY: You're referring to the comments in television interviews over
the weekend, I assume. Because we've not seen, I think, anything official.
I don't believe that UNSCOM has been told anything beyond what Iraq
announced last week, when it said it would comply with the UN Security
Council resolutions and allow the return of the inspectors. But there were
comments made by the Iraqi ambassador to the UN which, of course, we
categorically reject.
The United Nations itself could not have been clearer than it was in the
Security Council Resolution 1137. I quote from it, "Iraq must cooperate
fully and immediately and without conditions or restrictions with the
Special Commission." It went on to say that UNSCOM inspection teams must
have "unrestricted access to any and all areas they wish." I think that
speaks for itself.
QUESTION: Is it your understanding that there are no sites that are off
limits?
MR. FOLEY: That's right. That's not only the United States' position.
It's a position contained in all the relevant UN Security Council
resolutions, and it's the intention of Chairman Butler and his team of
commissioners.
QUESTION: So why have the UN and the US let it go the way it's been going
for the last six years, with limited access?
MR. FOLEY: Well, it's been a constant struggle, Sid; there's no doubt
about that. As I noted on Friday, UNSCOM has enjoyed notable success. It's
been stated by many, including the President and the Secretary of State,
that UNSCOM itself has uncovered and destroyed more Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction and Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs than the
Coalition bombing managed to achieve in 1991.
It is doing its work in spite of the obstacles that Iraq has presented. We
had this discussion last week. Iraq, obviously, is interested in having
UNSCOM depart and cease its work quickly. Our position is fairly simply on
that score -- that the timing of the completion of UNSCOM's work in Iraq is
solely a function of the level of cooperation that they achieve. So we look
towards maximum cooperation. Again, we did not note any Iraqi
qualifications in their letter to the United Nations informing them of the
return of UNSCOM.
QUESTION: Do you have the same tally that Secretary Cohen was showing
yesterday on boards - on the Fox program?
MR. FOLEY: My understanding is that Secretary Cohen was drawing upon one
of the recent UNSCOM reports to the United Nations which gave some kind of
a historical look at the kinds and numbers of problems that UNSCOM has
encountered in its mission. I believe the figure 63 was used, and I believe
Secretary Cohen derived that from UNSCOM figures of sites. I don't think
they are only presidential sites, but sites throughout the country where
UNSCOM wanted to investigate and where it met, if not with denial, at least
with evasion and confrontation.
QUESTION: I was wondering about the presidential sites, specifically. I
was wondering, of the tally that is accepted here as factual, how many
really are presidential sites, and how many are just declared presidential
sites?
MR. FOLEY: I --
QUESTION: Because there might be a legitimate ground that they have that
there is such a thing as a presidential palace. Nineteen seems a bit high,
or whatever the number is. I'm just wondering what is the --
MR. FOLEY: I don't know the exact number of so-called presidential sites,
but it's not 63; it's below that. UNSCOM, and yesterday Secretary Cohen,
was describing the number of sites altogether where problems have been
encountered. I don't know how many presidential sites, as such, they are,
and whether even the Iraqi figure is itself plausible concerning
presidential sites. But our position is clear, as is Chairman Butler's,
that no site is to be off-limits to UNSCOM in the performance of its
mission.
QUESTION: Does that include - I mean, let us say he has one palace where
he basically stays most of the time, that even that must be subject to
search by UNSCOM?
MR. FOLEY: That's an UNSCOM decision. If they have reasonable grounds for
believing that their work must take them to a particular site -- whatever
it may be or whatever it may be called -- because of information it has or
documentation UNSCOM possesses, the Security Council resolutions, including
most recently, 1137, are clear. I can quote it again, it's "unimpeded
access to any sites which UNSCOM deems necessary to investigate."
QUESTION: Another subject?
MR. FOLEY: I don't know. I'll come to you if we're, surprisingly,
finished with Iraq.
QUESTION: Is there any, that you're aware of, any sort of timetable for
Butler - for UNSCOM to move on to the presidential sites?
MR. FOLEY: Well, you'd have to ask UNSCOM about its timetable. Obviously,
they've just returned. I can give you just a little bit of information that
we have, in terms of how they've fared so far, since going back on Friday.
Both the Special Commission and the IAEA resumed their inspection
operations in Iraq November 21 and they are visiting weapons of mass
destruction related-facilities.
I would note for your information that there are now six Americans
currently in Iraq working with the Special Commission and the IAEA. As
UNSCOM operations return to normal, we expect the number of inspectors in
Iraq will increase. UNSCOM teams, to include the US participants, have not
been blocked from entering any sites since resuming operations on November
21. We understand inspectors have visited sites where cameras were turned
off or equipment has been moved in order to reestablish the monitoring
baselines. Other sites which are part of normal monitoring operations have
also been visited.
UNSCOM's commissioners, as you know, met in an emergency session in New
York on Friday and they confirmed UNSCOM and IAEA's previous assessments
that inspection operations must continue in all weapons of mass
destruction- related areas. They also noted, as did the commissioners that
the speed in which UNSCOM and the IAEA may accomplish their
responsibilities is above all determined by the degree of Iraqi cooperation
in disclosing the full extent and disposition of its proscribed programs
and in granting UNSCOM and the IAEA unimpeded access to sites, documents
and records.
Finally, I would note also that there was a U-2 flight today that took
photographs of weapons of mass destruction-related facilities requested by
UNSCOM and IAEA. Any further details, though, as I said at the outset,
you'd have to refer to UNSCOM, in terms of their time table of future
inspection activities.
QUESTION: If the inspections so far have gone unfettered and
unrestricted, can you please give a sense of how long the American build-up
in the region is expected to continue?
MR. FOLEY: Well, obviously, I'd have to refer you to the Pentagon for
specific operational details. That's a matter, ultimately, for decision by
the President, in terms of how long those deployments continue.
He made very clear over the weekend that we're still on our guard, that
this story is not over, and that continued vigilance is necessary. Beyond
that, I really wouldn't want to comment.
QUESTION: Do you expect the number of inspectors to increase, and would
those include Americans or --
MR. FOLEY: That's our understanding, certainly.
QUESTION: More Americans would be going in?
MR. FOLEY: Well, more inspectors. I don't have the figures in terms of
what percentage Americans are in the current numbers of UNSCOM inspectors,
but we wouldn't expect any change in that now.
QUESTION: Is there a connection between the degree to which they're given
access and the presence of the American fleets?
MR. FOLEY: Well, now you're asking more of a philosophical question that
relates back to the activities - especially the diplomatic activities of
the last week - that led to the Iraqi reversal in allowing the UNSCOM teams
to return.
I think we've noted several times that the diplomatic efforts which to this
stage, anyway, have borne fruition were, in our view, significantly aided
by the robust presence of American forces in the region.
QUESTION: Right, but I'm just wondering if whether the converse holds
true. Since now you've made a diplomatic breakthrough and they seem to be
proceeding unhindered, what is the logic of staying there?
MR. FOLEY: The logic of staying there, I think, has been stated
eloquently by both the President and Secretary Albright and Secretary
Cohen, as well; that we're still in a watching mode. We don't consider that
the issue is closed.
The teams have returned; they've started their work. Let's see whether
they're able now to work more effectively. Remember, as I mentioned on
Friday, we're interested in more than a return to the status quo ante. We
had this discussion here in this room then. The fact is that Iraq was not
fully cooperating even before the latest crisis. To the extent that
everyone in the world community is interested in an effective UNSCOM that's
able to do its work rapidly, that's what we're looking for; and we think it
depends entirely on Iraqi acquiescence and cooperation.
QUESTION: I thought the purpose of the build-up was to make the point
that they have to allow the inspectors back in and to operate unhindered,
which seems to be happening. So I don't quite understand, then, what is the
purpose of that enormous build-up today.
MR. FOLEY: I think the story is not over. They've been back in Iraq, the
inspectors, since Friday. It's only Monday. We're not about to draw any
kinds of significant conclusions at this earliest stage in the process
following their return.
QUESTION: The State Department coordinator for Cyprus, Mr. Tom Miller, is
visiting Athens today. Can you tell us about his agenda?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not familiar with his agenda, as we speak. I'd be happy to
look into the issue of his trip.
In terms of what's going on in the Cyprus process, we are aware that the UN
Secretary General's Cyprus representative, Mr. Cordovez, visited Cyprus
last week and met with leaders of both communities. He said afterwards that
he plans to return to Cyprus in March of next year, following the Cypriot
presidential elections, to resume UN-sponsored settlement talks between Mr.
Clerides and Mr. Denktash. We continue to support the UN process and
coordinate closely with the UN and our European partners. And certainly,
Mr. Miller is doing that today in Athens.
But in terms of his itinerary and his agenda, I don't have that for you,
but if I can get something, I'll get back to you.
QUESTION: Mexico is holding Jose Luis Del Toro, who is wanted in the
murder of the mother of the quads in Florida. Is the United States urging
Mexico to release this individual to stand trial in the US?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, we are. Mr. Del Toro was arrested last Thursday in
Monterrey, Mexico, by the Mexican immigration authorities, for being in
Mexico without proper immigration documentation. And it's our understanding
that the government of Mexico expects to deport him to the United States as
soon as the paperwork has been completed. He's wanted, as you said, to
stand trial for murder of Shiela Bellush, in the Circuit Court of Sarasota
County, Florida.
QUESTION: If I may follow up, do you - is there any fear that we will get
involved in extradition proceedings in which Mexico then might hold him
because he would be subject to the death penalty?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think it's really apples and oranges, because what's
involved here is not an extradition matter. Mr. Del Toro is an American
citizen, so the Mexicans are in the process of moving towards his
deportation.
QUESTION: The court dates for closing the Islamist Refah Party in Turkey
is coming to a close, an end. And there are talks a new Islamist party
might be in the offing. Does the department have any views on that?
MR. FOLEY: On which, on the court case, or on -
QUESTION: The court case.
MR. FOLEY: Well, we're following the case with interest and have been
throughout these months. We believe that the outcome of this case will have
an influence or an impact on Turkish democracy and secularism, both of
which we strongly support.
I would hesitate to comment directly about an ongoing court case, but I can
note that the Turkish constitution itself -- which is the criterion at
stake here, I believe, in the court case -- protects not only the secular
foundation of the state, but also its democratic foundation. We would
expect that the court will issue a decision consistent with these
principles. We would be concerned with any decision which ended up damaging
confidence in Turkey's democratic multiparty system.
QUESTION: May I follow up? If the court proved that the reason for
closing the party is because it violates the Turkish constitution itself,
would that make a difference in the Department's evaluation?
MR. FOLEY: This is a matter for the Turkish court to decide. It's
certainly not a matter for the Deputy Spokesman of the State Department to
decide. I would hesitate, really, to comment too specifically. What I would
say, though, and merely to repeat what I mentioned a moment ago, is that at
the end of the day we would hope that the image of Turkey as a strong
secular and democratic state with a democratic multiparty system would
remain intact. I wouldn't want to go further than that, though.
QUESTION: I didn't ask you to decide - pass a judgment on whether Refah
violated the Turkish constitution or not. I said, if the Turkish courts
decided that the party violated the Turkish constitution, would that still
be considered by the Department as a violation of Turkish democratic
tradition?
MR. FOLEY: Well, let's cross that bridge when we come to it. I think I've
stated clearly - as clearly as I think I can - our view on this court case.
Let's now await the outcome.
QUESTION: Speaking of bridges, Secretary Albright, last June I think it
was, with great ceremony and fanfare and a lot of cameras rolling, opened
up a bridge in Bosnia that I guess crosses the Sava River - links Bosnia
with Croatia.
I think she had all sorts of rhetoric about how this was going to open the
way to Europe. It turns out Vice President Ganic is in town this morning
and made a speech at the US Institute of Peace. He said that, on the
contrary, the Bosnian traffic is not allowed to use this bridge. The
Republika Srpska officials stop traffic; they search; they ask questions;
they make it totally impossible. This is kind of a bottling up of the
entire Federation's commercial traffic as a result.
I was just wondering, it raises two questions. One is, how did this happen?
How could she open a bridge that never opened? And secondly, the whole
question of follow-through on major announcements that she makes didn't
seem to occur in this case.
MR. FOLEY: You're referring to the bridge at Brcko?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. FOLEY: Which she did open on her visit there to Bosnia. It was an
important occasion. It is something that Secretary Albright highlighted and
believes in strongly: the re-opening of links between, first, the
components of the Federation with each other; and then ultimately, with the
rest of Europe and the outside world.
Roy, I would hesitate to give you an answer, absent sufficient information.
So I'd be glad to look into it. My perhaps faulty recollection is that the
bridge was open to traffic for many months and that it operated smoothly in
fulfillment of the goals that the Secretary indicated and described.
I think a matter of some weeks or months ago SFOR came down off the bridge.
They had been present there for those initial months. Following their
departure from the bridge, the traffic was continuing to flow in both
directions. Now, if that has changed, it's news to me.
I'd have to refer you, first of all to SFOR. If we're able to develop any
information on that ourselves today, I could get back to you. But I think
you ought to talk to SFOR in the first instance.
QUESTION: Granted SFOR has charge of it, but that raises a question:
who's supervising SFOR? How can SFOR just sit by and watch people being
turned away from what is the only actual artery from a land-locked state to
the rest of Europe? I think Mr. Ganic represents that state in question,
and it is the Federation. In fact, he says that as a result of this, the
Croats in - Herceg-Bosnia, or whatever they call themselves, are able to
stop traffic and slow traffic and raise the price of goods going in at that
end. So the country's bottled up.
This is not just a matter of traffic. It's a matter, really, of the vital
flow of a country's goods and services and people.
MR. FOLEY: Well, without minimizing in any way the importance of what
you're saying and if it's true, it would be a matter of great concern. As I
said, I'll have to look into it for you, and I urge you to speak to SFOR as
well. But it's not the only avenue of transit, commerce and communication
that exists in the Federation; there are others. In fact, you saw last week
the re-opening of the Banja Luka airport, which is significant in our view.
Sarajevo was opened quite some time previous to that, and there are other
routes of communication.
But your point is a good one, and as I said, I'd be happy to look into it
for you.
QUESTION: I'm a little bit confused about the Del Toro case. You say it's
an apples and oranges on deportation versus extradition. Did not he come to
the attention of Mexican authorities as a murder suspect? So how does he
become a deportation case when he was arrested as a murder suspect to begin
with?
MR. FOLEY: I don't know under what circumstances he was arrested. As I
stated, he was arrested as a foreigner, an alien lacking appropriate
immigration papers to be present in Mexico. I suspect he was arrested on
that basis. Whether prior to or immediately subsequent to his arrest, US
and Mexican authorities have been in touch with each other. This man is an
American citizen wanted in Florida in a murder case. We are discussing [the
case] with the Mexicans and expect him to be deported on that basis.
QUESTION: If I may follow up, the Mexicans have told the US that he's
considered a deportation case?
MR. FOLEY: That is my understanding, yes.
QUESTION: If I may follow up one more time, in other cases -- in some
other murder cases in which the suspect would face the death penalty,
Mexico has refused to extradite. I realize that's different from this.
MR. FOLEY: Right.
QUESTION: What is the position of the American Government on that
practice of not extraditing murder suspects because they may face the death
penalty in the US?
MR. FOLEY: We have an extradition treaty with the government of Mexico.
I'd have to refer you to that, to its particulars. But we believe that it
provides sufficient legal grounds for us to request and for the Mexicans to
grant extradition in such cases. And obviously, the converse applies,
involving Americans wanted for crimes committed in Mexico.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the death of Jorge Mas Canosa?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, I do. I think the President issued a statement yesterday
on behalf of himself and the First Lady. I expect we'll hear from the
Secretary of State on the subject later, so I wouldn't want to pre-empt her
views on it. But obviously, the entire Administration is saddened with his
passing. The President and First Lady have passed their condolences on to
his family.
QUESTION: It was reported in Sunday's Washington Times that a Russian sub
recently stopped three US aircraft carriers. Have we discussed this with
the Russians, and what are we doing about this? Are we launching any type
of diplomatic protest? Will this affect Mr. Gore's upcoming meeting with
the Russian Prime Minister? What is your response?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of the report. I'd be happy to take the question
and see if we know anything about it.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. FOLEY: Patrick. I'm staying - looking on the right hand --
QUESTION: Jumped in there to get my chance.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I depend on you to express yourselves stronger than the
left side.
QUESTION: Israel is reported to be considering withdrawing from between 6
and 8 percent of the territories, and there's also a New York Times report
this morning that the United States is seeking, I think "credible" is the
word used, credible withdrawal as a next step. Do you have any comment on
either of those?
MR. FOLEY: Not a terribly elaborate comment on either of
those. Obviously, the question of further redeployments is part of the
four-part agenda that the Secretary has discussed with the parties -- most
recently with the Prime Minister and Chairman Arafat in Europe in the last
weeks. It's an issue that we're discussing with the parties and one that
we'd like to see progress on.
But I have no comment, though, on the specific report because the fact of
the matter is that we have not discussed figures and percentages of this
nature with the Israeli Government. So I can't react to proposals that we
haven't seen.
QUESTION: That same report in a New York newspaper says that the United
States, President Clinton, in fact, has threatened the Israelis to go
public with what they think is a "credible" amount of territory to cede to
the Palestinians. Can you address that in any way?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think, in a general way, that article that you're
referring to suggested that we were pressuring or threatening the Prime
Minister, and I can reject that.
But in terms of what our negotiating strategy is, I really wouldn't want to
get into it, because obviously, if we're going to succeed in our
negotiations, we're going to have to deal with the parties directly. I'm
not prepared to negotiate from the podium. We have ideas; it's not that
we've been bereft of ideas and we haven't communicated them. We have them;
we have had them; and we've been raising with them privately. But I'm not
prepared to discuss them from the podium.
QUESTION: Are you saying that you haven't read the article, or that
you're not aware of --
MR. FOLEY: I've read the article.
QUESTION: Okay, so you're --
MR. FOLEY: Oh, I'm sorry, on your question or on Sid's question?
QUESTION: Yes, on my question.
MR. FOLEY: No, I'm not aware of the report at all.
QUESTION: You're not aware of the article or the report?
MR. FOLEY: Just to be careful, you better define again what issue you're
talking about.
QUESTION: The Russian submarine stalking the US aircraft carrier.
MR. FOLEY: I've not seen it; I'm not aware of it. I will look into it.
QUESTION: So I can get back to you later on it.
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: Who will be heading the US delegation to Kyoto, Japan, in
December?
MR. FOLEY: I don't have an announcement on that. I think it will come out
of the White House when we have it.
QUESTION: On North Korea, last week you reached agreement to have
substantial talks - so-called four-party talks in Geneva.
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: There is speculation that some countries might send a cabinet-
level as a chief negotiator to Geneva. I want to know, who is going to be
the chief negotiator from this country?
MR. FOLEY: We haven't decided that yet. Certainly the United States and
the other three parties will be represented by senior officials, under the
direction of ministers; and in our case, under the direction of Secretary
Albright. Certainly Secretary Albright is prepared to meet with her
counterparts as and when appropriate, and when they are all available.
The United States is going to chair, as it was agreed, the first session in
Geneva on December 9. But we're not yet in a position to announce the
composition of our delegation.
QUESTION: North Korea seems to bring issues which were not resolved in
the past two preliminary talks, regarding withdrawal of US troops from the
Korean Peninsula - long-term food assistance - lifting the sanctions. So
they might raise this issue in substantial talks. Is it okay for United
States to accept the discussion, or you don't like to discuss that?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think you're familiar with the difficulties that we
had to overcome in order to achieve the important success that was achieved
in New York on Friday. Many of the issues you cite divided the parties. The
United States had long maintained that the four-party talks were important
in their own right, and that we weren't going to link those talks to any
other issues.
Indeed, the whole question of the agenda was the final issue that it took
an extra several months to reach agreement upon; and agreement was reached
in New York on Friday. We have always said that once the plenary talks
begin in Geneva, that any side could raise any issue it wished, any issue
of concern. All of us - all four parties - have issues to raise in that
context, and we were very happy that all four parties agreed on Geneva to
an agenda that would permit the talks to go forward.
QUESTION: When will you have bilateral talks with North Korea? Last
Friday, a high-rank official of the State Department in New York said the
United States was going to have another bilateral talk with the North
Koreans this week.
MR. FOLEY: There will be bilateral meetings this week, yes.
QUESTION: Not today?
MR. FOLEY: Not today, no.
QUESTION: In New York?
MR. FOLEY: In Washington.
QUESTION: Tomorrow?
MR. FOLEY: I don't have that.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. FOLEY: If I can. I think I indicated that we expect there will be
bilateral talks this week in Washington. I have no more on that.
QUESTION: The Koreans will be coming here, then?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: Have North Korean officials come here before for talks?
MR. FOLEY: I believe so. I'd have to check that for you, Roy. I'm still
sort of new in the job.
QUESTION: What about senior level?
MR. FOLEY: I think at the vice foreign minister level. I don't have the
name.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - facts and figures?
MR. FOLEY: Maybe not today; tomorrow, perhaps.
QUESTION: But we need it today, now that you've announced it. Seriously.
I mean, since you announced it --
MR. FOLEY: I answered a question.
QUESTION: Jane's Foreign Relations magazine, published in London, claimed
that the CIA -- almost 20 CIA agents entered Northern Iraq again. They
settled down at the Irbil area. Can we say that it means the USA is hopeful
to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein again, or can we say you support
Iraqi opposition groups becoming more powerful than before?
MR. FOLEY: You'll be very surprised, having been a veteran of this
briefing room, that I'm not in a position to comment on that sort of topic.
QUESTION: It was a published story.
QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about Sam Rainsy's imminent return
to Cambodia?
MR. FOLEY: I'd have to get myself up to speed on the issue. But in
general, our policy has been clear ever since the events of last July. We
believe that all the opposition politicians ought to be able to go back to
Cambodia freely, without any fear of prosecution, intimidation, harassment,
and resume their political activities if there is to be hope for free, fair
democratic elections next year, which meet the terms of the Paris peace
accords.
QUESTION: Iran next month is hosting the Islamic conference meeting. I'm
wondering if the United States has a position on that - on whether you've
discouraged governments to go or --
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware that we've had discussions with other
governments in the region about that conference specifically.
QUESTION: The bilateral talks with North Korea that you mentioned a
moment ago - what is the topic of discussion?
MR. FOLEY: There's a general agenda item that was the main focus of the
agreement that was reached on Friday, and I can quote to you. It's "the
establishment of a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula, and issues
concerning tension reduction there." But the purpose of the plenary talks
is clearly to replace the informal armistice agreement that's been in place
now for some 40 years, and to reach some kind of a permanent agreement that
will lead to a reduction in the dangerous situation that has prevailed
there for over four decades.
QUESTION: I understand that, but I'm talking about the bilateral
discussions. I assume that the peace treaty is not going to be negotiated
bilaterally.
MR. FOLEY: You're talking about the discussions that the United States
will have with North Korea --
QUESTION: Right. Is that what you said, this week in Washington,
bilateral?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, yes, yes.
QUESTION: What's the topic?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I was not intending to make a formal announcement, as
Sid indicated, so I'd have to wait until later in the week, when we are
actually having the meetings or about to have them. We have a range of
issues that we discuss with the North Koreans, that won't be of any
surprise to you.
QUESTION: Jim, was there any bilateral exchanges between the North and
the South Koreans in New York on Friday?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of that. There was a background briefing in New
York following the negotiations, and that may have been covered. I never
saw the transcript of it.
Anything else?
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. FOLEY: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:25 P.M.)
|
