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
Friday, September 17, 1993
BRIEFER: Michael McCurry
Subject Page
CHINA
Reported Preparation for Nuclear Weapons Test ............1-6
-- US Reaction/US Contacts
..................................................1-6
Prospects for Hosting Olympics
.............................................4
Status of US Relations
................................................................4
ARMS CONTROL
Status of Five-Nation Conference on Nuclear
Proliferation
................................................................7-8
NORTH KOREA
US Conditions for Resumption of Talks ................................8
Previous Meetings with
US.............................................................8
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
Prospects for PLO Establishing Office in US ......................8-9,11
US Laws Restricting Contact with PLO ..............................9-11
-- State Department Discussions with Congress ............9-11
Prospects for Donors Conference
............................................10-11
Bilateral Negotiations/US Contacts with Parties ...........11
HAITI
US Concern re: Formation of Government ............................12
Departure of UN Force
...................................................................12
Prospects for Resumption of Sanctions ...............................13
RUSSIA
Report of New Ambassador to US
.............................................14
(###)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #130
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1993, 12:44 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. McCURRY: Good afternoon, everybody. No announcements, so
your questions, please.
Q Mike, what do you know about -- or what can you tell us,
rather, about this Chinese nuclear business?
MR. McCURRY: There's not a lot I can tell you because,
obviously, the information that you've seen reported is from sources
that we normally don't talk about here.
I would say that we would view a nuclear weapons test by China
or any other nation with serious concern. We've been trying for several
weeks, at very senior levels, to dissuade China from carrying out such a
test and to our knowledge, many countries have discussed this issue
directly with the Chinese in recent weeks.
Our focus at the moment is dissuading China from conducting
any possible tests. Beyond that, it's very hard to speculate on what
might happen if they do test.
I would say that the environment for negotiating a
Comprehensive Test Ban would be much stronger if other nations observed
a moratorium on testing such as the one that President Clinton
announced. Negotiating a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by 1996 remains
an important Administration objective and it is also a directive from
the United States Congress.
Q Mike, how can you say that you don't know what would
happen if, in fact, China tested? Didn't the President say in July that
if another nation tested, the United States would not adhere to a ban?
MR. McCURRY: He didn't say that. I believe his statement on
July 2 was pretty clear, that there were certain steps that could be
taken by the Department of Energy to look at the testing issue. But,
again, that would be hypothetical at this point. I don't know that
there are any decisions at this point on what would happen if China did
conduct a test.
Q It is no more hypothetical now than it was when the
President spoke about it on July 2. In fact, it may be less
hypothetical now than it was then, so why are you hiding behind that
aspect of it?
MR. McCURRY: What's the question?
Q It's not hypothetical. It's no more hypothetical now
than it was then. The President said certain things would happen if
another nation tested. Is that policy still in place?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know of any change in the policy. I'm
not suggesting by that that the Administration has made any definitive
judgment on how it would respond to any test by the Chinese.
Q Is it a concern of the U.S. Government that not only
China but other countries may also follow China -- Russia, France, for
example, two candidates --
MR. McCURRY: I wouldn't want to get into what we think other
countries might do with their nuclear program. I think the President,
at the time that he announced our moratorium on testing, indicated that
the general environment would certainly be much more welcoming of an
overall Comprehensive Test Ban, and the possibility of nations
refraining from testing would be much more likely if any single nation
did not step forward first with a first test. That was the basis of the
"no first test" policy.
Q What was it a couple of weeks ago that prompted the
United States to ask China not to test again?
MR. McCURRY: I think, as you probably are aware, these types
of matters are ones that the United States watches very, very carefully.
It is sufficient to say that within the last several weeks the United
States grew increasingly concerned about the status of the Chinese
testing program.
Q Do you feel this turns back the clock, to an extent, if
they go ahead with this test? If they feel that they have a nuclear
safety problem, what's wrong with testing?
MR. McCURRY: Again, I would stress that the environment
itself -- the overall goal here is to negotiate a Comprehensive Test Ban
by 1996. The environment for negotiating that ban is certainly much
stronger if nations refrain from testing in that interim period. I
think the other countries will address their own reasons for wanting to
test -- safety and reliability are very often the reasons cited -- but
it becomes much harder once one country tests for other countries to
then continue to refrain from their testing.
Q That was an argument the U.S. used for years, though --
safety and reliability -- and dismissed the argument that just because
the U.S. was continuing to test, that other nations, therefore, ought to
feel they ought to do it. That's a pretty big change of views you're
expressing here.
MR. McCURRY: That's not a change of views. The President,
himself, said in July that you have to balance out the questions about
safety and reliability against the overall proliferation goals that
you're pursuing. He said, on balance, while testing certainly can
enhance safety and reliability, to proceed with tests would also
undermine some of the proliferation goals that are equally if not more
important.
Q Has this protest been pushed through at a level higher
than Lynne Davis?
MR. McCURRY: Yes.
Q And was this in Christopher's encounter with the Foreign
Minister of China?
MR. McCURRY: I wouldn't want to speculate on all the ways
that it's being raised, but the matter has been raised at high, if not
the highest, levels.
Q Has President Clinton written to Chinese leaders to
discuss this issue?
MR. McCURRY: I think that would be a good question to direct
to the White House.
Q The question I have is a broader one, but it seems to me
over the past six months or so that there have been repeated instances
in which we've had to remonstrate, convince, persuade, push, pressure
China on one thing or another whether it is allowing ships to carry
Chinese here, or selling weapons, or something like that. Is there
something going on here that the United States ought to be doing vis-a-
vis China that could be a little bit more stronger policy? Because when
all of this happened, we still continued the Most Favored Nation.
I'm just wondering whether the Chinese -- whether there's
something broader going on that the United States wants to take on here
vis-a-vis China?
MR. McCURRY: I'm not sure I really know what the question is
here. I'd say, one, we've had a rocky period in our relationship with
China because of many of the issues that you cite. But, second, there
is an ongoing effort to raise many of these issues diplomatically to try
to address these concerns.
Our bilateral relationship with China is based on many, many
factors, many of which are positive. We continue to work with them on
these issues of concern to us, and we will continue to work with them on
issues of concern to us, hoping that we can achieve successful
resolutions of our concerns on issues, whether they be human rights,
proliferation, or the other types of things that we have discussed.
Q If you've dwelt on this already, please forgive me. Does
the State Department take any position on China's attempt to get the
Olympics in the year 2000?
MR. McCURRY: No, the Department or the Administration has not
taken any position on their bid to host the Olympics. We are aware of
the fact that the International Olympic Committee, which will make that
decision, will base its decision on numerous factors. We have shared
some of the information that we think might be relevant with the U.S.
members of the International Olympic Committee, but we have taken no
view on the question of hosting the Olympics directly.
Q Do you feel it would be a problem for them to host the
Olympics if they were resuming nuclear testing? Do you think that
should have anything to do with the selection of an Olympic site?
MR. McCURRY: That's not a question that we address. That's
the International Olympic Committee's province to address their criteria
for selecting. I don't know whether they make that a factor or not.
Q You just said you share some information with the Olympic
Committee members that you think they ought to know about. Is this an
issue about which you have shared information with them --
MR. McCURRY: No. I think, specifically, the information that
we gave them was relating to our discussion of China in the context of
our annual human rights report.
Q Mike, in Jack's previous question, you used the word
"protest." Is that what it was that the United States communicated?
Was it a diplomatic protest?
MR. McCURRY: I don't think it was a protest. I think we were
raising -- it was a formal demarche, in diplomatic terms -- raising
concerns about what we thought might be under preparation. Obviously,
to our knowledge, there have not been any tests, so we hadn't filed any
formal protest.
Q On the general question of what you describe as a rocky
period in our relationship, the other day you said that you considered
the incident of the Chinese ship in the Gulf to be closed. The Chinese
Government obviously does not. They've kept up a drumbeat of press
comments, demanding an apology, saying that they're going to demand
costs -- $12 million, or something like that. Do you respond at all to
those communications from them?
MR. McCURRY: I don't have anything new on that.
Q When was the demarche issued?
MR. McCURRY: I think it's been raised. I wouldn't want to
say there's been a single one. I think we've been raising this issue in
a variety of contexts with the Chinese since, I believe, July -- late
July. I'll double-check and make sure it wasn't sooner than that, but I
believe late July onward that we've raised this in several contexts.
Q So, there have been several demarches since July?
MR. McCURRY: There have been several. As you know, there
have been several high-ranking exchanges between the United States and
China in that period, and it has been raised a number of times. I
think, as you know, Under Secretary Davis was in Beijing at one point.
I think there have been other possibilities for us to have expressed our
concerns to China.
Q Have we asked the Japanese and others to raise their
concerns with the Chinese about this whole subject?
MR. McCURRY: We have encouraged a large number of states to
urge China not to resume testing, and we understand that many of them
have.
Q Mike, coming back to your original comments, you said
that this was an issue which you view with serious concern. Is the
serious concern you have over it related to the environment for
negotiating a non-proliferation -- a nuclear test ban? Or is there some
other concern, such as a danger of an explosion, or the danger of use of
the weapons, or anything of that sort?
MR. McCURRY: The concern we're raising is because of the
overall goal of the world community, which is to achieve a Comprehensive
Test Ban.
Q They have agreed to take part (inaudible) in those
negotiations?
MR. McCURRY: I believe they have, yes.
Q I think it was once reported that China expressed its
concern to join the NPT regime. Do you have any communication with
China concerning that matter?
MR. McCURRY: I don't have anything specific on that, no.
Q What is your position on Chinese participation in the NPT
regime?
MR. McCURRY: We encourage participation in the regime itself
because it enhances the overall goals of non-proliferation.
Q Have we ever sent a telegram or urgent letter to
participate in the NPT regime to China?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know the answer to that. I know that we
often and regularly encourage people to meet with us and discuss with us
our proliferation goals and also those that have been expressed by the
international community.
Q Is it safe to say that the U.S. concerns about this
testing issue have remained at about the same levels since they began in
July, or is there something more recently than July that has prompted an
increasing level of concern?
You said you've raised it a number of times since July,
presumably, because nothing has improved. But has the situation gotten
any worse, in the U.S. view?
MR. McCURRY: Well, "worse" is a relative term.
Q How about imminent?
MR. McCURRY: "Imminent." That's a good question. If you're
asking me if a test was suddenly -- if our understanding was that a test
had suddenly become more imminent, would we have suddenly elevated the
expression of our concern to China?
Q Right.
MR. McCURRY: That's a very good question. I'll have to check
on that.
Q Does the testing appear to be more imminent?
MR. McCURRY: I can't answer that because it involves
intelligence matters.
Q I guess what we're getting at is, whatever the
preparations are, that you referred to a moment ago, were obviously
apparent to the United States as early as July. Is there anything that
has occurred since then that leads you to feel more concerned about it?
Or is this a continuing but nonetheless stable level of concern about
the possibility of testing at some point?
MR. McCURRY: Obviously, because this is an intelligence
matter, I can't comment on it at great length. I can say that, as we do
monitor situations like this carefully, if we suddenly became concerned
about a problem, our interest in that problem would certainly increase
and we would certainly monitor it much more carefully. As we learn more
and assess more, if we found it wise to express our concern more
directly, it would be natural that we would do so.
Q Would one method of doing that be to make the information
available to the Washington Post so that it would get more widely
disseminated, in general? Is that an expression of an increasing
concern, or does it just happen to be that somebody stumbled across this
piece of information?
MR. McCURRY: No, that would, of course, not be the way it
would be handled, because that would be the distribution of classified
intelligence materials. It wouldn't be proper at all.
Q I take it the Chinese have either said -- given no reply
or just gone on with their plans in spite of the expressions of concern?
MR. McCURRY: I just cannot characterize our diplomatic
exchanges with the Chinese on this question.
Q Mike, are the French still testing?
MR. McCURRY: I'm not aware that they've tested any time
recently.
Q They haven't said they're going to stop it, though?
Q Do you have any estimate of the possible area that would
be influenced by the nuclear test of China? For example, nuclear
fallout could spread to the Peninsula of Korea or Japan or something
like that?
MR. McCURRY: I don't have any information on that that I can
share here.
Q Mike, does the United States believe that -- I'm sorry,
just one more on this subject -- does the United States believe that the
Chinese have planted a nuclear weapon into a hole ready for detonation?
MR. McCURRY: I just can't comment on that. That would be
consistent with what we know about their previous tests, but I can't
comment on what we know about their current planning or preparation.
Q A related one. There's a team here from India for
discussions on nuclear proliferation issues with the U.S., and it's
going on right now. I believe earlier there was a suggestion -- not
believe -- I know that the U.S. wanted a five-nation conference which
included China. Now it seems that this is out of the window. Is that
true? Is the proposal for a five-nation out -- dead? MR.
McCURRY: I'd have to check on that. I had not heard that. I'd be
willing to check on that to see if that's true.
Q On North Korea, as you may understand, tomorrow is the
announced deadline for the third round of talks between the United
States and North Korea. If that's not an accurate deadline, how long
will the United States wait for the next round of talks? And what will
be the United States next steps if North Korea does not implement the
Geneva agreement?
In connection to this, would you tell us the specifics of the
recent Beijing contact between the United States and North Korea?
MR. McCURRY: I'm not aware of any specific deadline tomorrow.
I can say that the United States had discussed with North Korea some
specific conditions that would be necessary for resuming a third round
of high-level talks.
We have informed North Korea that those conditions have not
been met. Therefore, there has been no scheduling of a third round of
talks.
Q To follow that, please. On the 35th working level
discussion in Peking, you passed that kind of evaluation to North Korea
or with another channel?
MR. McCURRY: I'm sorry?
Q You have a 35th meeting, working level meeting, in Peking
on the 15th, the day before yesterday. In the third working level
meeting, you passed that kind of evaluation to North Korea?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know the answer to that. I can check
that.
Q Can you confirm that the last meeting occurred on the
15th?
MR. McCURRY: I can't confirm that. I was not aware of that,
but I'll take that question.
Q Would you take my question of whether there was a meeting
this week?
MR. McCURRY: A working level meeting in Beijing, and the
items on the agenda and any readout that we can provide, yes.
Q Mike, has the U.S. informed the PLO or been told by the
PLO or asked to the effect that the PLO intends to open a mission or
Embassy here next week -- or next month?
MR. McCURRY: I think that we have discussed that question
with them. There is current legislation on the books which prohibits
the establishment of a PLO office in the United States. I think, as you
know, we've been consulting with Congress on a range of legislative
restrictions that relate to our dialogue with the PLO, and we will be
able to address that question after we have resolved some of these
questions that we're addressing with Congress.
Q But you've now told them that if this legislation can be
lifted by next month, that they will be in a position to open --
MR. McCURRY: No, I'm not saying that we said that. I'm
saying that we've indicated to them that we need to talk to our Congress
about the legislative restrictions that do exist to see if those -- if
they provide impediments to that type of dialogue, and that we've
generally indicated that we're willing to address those restrictions in
a way that would allow us to continue a dialogue that would be valuable
to the peace process.
Q Okay. But they're of the opinion that this is going to
happen next month. Without asking you to guess as to why they're of
this opinion, you have not told them that this could happen next month,
or you've not set this as a timetable?
MR. McCURRY: I don't want to say that we have not told them
that, because I'll have to go back and check with some of the people who
have had direct dialogue with them. I think we've made very clear to
them what the situation is, that there are certain restrictions that
exist on what we can do that would have to be resolved. Their optimism
on how quickly that might be done could or could not be shared by
Congress. We'll have to see.
Q Mike, prior to the opening of the dialogue between the
United States and the PLO, would it have been illegal for a U.S. citizen
to meet with a PLO official, Arafat for instance?
MR. McCURRY: For a U.S. official?
Q No, for a private citizen.
MR. McCURRY: Private citizen. I'm not aware of any reasons
why it would have been illegal.
Q Incidentally, I know the Senate is doing this now, but
has the State Department ever put together a list of the various laws
concerning the PLO and the U.S.? Have you ever put that together?
MR. McCURRY: I've seen a pretty good analysis of what the
current restrictions are. Are you having trouble getting that kind of
information?
Q Yes. As you know, Mitchell has been having trouble --
Senator Mitchell has been having trouble getting it in order to review
it.
MR. McCURRY: I have actually seen internally within the
Department a pretty good analysis of that. I'll see if that's something
that we can share with you.
Q Is there a numerical summary of how many laws you think
are involved, or what the tactics will have to be to repeal or remove
them?
MR. McCURRY: What I saw was more a discussion of the general
statutory prohibitions and some of the specific legislative things that
exist. I have no reason to think it wasn't comprehensive. It addressed
about five or six statutes in particular, I think. But I thought it was
very good, and I'll see if there isn't any reason why we can't make that
available.
Q How is the planning going for the donors conference?
MR. McCURRY: Oh, I think there is a lot of discussion and
planning underway. That's about all I can say about that today.
Q When will it be held?
MR. McCURRY: When will what be held?
Q The donor conference.
MR. McCURRY: What donor conference? (Laughter)
Q The one on which you said there's lots of planning and
discussion underway.
MR. McCURRY: Oh. I don't know.
Q Mike, what would prevent Secretary Christopher from
announcing it tomorrow?
MR. McCURRY: It's Saturday, and I'm not aware that he has any
speeches. (Laughter)
Q Monday. I mean Monday -- I'm sorry -- in New York.
MR. McCURRY: What would prevent him from announcing it
Monday? I don't know. There would have to be a decision by the
Secretary to say certain things in his remarks. I'm not aware of
anything that would prevent him from addressing general questions of
this nature.
Q Is it the U.S. intention to host such a conference?
MR. McCURRY: Why don't I leave it to the Secretary to tell
you more about that on Monday.
(Laughter)
Q We're getting warm now.
Q Mike, just back on this PLO office. Have you formally,
or has the State Department formally gone to Congress to ask for the
repeal of any of these statutes, or are you consulting with them, or
what are you waiting for?
MR. McCURRY: I think we're consulting with them. I think
it's been raised in the general context of how we now advance the peace
process.
I think many of you also know that Chairman Arafat met with
some members of the Hill, and I understand that it's conceivable that
some of your questions about a PLO office may be related to some
discussions he had on the Hill as well. I think that the important
thing is that there does have to be a formal addressing of these issues
by Congress itself which imposed the initial restrictions, and that is
something that we are consulting on closely. I wouldn't say that we've
gone through and made a formal request that you take such and such items
off the books, but we will be working with Congress to examine those
types of issues.
Q Any further contact this week, other than the President's
that had been announced, with Syria?
MR. McCURRY: Not that I'm aware of, and I'll check. If there
have been any that we can describe, I will post it.
Q Is the Administration aware and prepared to respond to
Syria's comments yesterday on the PLO-Israeli agreement -- an official
government comment?
MR. McCURRY: The official Syrian comments. We don't have any
particular reaction to the report. We have said all along that this is
a comprehensive process. All the tracks have their own dynamics. The
President and the Secretary have had conversations with leaders in the
region, including President Assad, and we've made it very clear that the
United States is committed to helping the parties make progress in all
the tracks. Beyond that, I don't have any particular reaction to their
reaction.
Q Mike, without getting into specific numbers, does the
Administration expect to be able to offer more to the donors conference
than the $25-$30 million currently in the '94 foreign aid bill? If you
call the Hill, they don't seem to have many ideas as to where they can
get more money. I'm just wondering if the Administration has any ideas?
MR. McCURRY: I think that's among many questions that are
being looked at carefully right now.
Q On Haiti, the U.N. Security Council looks as if it may
look at a resolution to call for reimposition of sanctions and perhaps
increasing the U.N. mission there. Any comment? What's the U.S.
position?
MR. McCURRY: Ambassador Albright was here this morning. I
know that is something that she will be addressing. I think we are
discussing that with members of the Security Council and our partners
and colleagues there. I don't know specifically what position the
United States will take on that question. I have not heard anything to
indicate that we would oppose such a resolution.
Q Is the situation in Haiti, in the U.S. view, that
critical?
MR. McCURRY: I think the situation in Haiti is of very great
concern to the United States. We are troubled by the reports of
continuing violence. We hope that the parties can move to implement the
Governor's Island Accords rapidly, and we have raised our concerns
directly with Prime Minister Malval's constitutional government.
Q Mike, as far as I understand it, there's no reason why
the U.N. forces that are slated to go down there under the Governor's
Island Accord can't go there tomorrow. I mean, why wouldn't one way to
address this situation be to start getting some of the U.N. people down
there faster than was originally planned?
MR. McCURRY: There's one thing I frankly don't know the
answer to, and that's there was a U.N. advance team that had gone down
there to look at questions related to the deployment of an international
presence in Haiti, and I think we consider that a very valuable
exercise, because they were going to look very carefully at questions
that relate to the administration of this type of effort.
It's not clear to me whether they have concluded that planning
work and whether they've reported back to the Secretary General on what
steps are required to deploy that. But it's clear an international
presence and training for the establishment of police would make a
difference. But so, too, would the military taking responsibility for
the conditions that exist now in Haiti.
People have to be held accountable, and there are those now
who are in a position to control the violence, and we have called upon
them to do that.
Q One of our criticisms of the U.N. has been that it's
sometimes slow to respond in these types of situations, and it takes too
long for reports to get to the Secretary General and the Secretary
General to make a report to the Security Council.
I mean, are we, since we're going to be involved in this
force, making any effort to speed up the deployment and get people there
quicker, or are we just letting the U.N. set the pace that they're
setting?
MR. McCURRY: We might very well do that. I've heard the
Secretary himself express concern, but I would have to check and see
exactly what steps we're taking to encourage an acceleration of the rate
at which they make that international presence available in Haiti.
Q Is there anything on a U.S. mission to Haiti early next
week?
MR. McCURRY: A U.S. mission?
Q Yes. Assistant Secretary level, for example.
MR. McCURRY: I'm not aware of it, but I wouldn't rule it out.
It may just not have caught up with me yet.
Q Just to clarify your message, Mike, the Administration
would not oppose reimposition of sanctions on Haiti as a result of the
recent violence. Is that --
MR. McCURRY: We are developing our position at the U.N.
We're working with our colleagues in the U.N. I'd just say I haven't
heard anything that would lead me to think that we would not go along
with that particular resolution. But I don't know that we have -- check
in with Ambassador Albright later.
Q And would the new sanction package be similar to the ones
we've seen in the past? Would it be broader?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know. I haven't see the draft. I don't
know if they've got a draft resolution yet, in any case, I haven't seen
it. I don't know whether it would resemble the U.N./OAS sanctions that
were in place until recently.
Yes. One more.
Q If we are off Haiti, just to ask if you could give a
statement tomorrow on the India-U.S. nuclear proliferation talks, or if
some kind of a press briefing, a separate one, could be organized?
MR. McCURRY: I'll see if we can get some detail on the
meeting itself and provide some type of either statement or formal
statement on it.
Q One more. Has the U.S. been requested yet for agreement
to a new Russian Ambassador to Washington, Yuliy Vorontsov?
MR. McCURRY: Not that I have been told. I've seen the
reports, obviously, that you have seen, but I'm not aware that we have
been contacted formally by the Russian Government.
Q Have you been contacted about Ambassador Lukin leaving?
MR. McCURRY: Not that I am aware of. You mean in the sense
of being contacted formally, diplomatically. Not that I'm aware of.
Q Well, how about informally, diplomatically.
MR. McCURRY: That may be.
Q Is Secretary Christopher saying goodbye to him or
something like that?
MR. McCURRY: No, no. Not that I'm aware of.
Q Well, Mike, can you take the question, please?
MR. McCURRY: No.
Q Well, in that case, thank you.
MR. McCURRY: Okay.
(The briefing concluded at 1:14 p.m.)
(###)