930917 Daily Press Briefing  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.
Friday, September 17, 1993

                                         BRIEFER:  Michael McCurry

Subject                                                       Page

Reported Preparation for Nuclear Weapons Test ............1-6
--   US Reaction/US Contacts 
Prospects for Hosting Olympics 
Status of US Relations 

Status of Five-Nation Conference on Nuclear 

US Conditions for Resumption of Talks ................................8
Previous Meetings with 

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 
Bilateral Negotiations/US Contacts with Parties ...........11

US Concern re:  Formation of Government ............................12
Departure of UN Force 
Prospects for Resumption of Sanctions ...............................13

Report of New Ambassador to US 


                                        DEPARTMENT OF STATE
                                        DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
                                                    DPC #130

              FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1993, 12:44 P.M.

         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 

          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 

          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 

          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 

          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 

          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 

          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 

          Q    Can you confirm that the last meeting occurred on the 

          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 

          Q    Yes.  As you know, Mitchell has been having trouble -- 
Senator Mitchell has been having trouble getting it in order to review 

          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 

          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 

          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.


          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 

          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 

          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. 

          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 

          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 

          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 

          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.) 

To the top of this page