Note: This Electronic Research Collection (ERC) is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the
US DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
Thursday, August 26, 1993
BRIEFER: Michael McCurry
Subject Page
HAITI
Parliament Approves Robert Malval as PM ........ 1
UN/OAS Expected to Suspend Embargo ............. 1-2
SOUTH AFRICA
Death of Amy Biehl ............................. 2
NIGERIA
Status of Government Transition ................ 3
TERRORISM
Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman Indicted in World Trade
Center Bombing/Retaliation Threatened ......3-6,18-19
-- Security of Americans/US Posts Abroad ...... 4-5,18-19
-- Egyptian Request for Extradition ........... 5-6
US-Egyptian Contacts ........................... 5-6,18
SUDAN
Possible Link to Terrorism Activities in US .... 6-7,17
Status of Ambassador to US ..................... 7
Security of US Mission ......................... 17-18
INDIA
US Concerns re: Non-Proliferation ............. 7-8
CHINA
Transfer of M-11 Missile Components to Pakistan 8-13
-- US Determines MTCR Violated/Response ....... 8-13
-- MTCR Standards for Missile Violations ...... 10-11
Ship Suspected of Carrying CW Precursors Arrives
in Saudi Arabia/Inspection/US Role .........11-13
-- Applicable CW Convention ................... 12
ISRAEL
GAO Report on Arrow Missile .................... 12
MIDDLE EAST PEACE TALKS
US Expects Bilateral Talks to Resume Next Week . 13-15
-- US View of Talks/Expectations/Secretary's
Role ...................................13-14
-- Secretary's Contacts with Parties .......... 14-16
NORTH KOREA
Working Group with US to Investigate POWs/MIAs . 16
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #120
THURSDAY, AUGUST 26, 1993, 1:17 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. McCURRY: Good afternoon, everybody. I have no prepared
statements today so I can go straight to any questions that you might
have.
Q Do you have anything on Haiti?
MR. McCURRY: On Haiti? Only that we understand that yesterday the
Chamber of Deputies did complete the process of approving Mr. Malval as
the Prime Minister. That will now clear the way for him to be sworn in
and to assume his duties.
I believe under the Governor's Island Accord -- the provision
that had been made under that accord was that the sanctions that had
been developed by the United Nations would be suspended once the Prime
Minister is approved. My understanding is that the process now is that
the Security Council will approve a resolution, probably today or
tomorrow, that will formally suspend those sanctions. Consultations
have begun also among the OAS Foreign Ministers to suspend the OAS
embargo, and we expect that process will be completed shortly.
Q Well, does the U.S. have a position as to whether the OAS
embargo should be suspended as well?
MR. McCURRY: Well, I think that we will work with them. I
think that would be consistent since the expansion of the OAS embargo to
the wider world community by the United Nations was part of the effort
to see this process brought to a completion. It would make some sense
to review the status of that OAS embargo. I don't know specifically
that we will take that position within the discussions. We clearly will
talk within the OAS about the status of that embargo, but it certainly
would be consistent with the decision to lift the U.N. embargo that the
OAS embargo itself would be reviewed.
Q Mike, when does the battalion of U.S. troops go down, and
when does the $10 million to clear up arrears go out?
MR. McCURRY: The question of funding and then the
participation in some of the things that were agreed to in the accords
are things that are all under review at this point, and I just don't
have anything new on that. I know that it's a question that the
government is examining very carefully through inter-agency discussions,
as well; and I think as soon as we get more detail on how that will
occur, we'll provide it to you.
Q Mike, on Africa. Two on Africa.
MR. McCURRY: Yes.
Q The first, the killing of the American from California.
MR. McCURRY: Yes. That was a tragic event. There are many
people, both in the Department and in an outside organization called the
National Democratic Institute, that knew Amy Biehl quite well. We offer
our heartfelt condolences to her family. We stand ready to assist them,
obviously, through our consular activities and already are in the
process of assisting them. I think that the White House is also going
to be in contact with the family to express the President's condolences
personally.
I've got some details on the event but I think most of that has
already been made public.
Q What do you think it will do for the future of the U.S.-
South African relations?
MR. McCURRY: Well, I think that this is an individual incident
of violence, apparently. We clearly will be interested in learning more
about the prosecution of those responsible for this death; and we will
also attempt to find out more about the nature of this violence to see
if there is any need to make changes in our consular information sheet
that we provide on South Africa, which already does make reference to
the risk that is presented to some foreigners because of being
inadvertently caught up in the violence that is, I think, often a part
of the daily life in South Africa. Again, this is a very tragic death
that the United States regrets.
Q You don't have any more on that --
Q (Inaudible) to the Indo-American talks, with Dixit and --
MR. McCURRY: How will it affect it? Will this have a
diplomatic effect? I don't suspect that it will; but, as I say, we are
trying to get more details on the incident itself.
Q No, I'm talking about the Indo-American talks.
Q Indian-American talks.
MR. McCURRY: Oh, oh, oh. --
Q Indo-American talks?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know. I don't have anything new on that.
Q On Nigeria, what happened today? Power wasn't turned
over, I assume?
MR. McCURRY: In Nigeria? The last I heard they had a parade
and there were nice salutes and things like that. Let's see, actually
we have not had any official announcement of his retirement from the
military; and the future role of Babangida seems to be somewhat in
doubt. We also do not know who the transfer of power will -- who will
get the transfer of power if power is, in fact, transferred. So we
clearly haven't been informed of the General's intentions, but we'll be
watching the situation closely.
Q Have you taken any further steps? You talked about aid or
training programs over there.
MR. McCURRY: Well, that's a question that is under examination
within the government; but we have not taken any further steps at this
point.
Q Mike, also on Nigeria, the other day when you were talking
about it, you used the phrase "President-elect Abiola". Is that to say
that you, the U.S. Government, recognizes him as a legitimate -- ?
MR. McCURRY: No, no. That was a phrase that probably it was
easy to read too much into. I was just simply indicating what
information we had. There was an election held on June 12. The results
of that election have never been announced, although there was an
apparent victor in that contest; but there is not anyone that has been
declared a President-elect, and that is precisely the problem. The
problem is that the results of the election were never announced.
Yes, Ralph.
Q Go ahead.
Q Forgive me if you already talked about this before I came
in, but has there been a terrorism alert announced to go along with the
indictment of the Sheik -- in the Middle East?
MR. McCURRY: We are aware of some reports in the region that
indicate that some are threatening violence. That is of very serious
concern to us. We are reviewing very promptly the status of all of the
travel information that we provide to U.S. citizens abroad, both our own
employees and those travelling.
I will say, as many of you know, at the time earlier in the
year of the arrests in New York there was a worldwide travel alert that
was issued that did ask American citizens travelling abroad to be much
more conscious of their own security and safety; so that advisory
certainly remains in effect.
Q At that time you also extended the advisory to Americans
travelling in the United States.
MR. McCURRY: I remember.
Q Oh. I just wanted to remind you in case you had
forgotten.
MR. McCURRY: No.
Q In light of the reports, not only from the Middle East but
elsewhere around the world, of threats to engage in further attacks in
the United States, do you have anything to say about that situation?
MR. McCURRY: Well, as I should have probably indicated that
first time around, the United States will be in close contact with those
agencies that are responsible for the domestic safety of U.S. citizens
through specifically the FBI and other agencies, like the FAA, that look
very carefully at security issues; and certainly we'll share information
that we have with them and, I'm sure, the vice versa will occur.
Q Have you had -- by your remark earlier that you have seen
reports from abroad about the threats of terrorism, has the United
States had any information that would lead you to a specific and clear
threat, terrorist threat in any particular region of the world?
MR. McCURRY: I am not aware at this point today of any
specific threat that we consider a credible threat that we are
investigating, but we are very vigilant when it comes to looking for
that type of information around the world as it relates to the safety of
U.S. citizens abroad.
Q How capable are the Sheik's followers, particularly in
Egypt, of carrying out violence against Americans?
MR. McCURRY: Well, what we know about their capabilities and
what we suspect they might be capable of doing is something that we
can't say much about because it involves our understanding through
intelligence of how they operate; but clearly, when we feel that there
is important credible information about threats, we will share that. As
a general proposition, the purpose of our worldwide alert earlier in the
year was to remind people to be conscious of their own safety as they
are travelling abroad and to take the kinds of precautions that many of
us who travel abroad are familiar with, as to packing luggage, as to
being conscious of receiving packages from other individuals. These are
all steps that it's good for American citizens to be aware of as they
travel abroad, especially at a time when there are such threats being
made.
Q How do you characterize the cooperation between the U.S.
Government and the Egyptian Government in that sphere?
MR. McCURRY: I think in that sphere of cooperating on the
nature of threats and terrorist-type threats, there is very close
cooperation for which we are grateful.
Q Does this close the extradition to Egypt of the Sheik
Omar? Does it put it on hold now?
MR. McCURRY: It doesn't put it on hold. Let me review for you
the status of the extradition request.
We have received, I think as many of you know, an extradition
request from Egypt. We have not made a decision on presenting that
extradition request before a U.S. court of law; and in part that's
because of the very technical legal requirements associated with our
extradition treaty in effect with the Government of Egypt, which is a
document that, I think as some of you know, dates back to the 19th
century. It presents enormous legal difficulties that are being
examined by the United States, and those legal issues are still under
review.
In any event, the general policy of the United States is to
have persons believed to have committed crimes on U.S. soil face justice
here first if there is sufficient evidence for prosecution.
Q Have you had any contact with the Egyptian Government
since the indictment was announced that would indicate the extradition
request is either being renewed or left standing or withdrawn?
MR. McCURRY: Any further change in their having submitted
this?
Q Has the Egyptian Government expressed to the United States
any change in its extradition request following the revelation, if you
will, that the U.S. intends to prosecute here.
MR. McCURRY: I'm not aware of any change in their request.
This matter is something that we do discuss with the Egyptian
Government, but they have made the request. They understand that it is
now under review in the United States. They are certainly aware and
were made aware of the pending indictment; but beyond that, I don't have
any further information on their view of the extradition request itself.
Q Did they reiterate their request?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know whether they did or not; but it
would be proper to ask them that question directly, I think.
Q The Egyptian Government already announced that their
extradition request stands, even after that. Do you have any comment on
that?
MR. McCURRY: Well, that's more information, frankly, than I
have; but, again, their extradition request stands; and as a general
matter, our policy is that an individual under indictment would be tried
here first and face justice here first.
Q On a related matter, does the information the United
States Government has in connection with the indictment and the, now,
publication of the indictment change in any way the U.S. Government's
approach toward the Government of Sudan, either regarding its activities
at the U.N. or its activities on terrorism in general?
At the time Sudan was placed on the terrorism list, I think
officials made it clear that the New York case was not related to that.
Is it related now, now that you have publicized more information about
this case?
MR. McCURRY: The best answer is to refer you to the FBI
because they are the ones, through their investigation, that would
determine any involvement by Sudanese Government officials in the
matters that they are investigating; so I really do refer you properly
to them.
I'm not aware that they have developed any clear evidence of
such involvement as of this point, but I'm not the best person to ask
the question. I think it is a question more properly directed to the
Bureau.
Q Well, just to pursue that a bit. You would be the agency
that would be responsible for taking any action regarding Sudanese
diplomats in New York.
MR. McCURRY: That's absolutely correct. If there were
requests to declare persona non grata status any diplomats at the United
Nations, specifically at the Sudanese mission, the Secretary of State
would be so informed and would initiate the process; and we have not
been --
Q That has not been done?
MR. McCURRY: The request has not come to us, and that has not
been done.
Q So at this point there is no change in the status of any
of the diplomats at the Sudanese mission in New York as a result of this
indictment?
MR. McCURRY: As a result of this indictment, I am not aware of
any change in the nature of any of the diplomats at the Sudanese mission
at the U. N., no.
Q Mike, do you happen to know if the head of the mission has
been able to present his papers to be the Ambassador to the U.S.? Has
there been any slow-down on that?
MR. McCURRY: I was not aware that he had been nominated or had
been designated. I wasn't aware of that. I can check on that.
Q Mike?
MR. McCURRY: Yes.
Q On an unrelated matter, in view of yesterday's sanctions
on China and Pakistan, how far is the U.S. prepared to go to push other
South Asian nations, for instance India, to make concessions on
proliferation?
MR. McCURRY: Well, I think in the case of India, as you know,
we have worked through the Russian/Israel contract that we dealt with
earlier in the year. We are working very directly with them on our
concerns concerning non-proliferation, and the importance of this issue
and our effort to deal with them in a bilateral way will certainly be
intensified as we deal with the issues that arose from the prior contact
we had with them on the Russian transaction.
Q The Prime Minister is coming here. His spokesman had a
little news conference, or what he claimed was a news conference,
yesterday and said that this issue had been pretty well smoothed over,
the technology problem.
MR. McCURRY: I think you know that we have worked out a
cooperative arrangement with them on that issue; but it is something
that we will continue to work with other countries, particularly in the
sub-continent. We will continue to work with them directly on these
proliferation issues because they are of very great concern.
I think he was speaking of the one --
Q Yes.
MR. McCURRY: -- transaction. I think that he was correct in
saying that we have looked at that issue and resolved it to our
satisfaction and continue to have a dialogue on that case.
Q Has it been cancelled? Is that what the resolution is?
MR. McCURRY: I think they are still negotiating with -- if I
am not mistaken, they are still negotiating with Russia on the status of
that contract. Our concerns, our proliferation concerns have been
addressed very directly.
Q You mean they have changed the package to suit your
proliferation concerns?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know that for a fact. I wouldn't want to
suggest that. I would want to check that.
Q I don't understand what puts the U.S. at ease now.
MR. McCURRY: No, I didn't say we were at ease. I said we --
Q On that deal.
MR. McCURRY: We are going to continue to work through that
issue very directly with them; but we are now at the point where, I
think as you all know, the sanctions that had been imposed and waived
are no longer the issue.
Q Mike --
Q Have you heard anything from China after yesterday's
announcement?
MR. McCURRY: Well, we are aware of the comments that the
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman made. We also did have a
preliminary reaction from the Ambassador yesterday when Dr. Davis met
with the Ambassador; but we have not had any further reaction from the
Chinese Government to our proposal that we engage in a dialogue with
them on these issues.
Q Do you have any new statistics?
Q But you said there was no reaction. You said that he
accepted it and said he would take it back to his government.
MR. McCURRY: I said he said he accepted it. I think I
indicated that he had reiterated the denial that they have made in the
past and that he did say that he would take it under advisement and give
it to his government.
Q And you are saying now that you haven't had any
reiteration of that denial since the meeting yesterday at any other
level?
MR. McCURRY: I don't want to say that, Ralph, because I think
there was a plan to have a follow-up contact through the Embassy in
Beijing today, and I just don't have a read-out on that contact. We
wouldn't expect it at this point to have been any more than the denying
-- we wouldn't expect the reaction to have been much different from some
of the public comments they made. What we are interested in, though, is
knowing the degree of interest that the Chinese might have in working
with us cooperatively to satisfy our concerns.
Q Do you have any new figures on how much this might cost
the Chinese Government -- the estimate?
MR. McCURRY: Yesterday we talked about what we suspect the
economic impact would be to the United States --
Q Right.
MR. McCURRY: -- acknowledging that we do pay a cost for
imposing these types of sanctions.
The cost on the Chinese is partly political because they now
have faced sanctions from the United States of America; but it is partly
economic. They had a desire to move more aggressively into the
commercial space-launch business. I think I recall seeing one estimate
on what the effect of our sanctions would be to their attempt to work on
some commercial launches and that the estimate was, I believe, in the
neighborhood of $125 million of revenue that they would lose from not
being able to launch certain types of U.S.- manufactured satellites.
But, again, as we said yesterday, a lot of that is speculative
because it involves contracts that were not in force.
Q Mike, on the missiles, I was going through the MTCR
guidelines and, as I read it, there are two conditions necessary before
a missile qualifies. It has to carry a 500 kilogram payload over a
range of at least 300 kilometers.
The Pakistanis, I think, you know, say that the M-ll doesn't do
that. It may fly 300 kilometers but not with a 500 kilogram payload.
Are you certain -- do you have any evidence that in fact the M-
ll qualifies on both of those counts?
MR. McCURRY: Well, I think they have made representations to
us, and I think they have said things publicly about what the
capabilities of the missile are. That is the reason why, when we
addressed specific questions to them, we raised exactly those types of
issues. In fact, I think, as Dr. Davis indicated and as I indicated
yesterday, we did not receive satisfaction to very specific questions we
asked about both the shipment itself and about the capabilities of the
missile itself. I think that that is, among other reasons, why we felt
very satisfied that it was unambiguous that a Category II MTCR violation
had occurred.
Q Well, the question then becomes that you didn't get
satisfactory answers from them yesterday or earlier in your discussions
--
MR. McCURRY: That we --
Q Do you have independent evidence that the M-ll missile, in
fact, qualifies?
MR. McCURRY: We have information that leads us to believe we
are on very firm ground in making the determination made yesterday -- or
made two days ago.
Q Mike, isn't throw-weight and distance moot? Because, if I
recall correctly, about a year ago, MTCR was changed to read that
transfer of these materials to any government, any entity that poses a
proliferation risk will be a sanctionable activity.
MR. McCURRY: That's an interesting question. I don't know the
answer to that.
Q Could you take that, because --
MR. McCURRY: I'll take that to see if there was --
Q -- because I recall clear as day Margaret or Richard up
here talking about that.
MR. McCURRY: Yes.
Q Also on China, do you have anything on the vessel which
was steaming toward Saudi Arabia at last sighting?
MR. McCURRY: Yes. Let me clear this up first and I'll get to
that next.
I will check that. To make sure I understand the question
right, the question is: Would the capabilities of the missile be a moot
point, because if it is anything involving a transaction -- a missile
that has a mass destruction capability of any nature --
Q My understanding was they took out the throw-weight and
distance thresholds and said just any transfer to a country that poses a
proliferation risk.
MR. McCURRY: I'll check. I strongly doubt that, because we
cited that very specifically yesterday in the way we looked at it, but
I'll check further on that.
On the Yin He, the ship has now arrived in port in Dammam.
It's not certain when the inspection will take place, partly because
it's a weekend and I believe a holiday weekend in Saudi Arabia. But we
are prepared to provide technical advice, and we'll render assistance to
the Saudis as the ship itself is inspected.
Now, my understanding is that because this is a ship with a
large volume of cargo, the inspection itself could take several days.
We are not anticipating knowing much about the contents of the cargo or
the results of the inspection itself until probably into next week.
That's partly because of the holiday weekend and partly because it just
will take a lot of time to off-load the ship and to inspect the vessel
itself.
Q Did you send this team there or something to --
MR. McCURRY: I don't know that. I asked someone or I had seen
something that indicated we're providing some assistance. I don't know
whether that's being done, who they are, what type of folks they are --
if they've got some specialty in cargo transactions or something. I can
try to check a little further.
Q Are they expecting easy access to this ship? I mean the
Chinese were putting up quite a fight to not have any U.S. inspectors
aboard.
MR. McCURRY: Well, I believe that they had worked out a
cooperative arrangement for conducting the inspection.
Q The Chinese are cooperating with this plan and the ship
will be completely inspected under the agreement, is that correct?
MR. McCURRY: Well, that was my understanding. My
understanding was that they had agreed to cooperate, yes.
Q And the Saudis will do the inspection?
MR. McCURRY: Yes.
Q (Inaudible) this does not allow certain transfers of
payload -- a certain size and all that. Do you have anything on the
chemical side, in which one country is not able to sell to another
country? Are there any U.N. resolutions or laws or anything of the
kind, because I'm trying to find out what's the basis of your objection
to the Chinese shipment? Is there any U.N. sanction on it or anything?
MR. McCURRY: Any U.N.-related sanction? I don't know the
answer. I know that there is a Chemical Weapons Convention that is to
come into effect, but it has not been placed in effect. I am not sure
what the governing rules are -- whether they are U.S. export law or
whether they are international conventions or international rules.
I can check to see what -- I guess the question, as we take it,
would be: What are the international regulations that might apply to
the shipment of chemical weapons and chemical weapons precursors?
Q Staying with technology transfer, is there any plan for
the State Department to send an inspection team to Israel to follow the
reports made by the GAO on the Arrow missile?
MR. McCURRY: You're going to stump me because I actually had
some guidance on the GAO report on the Arrow yesterday and I didn't
bring it with me today. I'll have to take the question. I can't recall
if it said what type of follow-up would be -- but I'll get an answer to
the question.
Q Back on the Chinese ship, Mike, you said the Saudis were
going to do the inspecting. What is the U.S. role? The U.S. will be
there as observers?
MR. McCURRY: I think we are there, my understanding is, to
provide technical advice and we will render assistance if any assistance
is requested. I don't know whether that's technical assistance or it's
help in determining what to look for, or help in understanding what the
nature of the cargo might be.
Q But the U.S. team is not going to get on board?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know for a fact that they won't get on
board. It's my understanding they will be available. I haven't seen
anything that indicates to me that they'll actually board the vessel,
but I can check further and see if that's the correct information.
Q Apropos of the holiday weekend you spoke about, do you
have a firmer idea now -- since tomorrow, I presume, starts the holiday
weekend -- what the status of the Middle East peace talks will be next
week?
MR. McCURRY: The preparations are continuing vigorously. I
think there's been a great deal of contact with the parties themselves
in preparation for the beginning of the sessions. We're still not
exactly sure which day next week they will begin. They still are
telling me at the end of the month; and I say, well, that could be
Monday or Tuesday, and after that you run out of options as far as I can
tell.
But, again, just where we are: We haven't received formal
confirmation from all the delegations, but we do expect all the parties
to participate.
As far as the Arab parties, I think that they are meeting in
Beirut for a coordination session -- I'm told later this week. I don't
know whether it's tomorrow or beyond tomorrow. But I expect after that
we will hear back from them some formal answer on what day we will begin
the discussions.
Q Is there any plan or consideration being given now to the
next trip by the Secretary to the region or perhaps by the team of
Djerejian and Ross, or just Ross, or whatever -- a combination?
MR. McCURRY: At the moment, we're taking things one step at a
time. We will certainly let the parties speak for themselves about what
type of proposals they're going to get into in this next round and what
kind of progress they expect to make. It is good to get that directly
from them.
I do think that we think this is an important moment. To kind
of look back to where we were, we had a process that really was not
making much progress. The Secretary made a trip to the region in the
aftermath of violence in the region, which clearly put the talks in
jeopardy. I think that we are now confident that the process is back on
track as a result of the Secretary's trip.
The participants in the negotiations themselves have been
actively engaged in looking at the key issues. They've been talking
about substance as opposed to process, which we feel is certainly
useful.
While we think the coming session is likely to be a short
session and we don't expect major breakthroughs, we do think that there
is opportunity now for some constructive discussion focusing in on the
key issues that help move this forward.
Now, beyond that, do you get into further travel by the
Secretary to the region; do you get into further direct discussions
between the parties? Those are things we'll kind of see where we are as
we go through the talks next week.
But I think, as you hear the parties talk themselves about
where they think they are and where they think the dialogue will go next
week, there is at least some measure of optimism that they will make
progress.
Q How short a session do you think this will be? What's the
U.S. goal for this session?
MR. McCURRY: Our goal, simply put, is to see the parties --
they had been at a point where they were not formulating positions that
were based on the real tough issues that have to be addressed if this
process is going to go forward. They are now beginning to do that.
I think our goal for this next session would be to see them
fully engaged on some of those tough issues and to begin addressing
formulations that could work towards, presumably, some type of
declaration. But, again, I am not suggesting that there will be any
major breakthroughs in this next round, but we think things are now set
for there to be some significant progress.
Q Mike, which hat will the Secretary be wearing during this
round -- active intermediary, honest broker, or full partner?
MR. McCURRY: It's a multiple choice question. The best answer
is all three. We've got a full partner role that sometimes involves the
Secretary as an active intermediary between the parties; sometimes as a
participant in dialogue back and forth -- carrying messages back and
forth. Frankly, his personal role is different dependent on which
track.
But I think under the general heading of "full partner," you
see a wide range of activities by the Secretary himself, including,
frankly, some work that he's been doing even on vacation -- contact
with the parties in the region -- to help make sure that things are
poised for a good discussion next week.
Q So he will be willing to carry messages, say, for
instance, between the Israeli delegation and the Syrian delegation while
they're here?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know. His trip in the region, when he
was dealing with national leaders, was more of that nature. I expect
that the work by the delegations themselves, while they're here in
Washington, will resemble the work as it has occurred in the past, but
we'll see how things develop.
Clearly, in our full partner role, we are more engaged because
the parties themselves are more engaged. I guess that's the best way to
put it.
Q Does the U.S. Government take any position on the concept
of splitting off Gaza and possibly Jericho first before the rest of the
track is -- on the Palestinians -- is finished?
MR. McCURRY: Do we take a position on that? No, the parties
themselves are clearly engaged in some serious discussion of ideas along
those lines, and I don't want to comment on the merits of that
particular proposal since it's something the parties themselves will
address as they get into their dialogue next week.
Q Could you say who the Secretary has been in touch with?
MR. McCURRY: Prime Minister Rabin and Foreign Minister Shara,
I know of for certain. I can check and see if there are others as well.
Q Can you tell us anything more about that, such as when
those conversations took place and how frequently it occurred?
MR. McCURRY: They were, I believe, telephone calls. I'm not
sure how many. I think they were -- I will double-check for sure -- I
believe they were earlier this week.
Q So that was independent of trying to settle things down in
south Lebanon a couple of weeks ago, because he talked to both of them
then?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know -- I haven't had an opportunity to
ask the Secretary about the content of the call.
Q But has he talked to them since he called to tell them to
cool it in south Lebanon? Has he talked to them since then about the
peace talks?
MR. McCURRY: You mean, since they were --
Q Two weeks ago the Secretary called Shara and Rabin to talk
about the recent violence.
MR. McCURRY: Oh, yes.
Q Okay.
MR. McCURRY: He has been in contact with them since then.
Q Mike, the Palestinians are coming here with a very clear
PLO label and, frankly, the Israelis don't mind too much. There is lot
more contacts between PLO officials and Israelis. Has the U.S.
Government decided to change its position towards a dialogue with the
PLO?
MR. McCURRY: No, we don't have a dialogue with the PLO.
Q And you do not intend to proceed with a dialogue with the
PLO?
MR. McCURRY: No. No change in our policy.
Q (Inaudible) what would be the terms for changing --
MR. McCURRY: That would put us into an exhaustive conversation
here that I don't think we need to have right now, suffice to say that
there's no change in our posture on that.
Q North Korea and the United Nations command in Korea
assigned a working group to investigate the MIA/POW issue of the Korean
War yesterday. Do you have any working schedule of the group or any
expectations?
MR. McCURRY: I don't have. I'll have to check on it. I just
didn't have anything with me on that. This is a working group that is
--
Q A working group to investigate the POW/MIA issue of the
Korean War.
MR. McCURRY: I don't have anything on that. Now that you say
that, I recall seeing something about it; but I haven't looked
specifically at it to get the right kind of answer, but I'll take a look
at it and see if I can get you some information.
Q Mike, one last question on terrorism. Is there any chance
that terrorism here against U.S. targets would affect U.S. ties to, say,
Egypt or Algeria? Anything like that?
MR. McCURRY: That's such a speculative question, I wouldn't
want to answer that. I wouldn't want to suggest to anyone anywhere in
the world that we are less than vigilant and less than determined to
thwart any such incidents.
Q Further on that subject, are there any implications as a
result of the indictment yesterday that changed Sudan's status relative
to the terrorism list or anything like that? Is there any
reconsideration of Sudan's status on the terrorism list?
MR. McCURRY: Again, to go back, it was real important that the
Secretary make clear, in making that determination to place Sudan on the
terrorism list, that we specifically set aside these questions about the
alleged plots in New York which are being investigated.
Once having set that information aside, it doesn't re-enter the
equation as to their listing. Obviously, there's no information out
there that would suggest that they should not have been listed.
Q No. I guess I was asking about -- at the time you
announced the terrorism list thing for Sudan, you made a point of
separating the very small amount but nonetheless some aid and
cooperation on the humanitarian basis that is continuing with Sudan. I
wonder whether any of that has been changed or if there was any
reconsideration of contacts with the Government of Sudan?
MR. McCURRY: Oh, no. We remain determined to pursue with the
Government of Sudan questions about humanitarian aid, and we fully
expect them to work with us to make sure that necessary relief can
arrive to those who are starving. In fact, we would be very concerned
if there would be any indication to us that that humanitarian relief was
being interrupted.
Q Are we keeping the staff in Khartoum at the same level?
MR. McCURRY: There's been some change in the status of
dependents and others. We're working closely with the American
community in Khartoum to make sure that we are satisfied about their
security. But we will certainly keep a diplomatic presence in Khartoum.
Q Do we have questions about the security of U.S. dependents
in Sudan?
MR. McCURRY: I think there were concerns -- I can't remember
exactly. I think at the time that we made the listing we did engage in
a draw down of some of the dependents and others. We covered a little
bit of that, I think, at the time we talked about the listing.
Q And what about now? In the wake of the indictment
yesterday, is the U.S. Government withdrawing personnel or dependents
from any of its embassies as a result of that indictment announcement?
MR. McCURRY: I am not aware of any changes in that, although I
do believe, consistent with what we do any time there is that type of
threat, we have sent notice to all posts to review their security
procedures and determine if any changes are needed. We do that
periodically whenever there is any type of an event that might lead to
any conceivable response. We always take those types of precautionary
steps.
Q This is because of the indictment that you sent a notice
to all the posts to be --
MR. McCURRY: I think it's more specifically because of some of
the reactions to the indictments that we are aware of at this point.
Q Did that go out yesterday or today?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know if it went out yesterday or today.
It may have gone out today.
Q I forgot to ask this yesterday. Because the Secretary is
on vacation, it's obvious that you're in touch and he's in touch, doing
a lot of things. Has he had any contact with, for example, the
Government of Egypt -- or perhaps with others in the region -- as a
result of, or in connection with the announcement yesterday of the
indictment of Sheik Rahman?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know whether he personally was involved
in notifying the Government of Egypt. I do believe that we took steps
to make the Government of Egypt aware of the pending indictment.
Q I'm not so concerned about -- I doubt that he would be the
one who would notify them. But it seems possible to me that he might
well get on the phone and try to discuss the issue of extradition a bit
and maybe smooth feathers, if any feathers needed smoothing. Could you
at least take the question as to whether he's had any personal
involvement in this?
MR. McCURRY: He may well have, Ralph. I'll check and see if
he did; whether I can say whether he did or not. I am not detailing all
the contacts that I'm aware of that he's had, because some, frankly, are
private communications that he's had. But I can check further on that
specific case.
Q Mike, just to go back to the warning. What specifically
was the warning that was issued to the posts around the world?
MR. McCURRY: It's not a warning. We advise all posts that it
would be wise for them, from time to time, to review their security
procedures and satisfy themselves that they've got the right diplomatic
security procedures in place, and to notify us if there are any changes
that are needed, as they routinely do. There's a high priority placed
upon that at virtually every diplomatic post anyhow. But from time to
time, the Department will share information with posts abroad to say, in
light of certain developments, it would be good for you to look at your
security procedures.
We do that fairly regularly when there are any types of
incidents that we think have the potential for provoking a response.
Q Have any U.S. personnel been sent from Washington or other
stateside destinations abroad to beef up security or install any
additional equipment, or anything of that sort, as a result of the
impending announcement of the indictment?
MR. McCURRY: Ralph, I don't believe so, but I don't want to
say "no" to that question, because --
Q There might be routine things. That's why I asked "as a
result of."
MR. McCURRY: Right. We have routine security things going on.
I'm not aware of anything in connection with the announcement of the
indictments.
Q Mike, is General Aideed of Somalia covered by any of the
reward programs declared by the State Department?
MR. McCURRY: No.
Q Why?
MR. McCURRY: Because the reward program that the State
Department administers is a reward program that deals with acts of
international terrorism.
Q One more question: Have either the Pakistan or Chinese
Governments drawn a parallel between -- or complained about the fact
that the United States is supplying the same Category I and Category II
items to Israel -- which is an unacknowledged proliferator -- have they
cited that case at all?
MR. McCURRY: Not that I'm aware of, no.
Q Could you take that question?
MR. McCURRY: I'll check and see. As I say, we're continuing
to have diplomatic dialogue with both governments. But as of today --
or we'll check and see if there is anything, we will post that and let
you know.
Q Thank you.
(Press briefing concluded at 2:00 p.m.)
(###)