Return to: Index of 1993 Daily Briefings || Electronic Research Collections Index || ERC Homepage

Note: This Electronic Research Collection (ERC) is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the US State Department homepage.
Note: This Electronic Research Collection (ERC) is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the US State Department homepage.
US DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1993

                                           BRIEFER:  Michael McCurry


Subject                                               Page

ANNOUNCEMENT
International Conference on Protection of 
  Victims of War in Geneva/US Condemns Human
  Rights Abuses ................................      1

MIDDLE EAST PEACE TALKS
Discussions between Israel and PLO .............      1-9
--  US Knowledge/Contacts.......................      1-9
Bilateral Talks at Department ..................      5,10
Secretary's Contacts with Parties/Allies .......      5-4,9
Declaration of Principles/Signing Ceremony .....      6-7,10-11
--  Funding of Agreement/US Role ...............      6-7

RUSSIA
Downing of KAL-007/Russian Commission Report ...      11,15

PAKISTAN
Foreign Minister's Meetings at Department ......      12
Shipment of M-11 Missile Components from China .      12-14

CHINA
US Offer of Dialogue re:  Sale of M-11 Missile
  Components/US Sanctions ......................      12-14
Inspection of Ship Suspected of Carrying CW
  Precursors ...................................      13

NORTH KOREA
Statement on North-South Dialogue/Nuclear Issues      14-15


(###)




                           DEPARTMENT OF STATE
                           DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

                                                      DPC #122

                WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1993, 12:51 P. M.
                  (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)


          MR. McCURRY:  Good afternoon, everybody.  I have a very short 
opening statement.  I want to call your attention to a very important 
conference that has occurred recently in Geneva, ending today.

          The International Conference on the Protection of the Victims 
of War ended today in Geneva.  The United States then joined other 
nations in expressing outrage at the atrocities and other violations of 
international humanitarian law occurring throughout the world.

          In his address to the conference, U.S. Ambassador Warren 
Zimmermann condemned such abuses "wherever they are committed, whoever 
commits them."

          This was a conference that was convened by the Government of 
Switzerland in response to international concern at the lack of respect 
for the Geneva Conventions, obviously abundant in the world, especially 
in the former Yugoslavia.  We have a longer statement on this conference 
and some of the remarks of Ambassador Zimmermann that will be available 
to you in the Press Office after the briefing.  But I wanted to call 
your attention to that statement.

          With that, I will be available for any questions you might 
have.

          Q    Are you prepared to say what the United States knew and 
when it knew it with respect to the contacts between the Israelis and 
the PLO?

          MR. McCURRY:  What we knew and when we knew it -- I can't give 
you the detailed type of chronology that you would like to have.  I can 
say that the United States was aware for some time that there were 
discussions going on in a private channel between representatives of the 
Palestinians and Israel.  We received fairly regularly briefings on what 
was happening on that track, as we continue to receive briefings on 
what's happening through that channel.  

          It was certainly clear that it was consistent with our view 
that direct discussions between the parties is the way that you could 
address the very tough decisions and the difficult choices that would 
have to be made by the parties if there would be progress in the 
dialogue.

          So the short answer is that we were aware that it was going on 
for some time.  I think we were probably not aware until fairly late of 
how extensive the conversations had developed in that channel, but 
obviously, as the Secretary indicated yesterday, he was certainly 
delighted with the outcome of those discussions.

          Q    Mike, is the U.S. sitting in at all, even as a silent 
observer, in any of those discussions?

          MR. McCURRY:  I am -- I don't want to say absolutely certain, 
but fairly certain that there was not any American participation at all 
in those discussions.  Although, as I say, we did receive information 
from time to time on how that channel was progressing.

          Q    This is starting to sort of look like cable TV actually 
-- there are channels all over the place.  Are you all aware of all the 
channels that are going on?  I mean, there are talks -- there are 
reports of talks between Syria, Lebanon and Israel in Madrid.  There are 
talks apparently in Brussels, in France.  Are you all tuning in to all 
of these channels?

          MR. McCURRY:  You know, what's the Bruce Springsteen song -- 
"57 channels and nothing on," or something like that.  There have been a 
lot of speculative stories out there right now, and I think the best 
thing to do is to go to the parties.  

          Specifically, I'm aware of this account this morning that 
there is now in Spain a separate discussion going on between Lebanon, 
Israel, Syria or others.  I really would refer you to the parties.  They 
are in the best position to tell you about their contacts, but I would 
caution you against anything that might be a little wild at this point.

          Q    Mike, when you said you were kept aware of what was going 
on, who precisely was kept aware?  The Secretary himself or Dennis 
[Ross] or Ed [Djerejian]?  Who was at the receiving end of those 
briefings?

          MR. McCURRY:  Well, I know that Ambassador Ross was the one 
who knew about it.  I think other members of our peace team did as well.  
You're seeing now reconstructed some of the discussion that the parties 
themselves are making about how this channel worked, and it's clear that 
it went on for some time without the type of activity associated with it 
that we've perhaps seen speculated on in the last couple of days.

          Q    You were regularly briefed by both parties?

          MR. McCURRY:  I don't know.  I wouldn't want to say regularly 
briefed.  I think they were aware of the fact that that channel was 
progressing, and they were in discussion with both Norway, I believe 
Israel, about what was going on on that track.

          Q    It was the PLO that was briefing you --

          MR. McCURRY:  No.  Principally the Norwegians and the Israelis 
I think is where most of our information early on on that track came 
from.

          Q    You said right at the end that you were not aware until 
fairly late how extensive both the contacts and the substance had 
gotten, so that --

          MR. McCURRY:  Let me go back --

          Q    There's sort of a disconnect here.

          MR. McCURRY:  -- go back to the last couple days.  I think 
certainly the Secretary was aware when we received the request from 
Prime Minister Rabin to receive Foreign Minister Peres in Santa Barbara 
last Friday.  We were aware that there had been some significant 
progress made on this track.

          I think the Secretary conveyed that to the President prior to 
the meeting in Santa Barbara.  I think the detail of what is now -- what 
I think you all have seen now reported publicly as the document called 
the declaration of principles -- I think the detail on how extensive 
that document was might have been something of a surprise to us, but 
none of the content was because, after all -- and I think it's important 
to step back from this for a second and remember the content of these 
negotiations and the difficult choices that the parties themselves face 
has been very much what's been discussed here at the Department and in 
some of the other contacts that have been held throughout these many 
rounds of negotiations.

          All the choices and all the contours of what an agreement 
would look like are the things that the parties themselves have 
discussed here in Washington in their negotiations.  I think that's 
important to remember.  At some point it was never surprising to anybody 
-- shouldn't be surprising to anybody that the decisions would have to 
be addressed at a higher political level.

          Q    Wait a minute.  You're saying that in their talks in 
Washington they talked about a Gaza-Jericho first step kind of solution?

          MR. McCURRY:  I think they -- earlier than these 
conversations, the notion of how you would begin addressing early 
empowerment and how some of those ideas would develop had been 
discussed.  But, Jack, not the specific contours of a Gaza first --

          Q    Yes.  This is quite a different --

          MR. McCURRY:  Although clearly that was very much a part of 
the discussion that occurred when the Secretary was in the region 
recently.

          Q    Mike, referring back to the Spain channel, as I recollect 
the story, the report was that this channel had been in existence for 
two months, and you're cautioning us against anything that would sound a 
little wild at this point.

          Can you tell us just what the United States was aware of going 
on in Spain, if anything?

          MR. McCURRY:  I am not aware that we're aware of anything 
going on in Spain.  But again I would suggest that you check with the 
parties and see if they've got anything they can use to help enlighten 
you on that.

          Q    The parties here often don't know things like this.

          MR. McCURRY:  Well, then check with other parties.

          Q    Mike, you mentioned as you were being -- or as the State 
Department was being briefed on this back channel negotiation, was there 
anything specifically the State Department was doing to help it along 
beyond, I guess, words of encouragement, or any specific acts of --

          MR. McCURRY:  No, I don't think I would say there were 
specific acts.  Our advice had been solicited on occasion and we did 
provide our advice; but I wouldn't want to get into any of the details 
of what we were asked to specifically address by the parties.

          Q    Mike, when you're talking about the Israelis briefing you 
on those secret talks, who in the Israeli Cabinet was briefing you?  Was 
it coming from the Minister of Information, from the Minister of Foreign 
Affairs, or was it coming from the Prime Minister?

          MR. McCURRY:  I don't know the answer to that.  If I answer 
it, I might get it incorrect -- I might speculate incorrectly.  I think 
it was through routine diplomatic contact.  I would describe it at that 
level, as it being at a ministerial level, but we'll certainly check and 
see if there was more direct contact.

          Q    Mike, given the Secretary's delight at the outcome of the 
Israeli-PLO talks in your statement just now, that face-to-face contacts 
are to be desired, does the U.S. favor secret talks between Israel and 
Syria or any other parties?

          MR. McCURRY:  Well, I think as we said before, we didn't 
encourage or discourage it, because it's very much a decision that the 
parties themselves had to make.  But I think the Secretary certainly 
made it clear yesterday that the result of that has been something that 
we certainly welcome and that we're enthusiastic about.

          Q    One result of all of this is that the talks here seem to 
be essentially just marking time while all of these secret channels go 
through to their conclusion.  Can you assess where things stand here?  
What has all this done to the existing process?

          MR. McCURRY:  Well, yes, I will assess what's going on here, 
because I think it's very important.  I tried to address a little bit of 
that earlier.

          First of all, remember that there's more than just the 
Palestinian-Israeli track underway.  There are other tracks and those -- 
as you've known all along, in many ways these are interdependent tracks, 
and we certainly hope that the progress that has been achieved now in 
the Palestinian-Israeli track might serve as a catalyst in some of the 
other tracks.  So, that's certainly part of the discussion that's going 
on here.  

          Then secondly, remember that the folks who have done the hard 
work, who are members of these delegations who are here negotiating now, 
are the ones who will then have to be participants in the implementation 
of this declaration.  And, as you read through what are the purported 
texts of these statements, as you now have them from various sources, 
you'll see that there's a great deal of hard work that will have to be 
done to implement each of these features. 

          And remember that the people who will be responsible for a lot 
of that hard work are those who are here and who continue to meet face 
to face.  So that's, you know, in a sense a very important part of the 
peace process.

          Now, I should tell you also that the Secretary has not been 
meeting with the delegations that are here.  He has been quite active on 
the issue generally.  He talked to Prime Minister Rabin again on Monday.  
He did talk to the Russian Foreign Minister Kozyrev yesterday.  He has 
also talked to the Lebanese Prime Minister, Mr. Hariri, the Egyptian 
Foreign Minister Moussa, and the Tunisian Foreign Minister Ben-Yahia.

          So he has been active at that level.  Our team had 
considerable contact with the delegations and the regional leaders 
yesterday, and they've been meeting in numerous ways throughout the days 
of these negotiations.

          So again, you know, implementing this declaration, if and when 
the declaration is finalized -- and we will hear more about that 
directly from the parties at that proper point -- but if and when it is 
finalized, there will continue to be a great deal of hard work that the 
parties themselves will have to do.

          Barry.

          Q    Unless there's been a change, by all accounts the only 
issue there unsettled is who signs the document.  Would there be a 
problem for the State Department if a PLO official signed the document?

          MR. McCURRY:  Well, I want to leave that up to the parties.  
The parties are going to have to address the question of how best -- as 
they fashion this declaration -- how best it proceeds.  I mean, we 
clearly are not going to do anything that would interfere with the 
ability of the parties to come to a conclusion that's satisfactory.

          Q    You understand I'm asking in a mechanical sense.  
Assuming the signing is here, what you just said, does that apply?  You 
know, you will make it as easy as possible or something?

          MR. McCURRY:  Yes.  We're not going to do anything that will 
thwart the ability of the parties, after having negotiated this 
document, to get the proper signatures on it.

          Q    Do you have anything new today on contacts with the PLO?

          MR. McCURRY:  No.  The Secretary addressed that yesterday, and 
his comments were pretty clear, I think.

          Q    Mike, on implementation, what does the United States plan 
to do to help?  We clearly don't have the billions of dollars that we 
did to underwrite Camp David 12, 13 years ago.  Can you give us some 
sense of what he talked about with Kozyrev this morning?

          MR. McCURRY:  Well, among other things, with Foreign Minister 
Kozyrev and others that we will talk to about this, because it will have 
to be -- it will require the full participation of the world community 
-- the implementation of many of these ideas and the requirement for 
funding to help support some of the social and welfare and educational 
functions that would be transferred is something that will require 
extensive work by the United States in helping to draw together the 
funding.

          We will be active in helping to facilitate that.  We will be 
in contact with other partners in the world community on that question.  
But it is really, at this point, premature to speculate on how much 
could be committed.  That's something that's certainly on the part of 
the United States -- the Administration would have to be in very close 
consultation with Congress before any financial commitments could be 
made.

          But it is something that we will be prepared to address within 
the world community as we talk to any number of partners in the 
international community.

          Jim.

          Q    This purported document that has been published, how 
close is it to the American draft?

          MR. McCURRY:  I am not able to get into that for you.  I just 
don't have anything on it.  We have got possession of a document.  
Nobody, to my knowledge, has gone through and looked at what you may 
have seen in The New York Times or elsewhere and compared the text 
directly.  So I'm just not in a position to do that.

          I think again it is the parties who are negotiating this 
document who are in the best position to tell you whether these are 
authoritative and reliable texts.

          Q    Mike, back to the Nordic track just for a second, did the 
United States know it was happening when it started, or were we informed 
after it started that it was indeed happening?  Did they do this without 
telling -- did they start these talks without first informing the United 
States?

          MR. McCURRY:  Well, my understanding is that this channel 
developed, you know, over many, many months and started in a -- started 
in a way that would be hard to say that it would have been something 
instantly people would have rushed to do briefings on or to do 
consultations on.

          I think it evolved out of some contacts that occurred in 
Norway.  I think at the point -- as I say, at the point at which this 
became then a channel that very actively was addressing the dialogue 
between the two parties, we were aware that that was happening.  
Certainly, we're aware that at the time of the Secretary's trip, but 
obviously we did not have a complete readout on the substance and detail 
of the discussions that were going on.

          Q    But that process began before we knew about it -- the 
process --

          MR. McCURRY:  I think this process began quite some time ago.  
In fact, I'll have to leave it up to those who know more about it to 
describe when this channel became available to the parties themselves.  
I mean, they would know best.  I believe it was really quite some time 
ago.

          Q    But it became available before we were aware of it.

          MR. McCURRY:  I don't know for a fact that we were not aware 
of it.  I don't believe that we were aware at the point that they began 
talking through that channel, because, as I say, I think it evolved over 
time, and at some point we became aware of it.  It would have been -- my 
understanding is that at some point earlier this year we became aware 
that these conversations had been occurring.  

          But again I think the critical thing is the point at which 
they became substantive and became very directly involved in the 
negotiations that are underway now, that was fairly recently.

          Q    Mike, you said you were surprised by the extent of the 
results of those secret contacts.  Did you ignore, in fact, the 
potential of this Nordic track to put it the way Sid puts it?

          MR. McCURRY:  No.  I don't think we ignored -- the conceptual 
breakthrough here is that the parties themselves at a high level would 
begin to engage on all these difficult issues.  That's something that 
not only didn't we ignore, that's something that we have encouraged.  
The fact that that would happen through this other channel is not 
something that we anticipated, but it's not something that, you know, is 
altogether surprising, given the fact that at some point the parties 
would have to engage in this way directly if there was going to be real 
progress.

          Q    Is there a feeling in this Department that the two 
parties somehow breached or violated anything between you and them by 
going on the back channel and achieving this kind of agreement?

          MR. McCURRY:  No.  I mean, there's not that sense at all.  I 
think the sense that we have is satisfaction that the process that was 
built painstakingly with the parties was one that helped them focus in 
on exactly the issues that would have to be addressed if there would be 
any type of breakthrough of this nature.

          I think it is certainly our sense that at some point there 
would have to be exactly this type of direct engagement for them to move 
forward in this process; and the fact that it happened in a channel 
outside of the process that was built here is not -- I mean, the 
important thing is the result.  We're satisfied that the result itself 
is important, and it validates the process that got the parties to the 
point where they could have that type of negotiation.

          Q    You mentioned all these players that the Secretary has 
been talking to on the phone.  Could you give us some notion if his 
focus is on the other parts of this settlement, or is there some need 
for the U.S. to weigh in now?  Because, after all, we were led to 
believe, even until today, that the issues on the declaration and on 
mutual recognition are not insurmountable; they just take some time.  Is 
the Secretary trying to push that along, or is he into the 
Syrian/Lebanese/Jordanian part of this, or what?

          MR. McCURRY:  I would say clearly there is a need with all 
these people that he is working with to review the status of the talks 
that are going on on the Palestinian/ Israeli track because they are 
very significant and they will, we believe, serve as a catalyst to the 
other tracks; but I would describe the purpose of the Secretary's calls 
to some of the other participants in the process to be designed to 
ensure that there is progress in these other tracks.  It is important 
now to not let the work that's occurred in one track obviate the need to 
make progress and to continue very direct negotiations in some of the 
other tracks.

          Q    Mike, in running down the Secretary's conversations, you 
didn't mention Syria.  Has anyone from this building been on the phone 
to Damascus, and can you say what the upshot is?

          MR. McCURRY:  I'm actually sort of catching up from where we 
were.  The Secretary had had conversations with Foreign Minister Shara 
last week.  Beyond the contact we've had with the Syrians through the 
delegations here, I don't know that the Secretary has had contact at 
that level; but he had had contact at that level quite recently.

          Q    Since then the Syrians appear to be throwing cold water 
on the Israeli/Palestinian agreement.  Do you have anything to say about 
that?

          MR. McCURRY:  No, I don't.  I don't want to characterize their 
reaction.  I think, as many of you know, they're getting briefed in a 
variety of ways themselves on the content; and I'd prefer to leave it to 
those governments to react as they learn more about the details.

          Q    Mike, what is the present American official perception or 
characterization of Yasser Arafat, and how will the characterization be 
changed if the pact between the PLO and Israel is successfully signed?

          MR. McCURRY:  We haven't had a dialogue with Mr. Arafat so I 
don't know if we have any way of having a new characterization of a view 
towards him.

          Q    Another subject.

          Q    I just wanted to ask one more question.

          MR. McCURRY:  One more.  Lee.

          Q    Just logistically, any scheduled changes, updates, 
reports?

          MR. McCURRY:  I've had any manner of speculative questions on 
how things are going to happen.  The Secretary, when he used a word that 
I personally hate which is "modalities" yesterday, I think he was 
indicating to you that part of the discussion now is how do you proceed.  
I think that's not clear.  It's certainly not clear to us.  I don't 
think it's clear to the parties yet on exactly things like timing and 
how things are going to happen.

          We certainly will keep you apprised as we know more about 
timing, but the parties themselves are most likely going to be in the 
best position to announce things like timing and how things are going to 
happen.

          Q    A follow up on this, if I may.  A follow up.

          Q    Just quickly on Barry's question about the Administration 
not impeding anybody's ability to come here and sign.  Are you saying 
that PLO members from outside of the delegation would be issued visas to 
come to Washington and sign this document if that's what the parties 
called for?

          MR. McCURRY:  That's very, very speculative at this point.  
The Department in the past has made arrangements to help the parties 
themselves have the people present that they needed to make the process 
go forward.  All I'm indicating is that we certainly would do that at 
the point at which there is an agreement about to be reached.

          Q    The upgrading of the representation to the bilateral 
talks was very much in the air before the starting of the eleventh 
round.  What happened about this now?

          MR. McCURRY:  You mean the fact that they were moving into a 
separate track on a higher level?

          Q    Yes.

          MR. McCURRY:  Yes, that was known to us; but as I indicated 
earlier, it's also known to us that the delegations that are here 
working are going to have to play a very large role in implementing any 
agreement that is reached.  They become, in a sense, even more important 
to the process as you move forward and begin to do the work that's 
associated with implementing a declaration of principles.

          Q    Mike, do you have any comment on the possibility of a 
dissolution of the PLO and its transference into a provisional 
government?

          MR. McCURRY:  I don't know anything about that.

          Q    Bassam Abu Sharif said in Paris yesterday.

          MR. McCURRY:  No, I don't have any comment on that.

          Q    Did the Israeli and Palestinian delegations reject 
various requests to have their picture taken while they sat at the 
table, and which delegation was saying "no"?

          MR. McCURRY:  I don't know.  I think we conveyed to them some 
interest on the part of our press corps here in taking that picture.  I 
think they indicated they had a lot of hard work to do and they'd think 
about it and get back to us.  That's what we've normally done; we convey 
the request to them.

          Q    Another subject?

          MR. McCURRY:  Another subject.

          Q    This is the tenth anniversary of the downing of KAL 007.  
Is the United States satisfied that the whole story has yet been told by 
the Russians, or do you believe there is more there?

          MR. McCURRY:  We were prepared to have a little reaction.  I 
think, as you know, there's been a commission in Russia that has looked 
at that and had prepared a report, and we were prepared to say something 
on that the other day.  I unfortunately just didn't bring that with me.

          We are going to study more closely this recent report that was 
issued and certainly look at the comments that have been made by Russian 
authorities as to who they think the responsible parties were; but I'd 
really prefer to go back and get that precise language that we had as a 
reaction to that report.

          Q    Maybe somebody could get it for you so you could do that 
before you leave the podium?

          MR. McCURRY:  Maybe somebody could go see if they've got that 
handy.

          Q    Mike, the Pakistani Foreign Minister is around the 
building and he's seeing several people.  What is that about?

          MR. McCURRY:  He is here.  I think, as you recall, the Indian 
Foreign Secretary was here last week.  The Pakistani Foreign Minister*, 
Shaharyar Khan, is here today meeting with a variety of senior 
Department officials.  This is now becoming, and we hope to become, a 
routine series of bilateral conversations we're having with both India 
and Pakistan on regional issues of concern to us on things ranging from 
proliferation issues, tension in the region itself, steps that can be 
taken to avoid the outbreak of war and confidence-building measures that 
nations in the region can take to help diminish the prospects of 
hostility.

*Foreign Secretary

          I believe they also are going to talk about more current 
issues.  We clearly had in the news very recently the M-11 issue which 
is of some concern.  I'm sure that will be raised; but I would stress 
that we have a broad range of interests in our relationship with 
Pakistan.  We will work to find areas of cooperation, and we will also 
work again to see if we can make any progress on clarifying our concerns 
about the M-11 issue itself.

          Q    You say "routine."  What -- every year?

          MR. McCURRY:  We hold regular meetings with senior officials 
from both of those countries.  I think someone did tell me at one point 
that they were annual meetings.  I'm not absolutely sure that they are 
annual, but they are intended to be regular.  The meetings that the 
Foreign Secretary is having today will be on a range of bilateral issues 
and then, as I mentioned, some of these regional security issues are 
going to be addressed at meetings that are going to be held at the end 
of the week.

          Q    Same general subject.  Ambassador Lord said yesterday the 
Administration is seeking immediate talks with the Chinese on the 
possibility of getting the sanctions waived.  Do you have anything new 
on that?

          MR. McCURRY:  I'm sorry, I was looking at this, George.  Can 
you repeat that?

          MR. McCURRY:  Ambassador Lord said yesterday the 
Administration is seeking immediate talks with the Chinese on the 
possibility of getting the sanctions announced last week waived.  Do you 
have anything new on that?

          MR. McCURRY:  Don't have anything new.  We've sought those at 
the time that we delivered our formal presentation to the Chinese on 
Under Secretary Davis' findings.  We suggested to them at that point 
that we would be willing to enter into a cooperative dialogue to help us 
resolve our concerns.  I don't believe that we've proceeded in that 
fashion yet, although the offer stands. 

          Q    To go back to Pakistan, has the U.S. made any offer of 
mediation on the Kashmir issue at all?

          MR. McCURRY:  Not that I'm aware of.  I'll double check on 
that, but I don't believe we have.

          Q    On this China issue, what would it take to get sanctions 
waived?  And related to that, what's the state of the search of the Yin 
He, and when do you expect that to be completed?

          MR. McCURRY:  Second question first.  I think the Yin He is 
still being searched.  It's going to take quite some time.  My 
understanding is that they're going through a range of cargo containers.  
It could take a matter of several days.

          On the first question, "How would they get the sanctions 
waived," my recollection is Under Secretary Davis talked about that a 
little bit; but first and foremost, we have to be satisfied about our 
concerns about the nature of the shipment that we have addressed 
specific questions to them about.

          The first thing that has to happen is there have to be some 
very specific answers to questions we have posed to them about the 
nature of the shipment.  Secondly, beyond the representation China has 
made to us that they will adhere fully to the MTCR guidelines, we need 
to work with them in a very cooperative and engaged way to make sure 
that our own concerns and our goals, and proliferation goals, are 
satisfied.

          A great example of this:  I know a lot of you will be 
following the conversations that Prime Minister Chernomyrdin and Vice 
President Gore will be having tomorrow; but that's the result of another 
similar proliferation issue which we discussed not too long ago in which 
the effort to resolve to work amicably in resolving proliferation issues 
can now lead to a closer cooperation on a variety of space technology 
issues.  That's the type of productive, cooperative relationship that 
could happen, and that type of cooperation could then satisfy us that 
the need for the sanctions no longer exists; but there's just no 
question that that necessary precondition does not exist now.

          Q    The M-11 stuff, does it have to come back?  In contrast 
to the Chernomyrdin issue, the equipment is already gone.

          MR. McCURRY:  That's a question I can't answer because I can't 
tell you exactly what we think went.  It's like "stuff" went, and we 
have to know what the stuff was and what people can do with the stuff.

          Q    You don't know what it was, but you're sure it was a 
violation?

          MR. McCURRY:  Yes.  We know what it was.  We're sure that it 
was a Category II violation.  I think we addressed at some length the 
fact that we could not establish unambiguously that there had been a 
Category I violation.  So what does that mean in English, to satisfy 
Dancy here?  It means, did a missile go?  Or did a full rocket system 
convey?  If not, what did convey and what can be done with what conveyed 
and that kind of question.  Those are the types of specific questions -- 
and even more detailed questions than that -- that we've posed directly 
to the Chinese.  There are ways of satisfying us about those concerns 
other than to just reiterate a standard formulation that MTCR guidelines 
have been adhered to.

          Q    Doesn't that sort of set a precedent that other violators 
can plea bargain after the fact?

          MR. McCURRY:  No.  The precedent would be that people can 
enter into a constructive dialogue with the United States, satisfy our 
concerns, and assure the United States that the goals of the 
international regime and then separately our own non-proliferation goals 
are met and that agreements are adhered to.  In the sense that it sets 
that precedent, yes, it does set a precedent.

          Q    Is Pakistan going to be asked about whether it was a 
missile that actually came in, because they would be the other party to 
it, number one?  And number two, is there any talk about the possibility 
of Pakistan agreeing to a one-time inspection of its nuclear facilities 
or any other concessions on the nuclear front?

          MR. McCURRY:  On the second question, I don't have anything 
for you on that.  I can find out as we get a more definitive readout on 
some of the meetings that are held here today.

          On the first question, I don't want to be too detailed about 
the nature of our diplomatic contact with Pakistan.  I believe we did 
say at the time we announced the decision that we had raised some of 
these same concerns with Pakistan, and we had asked their help in seeing 
if they could be of assistance in helping us to clarify the nature of 
the shipment.  There was diplomatic dialogue with Pakistan on that 
question.

          Q    Have you got any information on a report from North Korea 
concerning IAEA inspection and North-South dialogue to the effect that 
the third round of talks between the United States and Korea will be 
worked out?

          MR. McCURRY:  We don't have a lot.  We have seen the North 
Korean statement that I think you're probably aware of this morning.  As 
much as we can say at this point is that we do indeed hope that 
substantive bilateral talks can be arranged soon.

          Just to go back:  As you all know, those North-South talks and 
a substantive dialogue between North Korea and the IAEA are some of the 
necessary preconditions for us to then move to a third round of 
negotiations directly with the DPRK.  So other than to say we're aware 
that North Korea has made a statement, we're aware that South Korea has 
responded to that, we are waiting to hear more about how they might 
proceed to have the dialogue that is suggested by those statements.

          Q    Mike, do you now have something there on KAL 007?

          MR. McCURRY:  Yes.  Again, going back through this, it says we 
have not seen the report of the Russian Commission on KAL 007.  However, 
notwithstanding the statements attributed to Chief of Staff Filatov and 
the Flight Safety Commission Head, Teymurazov, based on Embassy reports, 
it appears that the Russian Commission largely endorsed the conclusions 
of the International Civil Aviation Organization report which was issued 
in June of 1993.

          The ICAO report arrived at the following conclusions 
concerning the conduct of the Russian pilots who intercepted the KAL 
flight.  First, that exhaustive efforts to identify the intruder 
aircraft were not made although apparently some doubt remained regarding 
its identity, and that the USSR military aircraft did not comply with 
the ICAO standards and recommended practices for interception of civil 
aircraft before attacking the flight.

          I think it continues to be the United States position that the 
Russian Federation is obligated to pay compensation to the families of 
the KAL 007 victims.  That's something that we have raised in the past 
with Russia and will continue to do so.

          Q    One of the main mysteries to be solved yet is where the 
bodies are now.  The Family Association strongly for the last ten years 
asked the Russian Government and the Soviet Union Government to release 
information concerning that matter.  Have we ever asked the Russian or 
Soviet Union Government to release the whole information concerning 
bodies (inaudible).

          MR. McCURRY:  I'm going to make this into a taken question 
because I think it's a good question.  The question would be, "Now that 
this Russian Commission has concluded its work, will the documentation 
be made available publicly, and will the United States request that it 
be made publicly available?"  I'll get an answer to that.  I don't know, 
but we'll check.

          Q    Thank you.

          (Press briefing concluded at 1:30 p.m.)

(###)

To the top of this page