931108 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.
US DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
Monday, November 8, 1993

                                 BRIEFER:  Michael McCurry

Subject                                              Page

DEPARTMENT
Status of Deputy Secretary Wharton....................1-7,18
   Administration's Foreign Policy Team ..............1-7
Secretary's Access to President Clinton ..............4-6
Secretary's Meeting with UNSYG Boutros-Ghali .........10    

NORTH KOREA
Military Buildup/Troop Activity/Nuclear Program.      5, 7-8
Talks with the U.S. ..................................8-9, 10
IAEA Safeguards Deadline, Assessments ................8-10,15-17   
Inclusion on APEC Agenda ..................8-9   
U.S. Coordination with China, UN / Sanctions .........9-10 
Defense Minister Trip to Cambodia ....................15-16   

SOUTH KOREA
Augmentation of U.S. Forces, "Team Spirit" ...........14    

LIBYA
Russia & China Support for Stronger Sanctions ........11-12  
Mubarak Meetings with Qadhafi re PA 103 ..............11

SOMALIA
Mission of U.S. Troops, Rules of Engagement ..........12-14  
Aideed Warning re UN Troops ..........................12-13   
Oakley Mission Results ...............................14-15   

TURKEY
PKK Terrorist Attacks ................................17-18

ANNOUNCEMENT
Town Hall Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia  ...............19

NAFTA
Secretary's Activities to Support ....................19

(###)



                       DEPARTMENT OF STATE
                       DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

                                                      DPC #146

               MONDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1993, 1:06 P.M.
              (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)


         MR. McCURRY:  Good afternoon everybody.  I have an opening 
statement, but it's not here right now so I'll do the opening statement 
about mid-point through your briefing, start with your questions 
instead.  We'll call it I guess a mid-point statement, not an opening 
statement.

          Mr. Dancy.

          Q    Mr. Balman.

          MR. McCURRY:  Mr. Balman.

          Q    I defer to Mr. Dancy.

          MR. McCURRY:  Mr. Dancy.  (Laughter)  Your question, sir?

          Q    Well, let's ask you about resignations.  First of all, is 
Deputy Secretary Wharton about to resign?  And, secondly, is Tony Lake 
about to resign?  Has he offered a resignation?

          MR. McCURRY:  I don't know anything about the NSC.  On the 
situation involving Dr. Wharton, I just don't have anything for you that 
I can share with you.  If that changes throughout the day, we'll be sure 
to get back to you and let you know.

          Q    Do you think that could change during the day?

          MR. McCURRY:  I just don't have anything right at the moment 
on that subject.  As I say, if there's anything that changes, we'll, of 
course, get in contact with you right away.

          Q    Michael, a different subject?

          Q    Just one more.  Is there a feeling the Secretary has that 
the foreign policy team, as a whole, and/or this building isn't serving 
the President well or isn't functioning well?

          MR. McCURRY:  No.  I think he has no such feeling at all.  I 
think the Secretary concurs one hundred percent with the things the 
President said on exactly that subject yesterday.

          Q    Was the Secretary satisfied with the President's comment 
on --

          MR. McCURRY:  Absolutely.

          Q    He was.

          MR. McCURRY:  Yes.  Next question.

          Q    You don't think it sounded a little bit like a thousand 
percent support that McGovern was giving?

          MR. McCURRY:  No.  I'm even old enough to remember that.  It 
didn't sound like that at all.

          Q    Mike, a lot of the public discussion of the Clinton 
Administration's international affairs policy team has focused on 
several of the characters whose names have come up here.  But one of the 
characters whose names it has not focused on had been the Deputy 
Secretary, Mr. Wharton.

          I think everyone would agree -- probably even you would agree 
-- that he has been involved at a quiet level, shall we say; not a 
terribly visible level.  For example, whenever he meets with officials, 
you don't offer photo-opportunities and so on.

          One might get the impression that if he is leaving, that 
somehow the Administration is trying to foist the blame, for whatever 
problems that may be perceived, on someone who really hasn't been very 
involved in those top level issues.  Is there anything you want to say 
about that perception?

          MR. McCURRY:  I can't.  It's a very difficult question to 
answer because I've already indicated to you that I don't have anything 
I can share with you at this time about that story that I know you're 
seeing on the wire.  I will say that I think the Secretary -- I think 
others here in the Department -- think that Dr. Wharton has done 
enormously good work as it relates to the reorganization of the 
Department, questions involving restructuring of AID, the whole large 
issue of how do we configure a budget in the post-Cold War era that 
meets the needs of U.S. foreign policy at a time of enormous change 
around the world.  I think he's been very effective in contributing to 
those questions.

          If your question suggests, gee, he is not someone who has 
participated at Deputies Committee level discussions on Bosnia or 
Somalia or Haiti, I think that's accurate.  I think  it would be 
inaccurate and unfortunate if anyone tried to create the perception that 
you've just suggested.

          Q    Does Dr. Wharton still -- does he still have the 
confidence of the Secretary?  Does the Secretary want him to remain in 
his post?

          MR. McCURRY:  I think the Secretary has very high regard for 
him.  That's really all I'm going to say at this moment on that.

          Q    Can you confirm that the Secretary met with Dr. Wharton 
over the weekend to discuss Dr. Wharton's resignation?

          MR. McCURRY:  I don't want to get into the discussion that 
they had.  They did meet for quite some time on Saturday, I understand, 
but I'm not in a position to share the contents of their meeting.

          Q    Let me try to rephrase my question because your answer 
was interesting but it wasn't quite what I was trying to get at.  I 
realize that you have nothing to say on Dr. Wharton's status at this 
moment.  But one might get the impression that with all of the 
controversy and discussions that's swirling around about the capability 
of this Administration's foreign policy team, if it jettisons someone 
like Wharton -- and I say "if," because nothing has been announced here 
and so on -- one might get the impression the Administration is throwing 
a bone, so to speak, that has to do with someone who hasn't really been 
involved, as you said yourself, in the most controversial issues.

          Is there some review being conducted of officials at the level 
who have been involved in those controversial issues of whether they 
should remain on the staff?

          MR. McCURRY:  As you've heard the Secretary say, in fact, as 
recently as his testimony on Friday at the House Foreign Affairs 
Committee, we're always looking at ways to improve the conduct of U.S. 
foreign policy, of course.

          Q    Including a review of the senior staff of that policy?

          MR. McCURRY:  I'm not going to say, reviewing any particular 
situation.  I'd just say, as a general practice, we always look for ways 
to improve the conduct of foreign policy and the functioning of the 
team.  It's something that you would expect no less of the senior 
managers of this Administration, particularly of the foreign policy 
team.

          Q    From how you've described his accomplishments, it seems 
to me that he did what was asked of him.

          MR. McCURRY:  You're leading me into a discussion  that's just 
really not appropriate to have at this point.  Let's wait and see if --

          Q    Your praise of him would make it seem as if he was a 
candidate for promotion.

          MR. McCURRY:  I reviewed some things that I think are widely 
acknowledged to be the matters that Dr. Wharton has worked effectively 
on here at the Department.  That's all I was indicating.  I wasn't 
making any other comment.

          Q    Mike, a number of the Secretary's predecessors enjoyed a 
regular, sort of scheduled meeting with their Presidents.  There would 
be a lunch meeting on Wednesdays, or a regular breakfast, but usually 
once a week; a set time the President would set aside to meet with his 
top foreign policy advisor.

          This Secretary doesn't meet with the President on any regular 
schedule; is that correct?

          MR. McCURRY:  No, that's not correct.  This Secretary meets 
frequently and often with the President, as many as several times a week 
on a regular basis.  I think the Secretary, as you've heard himself say 
on many occasions, is very satisfied that he's got the access and the 
attention he needs from the President when he has a question of foreign 
policy that needs to be discussed with the President.

          Q    On a regular basis?

          MR. McCURRY:  Regular, in a sense -- not in the sense of 
Terry's question.  Not a set time every week, although I think as many 
of you know, the Secretary does have some regularly scheduled meetings 
that do occur at the White House every week.  He doesn't have a set 
meeting as was the practice in some other cases with other Presidents 
and their National Security teams.  But he is, as a matter of practice, 
a matter of regular effect, at the White House and meeting with the 
President on a very constant basis, usually in connection with meetings 
that are occurring at the principal's level or meetings that are 
occurring with visiting foreign dignitaries.  I think he feels like he 
enjoys good access to the President, a good opportunity to engage the 
President on discussions related to foreign policy.

          Q    Mike, has the Secretary, in fact, told the President that 
he needs to be more engaged on foreign policy matters?  And, more 
generally, is he satisfied with the President's level of engagement?

          MR. McCURRY:  There's a suggestion in a newspaper story today 
to that effect.  The Secretary was not the source of that information.  
I think, as a general practice, he admonishes all of us that the advice 
that he renders to the  President is something that he renders in 
private and prefers for us not to discuss it publicly.

          Q    But you're not denying that the information is correct?  
You're just saying that he wasn't the source of it?

          MR. McCURRY:  I said he was, yes, not the source of it and did 
not confirm or deny the contents of any conversation that the Secretary 
has privately with the President.

          Q    Different subject?

          MR. McCURRY:  New subject.

          Q    Can we move to North Korea?  Do you have any indication 
of a military buildup by the North Koreans?

          MR. McCURRY:  I'm sorry, Jacques.  Say that again.

          Q    On North Korea, do you have any indication, any 
information of a military buildup by the North Koreans?

          MR. McCURRY:  Nothing beyond what was discussed, I think, on 
some of the points that were developed last week.  We monitor troop 
activity, military activity, especially along the border, very 
carefully.  To my knowledge, we have not seen unusually threatening 
deployments that would cause great concern to us.  There's a pattern of 
deployments that we monitor on a regular basis and that we are well 
aware of.

          Q    Can I come back to the first item again for just a 
second?  I'm sorry.  I didn't think of this earlier.  The Secretary, you 
said, has talks with the President regularly on foreign policy subjects.  
The Secretary, I think, has a regular briefing, does he not, on 
intelligence matters, on reports from embassies, and so on, sort of 
bringing him up to date on a daily basis on what's gone on around the 
world, let's say, overnight; is that accurate?

          MR. McCURRY:  You're probably referring to the daily security 
briefing that the Secretary has.  Yes, that's correct.

          Q    Does the President have a briefing like that, too?

          MR. McCURRY:  I don't know.  If so, it would be in the 
province of the National Security Council to conduct such a briefing.

          Q    The Secretary doesn't do that for the President, though, 
does he?

          MR. McCURRY:  No.  That is an NSC function.  It's 
traditionally the function of the President's National Security Advisor 
to arrange such briefings.  The Secretary's briefing here at the 
Department is a separate occasion for him to review  overnight 
developments and the status of various situations around the world.

          Q    Mike, more generally, is the Secretary satisfied with the 
level of cooperation and coordination that exists between State, NSC, 
and the Pentagon?  Do you think this is a smoothly-working, fully-meshed 
organization?

          MR. McCURRY:  I think he feels satisfied that there is good, 
strong, working relationships that exists between the principals.  He 
has on a number of occasions encouraged his principal officers here at 
the Department to look at the spirit of that relationship as something 
that ought to guide their day-to-day work on a variety of matters.  I 
think he feels that the effective working relationship he has with his 
counterparts on the National Security team is something that really 
ought to set some kind of benchmark for the Administration as a whole.

          Could there be improvements?  Of course, there could be 
improvements.  I think that has been acknowledged by the Secretary 
publicly and by others that are parts of that National Security team.

          Q    You mentioned NSC.  You didn't mention the Pentagon.  Is 
he equally satisfied with the relationship with the Pentagon?

          MR. McCURRY:  I did not mean to exclude.  I was thinking of 
that entire unit that functions on a fairly regular basis -- 
principally, the NSC, the Pentagon, and the State Department, but also 
often including the Joint Chiefs, the CIA, and other agencies as well.

          Q    Can you tell me whether the performance or offices of any 
other high-ranking State Department people are being assessed at this 
point?

          MR. McCURRY:  Not that I'm aware of.

          Q    Is that a correct assessment of what you said, that Dr. 
Wharton's position is being assessed?  Is that correct?

          MR. McCURRY:  I don't know what assessed -- what do you mean 
by "assessed?"  Maybe that question is a little unclear to me.

          Q    Maybe looking at the personnel who occupies it, or what 
kind of job is being done?

          Q    His performance and future?

          MR. McCURRY:  We parenthetically just went through an exercise 
here in the Department within my own staff that's involved with the 
formal way of evaluating performance.  I think that's a regular feature 
of life throughout this Department.

          MR. McCURRY:  But we're led to believe that there's going to 
be a change in the Deputy Secretary, or at least in that job, and we're 
told to tune in.  Are there any other plans or any other jobs anywhere 
else as a result of this --

          MR. McCURRY:  Certainly not that I'm aware of.

          Q    When does Christopher meet with Secretary Aspin?

          MR. McCURRY:  I'm aware of the one scheduled occasion every 
week that they get together.  My sense is that on a regular basis they 
get together in connection with various policymaking responsibilities 
much more often than that.

          Q    Mike, I'm sorry.  I'm a little confused here.  What are 
you calling what is being done with the Deputy Secretary's job right 
now?

          MR. McCURRY:  I haven't called it anything.

          Q    You just said it was being assessed.

          MR. McCURRY:  I didn't call it that.  There was a question of 
that.  I told you I didn't have anything for you on that.

          Q    New subject.  The Korea subject.  This morning, the 
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Japan was quoted as saying that the 
Japanese are concerned with the military activities of the North 
Koreans.  Do you share that assessment?  Are you concerned as well?

          MR. McCURRY:  Concerned with the military activities?

          Q    Yes.  The activities of the North Koreans?

          MR. McCURRY:  Let me step back and maybe reflect a little bit 
at the same thing suggested by the President yesterday in his televised 
interview, that the status of their nuclear program, issues surrounding 
that nuclear program is something of concern to the United States.  It's 
the reason why we have expended extensive effort to discuss that issue 
directly with North Korea and why we follow very closely the activities 
of the International Atomic Energy Agency and other agencies that are 
seeking to learn more about North Korea's nuclear program.

          As a general proposition, their military activity, of course, 
is of great concern to us, and that's precisely why the United States 
has troops stationed in South Korea in connection with deterring that 
threat and fulfilling our obligations that the President mentioned 
yesterday to the Republic of Korea.

          Q    But there's nothing in their current behavior  which 
would lead you to conclude that they are ready to do something foolish?

          MR. McCURRY:  We assess on a regular daily basis the status of 
deployments, the military posture of other forces, including North 
Korea's forces.  The status and our understanding is the one I indicated 
earlier.

          Q    Does that include the length of their hair?  Supposedly, 
the (inaudible) army was all ordered to get haircuts at one time.

          Q    At the same time.

          MR. McCURRY:  That's an interesting piece of information that 
I am challenged to analyze here.

          Q    Is there a scheduled next round of talks with the North 
Koreans?   And if not, what do the North Koreans have to do for there to 
be such a meeting?

          MR. McCURRY:  We have urged North Korea on a regular basis to 
facilitate inspections that the International Atomic Energy Agency seeks 
and needs to establish the continuity of safeguards that exist on that 
plant -- the two facilities that we are concerned about.

          We've made it clear that we would not be in a position to 
schedule a formal third round of talks until there's been progress with 
respect to that issue as well as progress in the dialogue between North 
and South Korea.

          The possibility of a third high-level meeting between North 
Korea and the United States is one that is very much dependent on making 
progress on these other issues of concern.

          Q    Mike, is the issue headed towards some sort of a 
deadline?

          MR. McCURRY:  There's no formal deadline that has been set, 
but there is a practical deadline, as we've discussed here before, that 
the IAEA has to regard, as it looks at the question of continuity of 
safeguards.  There's a point at which -- as a technical matter, you 
cannot say any longer that there has been continuity of safeguards.

          Q    Approximately when?

          MR. McCURRY:  My understanding is that it was a matter of 
days.  I am not technically the right person to answer the question.  I 
think the --

          Q    To what extent will this issue be on the agenda at APEC?

          MR. McCURRY:  It could very likely be raised in some of the 
bilateral meetings that we'll have in and around APEC.  APEC is an 
economic cooperation forum.  So as such it doesn't deal directly with 
security issues.  But the Secretary and the President, as well, as you 
know, will have some very important bilateral meetings in and around the 
APEC meeting.  I think this subject is one that will likely be on the 
minds of people in that region.  It is without a doubt a serious 
security concern for the entire region.

          Q    Would you consider that the President, or that the United 
States would be asking China's help in putting pressure on North Korea 
to --

          MR. McCURRY:  I don't want to speculate about what the 
President may or may not raise in meetings.  We have raised this issue.  
The Secretary raised it with Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Liu when he 
met last week.  So it's one that normally is part of our bilateral 
conversations with China, when we meet with high-ranking Chinese 
officials.

          Q    Has China said one way or the other whether they'll 
support the United States if the United States sought sanctions against 
North Korea?

          MR. McCURRY:  I don't know that that question has been put 
directly to them.  In any event, I don't have an answer that I can 
share.

          Terry.

          Q    You referred to the question of the third round of the 
high-level talks.  Are there talks going on at lower levels in hopes of 
facilitating the process to get to the third round of higher level talks 
at the U.N. or elsewhere?

          MR. McCURRY:  We have from time to time confirmed that there 
have been mid-level technical talks that have occurred largely through 
representatives at the United Nations, but I'm not aware of, at this 
time, of any plans for further meetings on the subject.

          Q    Is the situation at something of an impasse?  Are you 
saying you have just a few days until the continuity will be broken 
under IAEA; that you have no direct talks going with them at this point?  
The Secretary of Defense has been out and consulted with the allies who 
seem not to be ready to urge -- who urged us not to go ahead with 
sanctions at this point.

          It seems that this process isn't going anywhere, and the 
President used his very strong language Sunday.  There seems to be a 
disconnect there.

          MR. McCURRY:  You're correct that the President  commented on 
this fairly directly.  I don't have a lot to add to what the President 
said.

          I will say that the opportunity to discuss this diplomatically 
is available to North Korea, but they know the progress that needs to be 
made and the issues that we've covered before.  I think they're well 
aware of that.  It's a question of whether there will be the kind of 
progress that's necessary on issues related to the nuclear safeguards 
issue and then also related to the North-South dialogue.

          Q    Why shouldn't this be seen as an impasse if there's no 
movement that you can point to at this point and no dialogue going on?

          MR. McCURRY:  I'm not rejecting that characterization.  It's 
just not my place to characterize that talk.  We've raised issues.  
We've had dialogue in the past.  The prospect that we might have 
dialogue in the future is out there, depending on how things go on these 
other issues.

          Q    Is that an issue that the United States plans to discuss 
with Secretary General Boutros Ghali when he comes to Washington -- I 
think tonight, if I'm not mistaken?

          MR. McCURRY:  I'm sure that issue, among others, will be on 
the Secretary General's agenda when he meets with the Secretary late 
today.  It could very well be on his agenda for other discussions he 
might have here as well.

          Q    When is the meeting between Christopher and Boutros 
Ghali?

          MR. McCURRY:  I'll have to double-check.  They were working on 
setting it up over the weekend.  I think it was going to be for some 
time late this afternoon.

          Q    And what is the purpose of that meeting?

          MR. McCURRY:  I think that there are a number of things.  It's 
actually a meeting at the request of the Secretary General.  I don't 
believe that the Secretary knows entirely what issues might be covered, 
but I think our current efforts with respect to Haiti are certainly to 
be discussed as well as the current situation of the UNOSOM mission in 
Somalia.  But I believe there are other issues as well that we would 
normally engage the Secretary General with when we have an opportunity 
to discuss things with him.

 Q        Mike, on that same subject, the Secretary General's visit 
here, is Russia now on board for a stronger sanctions regime against 
Libya?

          MR. McCURRY:  My understanding is that there probably will be 
action in the Security Council later this week on expanding the 
sanctions regime as it relates to Libya.  They have refused to comply 
with relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions that demand the return 
of the two suspects for trial in either Scotland or the United States.

          I think that the United States and others in the U.N. 
community have been prepared to broaden those sanctions to include 
certain questions related to assets and to oil production equipment, and 
I believe that the Security Council is in a position now to move ahead 
on that toughening of sanctions.  That probably, as I say, would not 
occur until later in the week.

          Q    Did you hear anything from the Egyptian Government about 
their meetings with Qadhafi -- that is, Mubarak and Qadhafi together 
having a meeting about the Lockerbie --

          MR. McCURRY:  No.  I'm sorry.  I don't have anything on that.  
I can check in and see if we do have anything we can share.  Normally if 
we heard something back on the content of those meetings, it might not 
be something we'd be able to share publicly.  But, if there is 
something, we'll be certain to let you know.

          Ralph.

          Q    Mike, on that subject, you didn't quite answer the 
question that Bud asked about Russia, but can you tell us whether Russia 
and/or China have agreed to support or abstain or not use their vetoes, 
or leave them alone basically or --

          MR. McCURRY:  I don't want to get into the discussions we've 
had with other members of the United Nations.  But I think by indicating 
that we believe that they're prepared to move ahead in the Security 
Council on that issue, although they have not put a resolution in draft 
form yet, I understand that there's some degree of feeling on our part 
that the way has been cleared for further action on that.

          Q    But there's a distinction between, for example, the 
Russian-American cooperation on the Middle East peace process in which 
-- and other aspects of Middle Eastern activities such as Iraq, for 
example, where people vote with the U.S. and Great Britain and France, 
and so on; and there are other cases where things are allowed to be done 
without the support of either Russia or China or both.  Can you help us 
determine which category this one falls in?

          MR. McCURRY:  I can't at the moment.  I mean, it's up to those 
governments to decide how they will address certain issues that come 
before the U.N. Security Council.  And, as I say, our understanding is 
that this matter may very well come before the Security Council later on 
in the week.  We'll just have to wait and see what posture individual 
governments take.  I can't announce their positions in advance of any 
formal session of the Security Council.

          Q    On another matter that's on the agenda with Boutros-
Ghali, you mentioned a UNOSOM meeting.  What is the purpose of the 
reported U.S. plan to more publicly deploy some of its heaviest weaponry 
-- armored vehicles, let's say -- in Somalia at this point?  What's the 
purpose of doing that?

          MR. McCURRY:  It's in furtherance of the mission outlined by 
the President of the United States on October 7, keeping the lines of 
communication and roads open.  We wanted the specific thing cited by the 
President as a mission for the U.S. presence in Somalia.

          Q    Presumably, everything the U.S. does in Somalia, you 
would say from that podium, is in support of what the President said.  
What are the purposes of rolling out these heavy, very modern, up-to-
date pieces of equipment and rolling them around the streets?  What does 
that do that wasn't being done last week, let's say, and presumably also 
in furtherance of what the President had in mind?

          MR. McCURRY:  That was a very specific thing that the 
President cited in his outline for the mission statement of the forces 
in Somalia, and he said specifically the U.S. mission included keeping 
open roads, the port and the essential lines of communication.  I think 
that any deployments, any additional equipment needed in furtherance of 
that mission, is something that the Defense Department would be able to 
tell you more about.  But it's clearly in furtherance of that mission.

          Q    Is there a show of force?

          MR. McCURRY:  No.  It's in keeping with that mission, which is 
pretty well defined and well described by the President.

          Q    Mike, any comment on General Aideed's warning to keep 
American and U.N. troops on the base and not out in the streets 
patrolling?

          MR. McCURRY:  I'm sorry, Sid.

          Q    Any comment on Aideed's warning that appeared in a story 
in The Washington Post this morning to the United States and the U.N. to 
keep their troops off the street?

          MR. McCURRY:  Yes.  His remarks will not prompt any change in 
U.S. policy.  We're proceeding in a prudent and non-confrontational 
fashion to carry out the mission that the President defined on October 
7.

          Q    Is it consistent to say that you're being non-
confrontational and at the same time to be putting on display heavy 
armored weaponry?

          MR. McCURRY:  I don't know that there's been any displays 
going on in Mogadishu.  I know that there's been deployments and there 
has been sizing of force in Somalia effective to carry out the mission 
designed by the President.

          Q    Michael, to go back to what you just said and the way you 
responded to Aideed, it seems to me it's a very soft way of answering 
something which looks like a threat to a lot of people in Mogadishu.  
That's the way it was sensed.

          MR. McCURRY:  I think what I said speaks for itself.  We are 
responding in an effective and, I'd say, prudent and non-confrontational 
way to carry out the mission defined by the President.  And nothing that 
has been said by General Aideed is going to change our determination to 
pursue that course.

          Q    He seems to suggest that it won't be non-confrontational 
once it actually happens, that bloodshed could result.

          MR. McCURRY:  He is well aware of our determination to follow 
through on our policy and to carry out the mission defined by the 
Commander in Chief.

          Q    You're not saying that the actual military activities 
will be non-confrontational, are you?  I mean, their mission is supposed 
to be to go and make sure that communications and transportation lines 
are open for humanitarian aid; and, if they're challenged, I assume 
you're not saying there will be a non-confrontational challenge, or are 
you saying that --

          MR. McCURRY:  No.  We are determined to carry out our work 
there in a prudent and non-confrontation way, and we were effectively 
able to do that in the past, working with the security committee 
established in south Mogadishu, and I think we're prepared to do that 
again.  But we will carry forward on the President's mission.

          Q    Are you in a position to discuss the rules of engagement 
in this particular mission?

          MR. McCURRY:  I am not.  I'm not the best person to discuss 
that.  I don't know how they do that at the Pentagon, but that's the 
proper place to go to talk about their operational deployment.

          Q    Have they changed, as near as you can tell, from when the 
United States first began the business of patrolling streets and keeping 
them open and reacting to people in Jeeps with automatic weapons?

          MR. McCURRY:  I don't believe there's been any change in their 
operational tactics, and I think that in fact what they're doing is very 
similar to what they were doing back last spring when they were doing 
much the same type of work. 

          I don't see this as any great shift in their operational work 
in Mogadishu.

          Q    Mike, to go back to North Korea again, let me just clean 
up one question.  Has the U.S. made any sort of political decision, as 
against strategic or tactical, to beef up American forces in South 
Korea?

          MR. McCURRY:  Not that I'm aware of, no.  But again, I would 
hesitate to comment on that.  I think, as you know, the Secretary of 
Defense has just returned from meetings of the Consultative Committee in 
Seoul with his counterparts in the South Korean military.  But I'm not 
aware of anything said in the aftermath of his trip there along those 
lines.

          Q    What's the status of the annual "Team Spirit" joint 
exercise?  Has that been put off indefinitely?

          MR. McCURRY:  There's no change on the status suggested by 
Secretary Aspin when he was in Korea.  I believe it has not been 
scheduled at this point.

          Q    Mike, just to go back to your last comment there on 
Somalia, you said they're going back to what they were doing last 
spring.  One of the things they were doing last spring was disarming the 
factions.  Are they going to go back now to disarming these people 
gathering heavy weapons by whatever it is?

          MR. McCURRY:  They are going about the work of keeping the 
lines of communication and roads open, consistent with the President's 
mission, as defined on October 7.

          Q    So they're not going back to disarm the people.

          MR. McCURRY:  I told you exactly what they're doing.  They're 
fulfilling the President's mission as defined October 7.

          Q    Michael, what is your latest assessment of this success 
or lack of success of Oakley's mission?

          MR. McCURRY:  I think he felt his most recent trip -- he just 
returned to the United States on Friday evening -- he's going to be 
briefing Administration officials and members of  Congress today.  I 
think he feels that he had a successful round of discussions in this 
most recent trip.

          He found a very strong interest in advancing the political 
reconciliation process in Somalia on this recent trip.  As an overall 
summary, we think the trip went very well.

          Q    You indicated that a practical deadline is a matter of 
course on North Korea -- matter of days -- so does that mean you expect 
that the IAEA will declare the breakdown of continuity within days?

          MR. McCURRY:  I don't have an indication one way or another on 
that.  It would be up to the IAEA to discuss that subject.  Their most 
recent report is the one they made last Wednesday -- or last Monday.

          Q    Is the U.S. still in such close touch with the IAEA on 
those kinds of assessments as it was during the assessment of Iraq's 
compliance with U.N. resolutions?  That is, does the U.S. offer its own 
assessment to the IAEA about how these conclusions ought to be drawn and 
when they ought to be announced, and so on?  Or are you essentially 
waiting for the IAEA to make its own assessment and make its own 
announcement?

          MR. McCURRY:  I think we discuss these matters at a technical 
level very closely with them.  Ralph, I just am sorry I can't answer the 
question what degree do we look at a body of information and share our 
independent analysis of it.  I'm not aware that we do any independent 
inspections that would develop a body of data separate from what the 
IAEA looks at.

          But we do stay in very close contact with them on a question 
of this importance.

          Q    Michael, another one on Korea.  There were reports that 
South Korea may be complaining of what they consider to be excessive 
pressures from the United States on North Korea that may get counter-
results for them.

          Did you hear anything to that effect from the South Koreans?

          MR. McCURRY:  I wouldn't be in a position to describe private 
exchanges between our countries, other than to say that we are in very 
close contact with them on this and will remain in very close contact 
with them as we develop our responses and our next steps on this matter.

          Q    Another one on North Korea.  One of the goals that the 
international community has been trying to achieve with North Korea is 
to isolate this regime.  Today the Minister of Defense of North Korea is 
traveling to Cambodia.  Have you discussed the issue with the Cambodian 
Government?  Have you  been told by the Cambodian Government that they 
would receive in fact someone from a regime that we are trying to 
isolate?

          MR. McCURRY:  I'll have to check on that.  I think we have had 
some discussions.  I'll have to get a little bit more information, and I 
think I can give you a better answer.  I think we have had some 
discussions with them, but I want to go back and double-check and give 
you some indication of the nature of the discussion.

          Carol, and then we'll go over here.

          Q    This is again on North Korea.  Last week, I believe it 
was Monday, that Hans Blix talked with the U.N. and then you also made 
the comment then about continuity of safeguards and the fact that the 
confidence in those was fast running out.  And today you made the same 
statement in saying, well, we're talking about a couple of days, of 
several days.

          So what happens?  I mean, are we talking about Wednesday that 
our confidence should presumably run out, and what do we do then?

          MR. McCURRY:  That's a technical question that relates to how 
the IAEA conducts inspections and how they manage equipment that they 
have; how they look at the information that they can gather.  
Technically, I don't know the answer to when.  I don't know that there 
is a set deadline, but I've heard it described often in terms of just 
the policy-making as being a deadline that comes upon us very quickly as 
a practical matter, because it's something that I think, as the 
Secretary himself said, "The clock is clearly ticking."

          Q    I mean, the policy-makers in this building must have a 
sense of, you know, what they're doing today, what they're doing 
tomorrow, what they'll do the next day if they finally get this word 
from the IAEA that in fact the continuity of safeguards can no longer be 
assured.

          MR. McCURRY:  I think that's right.  There's been considerable 
planning and a great deal of careful thought about what we would do, 
given certain outcomes.  That's correct.

          Q    So is it accurate to say that some time this week, some 
decision is going to have to be taken by the United States and its 
allies on what to do about North Korea?

          MR. McCURRY:  I don't know that it's this week.  I just think 
that it is clearly something that's under review.  It's going to require 
a lot of careful thinking, and the Administration is prepared to move 
ahead accordingly.  I can't guarantee that it is necessarily this week.

          Q    Wait a minute.  So that means that you're saying that 
once the continuity is broken, there's no particular urgency to deciding 
what to do about it next.

          MR. McCURRY:  Based on what I just said, that would be crazy 
to think that that was the answer I gave.

          Q    Why?  I think it follows perfectly from what you just 
said.  Can you assure us --

          MR. McCURRY:  It's an important and urgent matter.

          Q    So you said at the moment the IAEA announces that the 
batteries and the film have run out and they can't keep track of what's 
going on there, that the United States will announce a policy of what 
it's going to do?

          MR. McCURRY:  I can't give you that assurance, because 
technically I don't -- you know, you're talking about batteries running 
out on cameras.  I don't know that.  Do you know that?  Why don't we 
leave that to the experts.

          Q    We can find that out from the IAEA.  That's what you were 
just --

          MR. McCURRY:  We leave to the IAEA the question of technically 
when they declare that there has been a break in the continuity of 
safeguards.  As you know from the Director, they have not declared that.  
If and when they do, that's going to require a very careful and urgent 
review by the United States, and we've even indicated in the past some 
of the things that we might necessarily have to consider.

          But the better outcome, of course, would be that we work 
cooperatively on these issues and resolve them so we can move ahead on 
things like the third round of talks.

          Q    So after the IAEA makes its announcement about the 
continuity, the Administration will begin what you just described as a 
careful and urgent review, is that correct?

          MR. McCURRY:  No.  I think there's a careful and urgent review 
that's been under way, and there comes a point at which the IAEA 
declares that there's been a break in continuity of safeguards.  That's 
one of the things and one clear reason that we would need to refer the 
matter to the United Nations promptly.  So I think a lot of that review 
has already occurred.

          I'm sorry I kept you waiting.

          Q    Another subject:  The Turkish Prime Minister, Mrs. 
Ciller, last week has declared that some terrorist activities are being 
nurtured and reinforced by Syria, Iraq, Iran and Armenia, which three of 
these countries is, I believe, still on the list of State Department's 
terrorist-supporting countries.

          Do you share in this (inaudible), first question; and also 
last week some PKK militants -- they attacked against European cities 
and the Turkish mission and organization and one of the Turkish citizens 
died.

          Do you have any comment on this?

          MR. McCURRY:  We, of course, condemn and deplore terrorist 
attacks directed at innocent travelers, whether it's in Western Europe 
or elsewhere.  We have been in very close contact with the Government of 
Turkey over a long period of time on questions related to terrorism and 
preventing terrorism.

          We carefully monitor the activities of the PKK.  We cover that 
in our annual terrorism report.  I can't speak or characterize her 
statements about their assessment of recent activity by the PKK, but it 
is a pattern of violence that we of course are well familiar with that 
we look at and make judgments upon based upon our own understanding of 
how a web of terrorist influences work in Europe and elsewhere.

          Q    Thank you.

          Q    Wait a minute.  Just one more, if I could.  On Wharton 
again, is he working at the building today, at the Department today?

          MR. McCURRY:  Yes, he is.

          Q    And at the time he took the job, did he tell anybody -- 
Secretary Christopher or perhaps the President -- that he would like to 
do it for a period of six months or three months or nine months or two 
years, but then he has other things he wants to do, or anything of that 
sort?

          MR. McCURRY:  I'm not aware of any conversation like that, but 
I wouldn't discount that as a possibility.  I'm just not aware that he 
has ever said anything like that.

          Q    One final question on that:  Is Dr. Wharton meeting with 
the Secretary or the President today, or has he met with either of them 
today?

          MR. McCURRY:  He's met at least once with the Secretary today 
and probably has talked to him more often than that.  And I don't know 
that he has met with the President today.

          Q    Mike, you had an announcement you wanted to make?

          MR. McCURRY:  Thank you.  My closing statement.

          Q    Your closing announcement.

          MR. McCURRY:  I just want to tell you there is another in one 
of the series of Town Hall meetings that we have been sponsoring on U.S. 
foreign policy.  Together with the Southern   Center for International 
Studies and the U.S. Department of State, we're co-sponsoring a Town 
Hall meeting on U.S. foreign policy at the Fulton County Government 
Center in Atlanta, Georgia, on Friday, November 12.

          This will be the fourth in the series of these Town Hall 
meetings that we've been sponsoring.  They've been getting a fabulous 
response.  At the recent one in San Francisco, we had 1300 people 
attend, and I think it says something about the interest that people 
have in a reasonable discussion of foreign policy -- maybe more 
reasonable than we sometimes have here.

          On the program on Friday, the keynote address will be given by 
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Peter Tarnoff.  He will 
be taking Q&A.  The other speakers include Ambassador George Moose who 
will talk about U.S.-African relations.  Ambassador Charles Tony 
Gillespie will be talking about NAFTA and will be making a strong case, 
as you would expect, in favor of NAFTA.

          There will also be a presentation by Joanna Shelton, who is 
the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Trade and Commercial Affairs on U.S.-
Japan trade relations.

          It's open for press coverage.  Obviously, we encourage people 
who are interested to cover it.  We've got some more information that's 
available in the Press Office about how you can do so if you're 
interested.

          Q    Is there a schedule also available?  When it starts and 
things like that?

          MR. McCURRY:  Yes.  Tarnoff is speaking at 2:00, but they've 
got some other schedule information as well.

          Q    Is the Secretary involved this week -- you mentioned 
NAFTA.  Has the Secretary involved himself in pushing NAFTA, dealing 
with Congress and others -- people also in this building working on 
that?

          MR. McCURRY:  He has been very personally involved.  I think, 
as you know, he testified with Secretary Bentsen on Friday on the 
subject.  He's been making literally dozens of calls to members of 
Congress, discussing with them what he sees as the foreign policy 
implications of NAFTA and specifically a failure to pass NAFTA.

          I think he's had some success in bringing certain arguments to 
the attention of the members of Congress, but he's one of the team of 
people within the Administration who's working very hard and we hope 
effectively to secure ratification and passage of NAFTA.

          Q    Thank you.

          MR. McCURRY:  You're welcome.

          (The briefing concluded at 1:50 p.m.)
(###)

To the top of this page