931124 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 INDEX 
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1993

Subject                                               Page

ANNOUNCEMENT
Secretary's Meetings in Europe/Middle East            1-9
--  US Agenda/Objectives in Europe .......            2-6
--  US Agenda/Objectives in Middle East ..            4-5,7-9 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Results of APEC Meeting/Impact on Europe .            8

NORTH KOREA
US Working-Level Meeting Today in New York            9-10

SOUTH KOREA
President's Meeting with Secretary
  Yesterday ..............................            10

IRAN
Salman Rushdie's Meeting at White House 
  with President/Secretary ...............            11

PAKISTAN
Status of US Aid for 1994 ................            11-13

SWITZERLAND
Nomination of US Ambassador ..............            12

RUSSIA
US Election Assistance/Removal of TV Ad ..            13-15

(###)




                       DEPARTMENT OF STATE
                       DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

                                            DPC #152

             WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1993, 1:02 P. M.
              (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)



         MR. McCURRY:  Good afternoon, everybody.  This may be our last 
chance to gather before the Secretary departs on his trip Monday.  So I 
thought I would run through a little bit on the schedule, and then also 
a little bit about the trip itself at the outset, if you'll bear with me 
a bit.

         I think, as you know, we leave on Monday for Rome, our first 
destination.  The CSCE Conference opens on Tuesday.  The Secretary will 
have a series of bilateral meetings with the Italian Prime Minister and 
Foreign Minister.  I think at some point during that day the Pope will 
be addressing the CSCE Conference, so that will be a highlight of the 
stop.

         Tuesday evening we depart for Brussels, arriving in Brussels 
for the meetings, both the NAC and the NACC on Wednesday and Thursday.  
The Secretary's got meetings with the NATO Secretary General who will be 
meeting with our EC Ambassadors.  He'll be also meeting, I think, on 
Wednesday with Sir Leon Britton and with the EC Commission President 
DeLors.  

         With GATT approaching -- its December a 15 deadline for 
conclusion of the Round -- that will be a very significant meeting, and 
I believe Ambassador Kantor will be in Brussels that day as well.

         On Thursday, he will be meeting with his German, French, 
British counterparts for a breakfast.  The North Atlantic Council 
Plenary Session will be held that day.  The NAC meetings are on 
Thursday, and then the NAC-C meetings Friday for those of you familiar 
with how they customarily do things that day.

         Friday evening, we will leave for Jerusalem.  The Secretary 
will have a down day on Saturday.  On Sunday, we anticipate meetings in 
Jerusalem with Israeli officials, probably leaving some time later that 
day for Damascus.  Then at that point, while we're in the region, I 
think our schedule gets a little bit murky at this point.  There are a 
lot of details about the itinerary that are still coming together, so I 
think those of you who are going to be with us on the trip need just to 
bear with us as we do some planning.  We'll be  able to tell you more 
when we depart on Monday about the remainder of the schedule.

         We obviously plan stops in Amman, Damascus, probably back to 
Jerusalem, several points, and I believe we'll most likely stop in Tunis 
on the way back to the United States.  That's the current planning.

         On the trip itself, I'd say overall starting with Europe, the 
Secretary hopes to drive home the linkage that we increasingly see 
between security concerns and global prosperity.  This is a trip, fusing 
as it does, in Europe the NATO issues and the conclusion of the GATT 
Round.  It really does fuse many of the security issues and economic 
prosperity issues that are at the heart of what we now consider national 
security as we look to U.S. interests around the world.

         The Secretary will stress the connection between the Uruguay 
Round and the economics of our transatlantic relationships.  He will 
certainly confirm America's commitment to concluding the Round by 
December 15.  He will reaffirm our commitment to NATO and to the CSCE to 
European integration, broadly defined, and to stability throughout the 
region.

         I think he will put a particular emphasis on the proposals we 
have advanced to make the NATO summit a success by following through on 
the initiative that we've called "Partnership for Peace" that addresses 
the question of how you can create an evolution for the institution of 
NATO itself.

         I think in short he will challenge Europeans to join us in a 
very broad view of what constitutes security in Europe and how we can do 
more in partnership to achieve our common objective.  I think it's a 
trip that will very much re-emphasize the U.S. view of the strong 
leadership in the world that is one of our destinies, and it's also a 
trip that will reaffirm the very fundamental importance of our alliance 
with our European partners.

         I've got some specifics in here if you're interested on some of 
the things that they expect to do at the CSCE meetings and at the NAC 
and NAC-C meetings.  If you're interested, please ask.

         Q    Yes.

         MR. McCURRY:  A little more on that.  Okay.

         Let me start with saying what I think the focus of a lot of 
these meetings are going to be initially when he first encounters his 
counterparts in Rome.  I think that, without a question, a principal 
topic is going to be economics and the conclusion of the European round.  
I think that's the single most important items as we go into this trip 
that is on the transatlantic agenda.

         The Secretary, as I said earlier, is really going to emphasize 
the economic importance of concluding that Round.  I think he will be 
able to say that we've demonstrated our resolve and our commitment for 
free trade through passage of NAFTA, and I'm sure he will make that 
point and stress that point with his counterparts.

         During the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe 
meetings, we'll work to sharpen the CSCE's increasingly important role 
in preventive diplomacy and conflict resolution.  We're going to be 
working on CSCE oversight guidelines for regional peacekeeping.

         We'll develop a CSCE rapid action roster of monitors for 
preventive diplomacy missions.  I think, as you know, the CSCE had been 
conducting long duration missions in some of the areas of the former 
Yugoslavia and is also involved in a very important monitoring mission 
in Macedonia.

         We will be looking very carefully at the CSCE's preventive 
diplomacy efforts in Moldova and Georgia.  They will probably, if all 
goes well, consider establishing a mission for Nagorno-Karabakh in 
Tajikistan.  They'll certainly be hearing more about how the CSCE's 
Minsk Group has worked to address the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.

         Those of you familiar with the CSCE's long-range efforts or 
long-term efforts on human rights will not be surprised if there will be 
a fair amount of the agenda directed towards that.  They will clearly be 
discussing -- a focus of those meetings in Rome and my guess is probably 
in Brussels as well will be on the conflict in Bosnia and the situation 
in the former Yugoslavia generally.  I think both humanitarian issues 
that will be addressed will be the subject, perhaps, of a separate 
meeting in Geneva on Monday and will certainly be on the minds of the 
Foreign Ministers.  

         I think they'll be reviewing that situation.  They'll also be 
talking about the CSCE as the forum in which any discussion of what can 
happen in the long term, should there be a political settlement in the 
former Yugoslavia and should there be efforts at reconstruction 
following the war, how would that happen.  That would be a forum in 
which I think that type of conversation would be very timely.

         At the NAC Ministerial in Brussels -- moving on -- I think it's 
safe to say that the key focus of the agenda there will be preparations 
for the NATO summit.  The Foreign Ministers are certainly going to want 
to lay the framework for the January 10 summit meeting in Brussels.

         I think that we, of course, will be keenly interested in 
advancing our proposals on Partnership for Peace and consulting further 
with allies on how to refine the approach, how to develop it and how to 
achieve some kind of consensus  within NATO on how to take a long-term 
view of the role of that institution in the life of Europe.

         Our summit initiatives are designed to accelerate NATO's 
evolution, strengthen its contribution to European security and 
stability, and transform NATO's relationship with its partners to the 
east.

         At the NAC-C Ministerial on the 2nd, that's the point at which 
I think we can really engage our Eastern partners in the whole 
Partnership for Peace concept.  We'll certainly be talking about that.  
They will also approve the NAC-C annual work plan and discuss regional 
issues as well.

         Q    Bilaterals there, Mike?

         MR. McCURRY:  I don't have a complete list yet of bilaterals.  
As a matter of fact, the only one I have listed besides the breakfast 
meeting with Kinkel, Juppe and Hurd, and the bilateral with Manfred 
Woerner, and the meetings already mentioned with the Italians.

         The only other thing that I'm showing at the minute is just the 
meeting with the Secretary General of NATO.

         On to the Middle East.  After we hope at least one day off -- 
as I say, to summarize where we are in the Middle East by saying, I 
think as you know, we've been working intensively to promote three large 
objectives that we have in our own efforts to support the parties as 
they make progress in their own negotiations.  I think that those three 
objectives will be very much foremost in the Secretary's agenda as he 
travels in the region.

         First, we'll be stressing the importance of implementing the 
Joint Declaration of Principles, and that means supporting the Israeli-
PLO negotiations and working to ensure that the assistance that's being 
made available can be absorbed effectively in Gaza and Jericho, and 
looking at the question of how are they doing at establishing the 
institutions and the framework necessary to spend the money that has 
been obligated by the international community and to do so in a way that 
enhances the overall goals of the Declaration itself.

         The Secretary, I think, will want to encourage the Israelis and 
the Palestinians to resolve the remaining issues that they face, so that 
implementation on the ground can begin soon, and so that assistance can 
be used, as I say, effectively.

         Second, we will be promoting progress on the other bilateral 
tracks.  He will explore what can be done to move the negotiations 
forward.  I expect that he will, as you can imagine, have some fairly 
detailed and fairly private and confidential discussions with President 
Assad and Prime Minister Rabin.

         We are seeking, I think as you know, a comprehensive settlement 
for the region, and I think the Secretary feels that it's important at 
this point to do everything he can personally to see that progress stays 
on track.  I doubt very much that you can expect any major breakthrough, 
but I think you can expect a very determined effort to build on the 
progress that we've already seen this year.

         Third, I think the Secretary will be discussing with the 
parties the importance of creating an environment that nurtures and 
supports peacekeeping broadly.  He'll be talking to Arab and Israeli 
leaders about things that can be done to create the best atmosphere for 
progress in the talks, and I think I would summarize the Mideast trip by 
saying that not any one trip to this region will solve all the problems.  
But I think that this is a point in the process where we have a 
responsibility to push as hard as we can to achieve the dream of a just 
and lasting peace that will serve the residents of all the nations of 
the region.

         So that's a rundown of the trip.  With that, I'll take any 
questions you might have.

         Q    Does he plan to bring any incentives or new arguments to 
Syria about Syria rejoining the bilaterals?

         MR. McCURRY:  I think every argument in a sense is new, because 
it evolves over time.  I wouldn't want to speculate too much on what he 
might be saying directly.  I think he'll save that for the meeting that 
they have.

         Q    Specifically, would the United States be prepared to 
supply any of the security guarantees as part of a Golan agreement?

         MR. McCURRY:  That's a subject I think they have discussed in 
the past, and they will most likely discuss again in these coming 
meetings.

         Q    Do you expect an answer from the Israelis on the F-16 
offer?

         MR. McCURRY:  I don't know whether we will or not.  I think 
that's something I've seen that they will most likely want to discuss, 
but I don't know whether there will be an answer or not.

         Q    Mike, on the European leg of the trip, you never mentioned 
Ukraine.  Do you think that the issue of Ukraine and denuclearization 
will be discussed at one of those three meetings?

         MR. McCURRY:  I think the point at which they're discussing the 
regional peacekeeping efforts within the context of both the CSCE and 
within the North Atlantic Council meetings, I think  there will be 
discussion of that -- probably most likely a review of where we are, 
what we know about the determination of the Ukrainian Government to move 
ahead on denuclearization and implementation of the now ratified START 
agreement and what other obligations they have under the Lisbon 
Protocol.

         But I do expect it will be reviewed.  I can't say how 
extensively.  I think it will be reviewed.

         Q    Mike, also on the European leg, you didn't mention 
anything related to the Middle East.  The Middle East is not expected to 
loom on the European leg?

         MR. McCURRY:  No.  I was keeping them separate in my mind, 
thinking of two different legs of the trip.  Very clearly, as he often 
does with his counterpart Ministers, the Secretary will be briefing all 
of this Ministers on his trip which will immediately follow his stop in 
Europe.  I think he will certainly also get from them ideas, both about 
implementation of the Joint Declaration and about the necessity of the 
international community working together in support of the goals and 
objectives of the dialogue between the parties.

         Q    Mike, as long as you Ukraine holds onto its nuclear 
missiles, will they be welcome -- will the Administration welcome their 
participation in the expanded NATO?

         MR. McCURRY:  The question of expanding NATO through the 
concept of Partnership for Peace is something that is still on the 
drawing board, in a sense.  I don't think that they're going to be in a 
position to discuss individual -- the application of the Partnership for 
Peace criteria to any of the individual prospective partners.  They're 
just not at that point yet.  But I imagine as they review the overall 
issue of Ukraine, the subject of the status of their nuclear weapons 
will certainly arise.

         Q    Mike, on Bosnia, you've had two days now to look at the 
European action plan.  Are there things in there that the United States 
can support?

         MR. McCURRY:  I'd say we're still looking.  I think the 
Secretary feels that he deserves to give his fellow Foreign Ministers a 
very thoughtful response to some of the ideas they have -- the 
initiative of the European Union.

         He will most likely convey some type of reaction prior to his 
arrival, but I can't tell you when or how that will be conveyed.  I 
think they certainly plan to discuss it when they get to Rome, but we're 
not at a point yet where we have shared anything with them.  So there's 
nothing I can really share with you.

         Q    Mike, is there some forum in which he's going to talk 
about this issue before takeoff on Monday?

         MR. McCURRY:  I doubt it.  If we have something to say 
publicly, we might figure out a way to say something over the long 
weekend.  But my guess is we're probably not going to be in a position 
to address it publicly with you until we leave on Monday.

         Q    Is there a timetable for the Declaration of Principles 
between Syria and Israel?  And the second part of the question, is there 
a stop in Beirut during this trip?

         MR. McCURRY:  In Damascus?

         Q    Beirut, in Lebanon.

         MR. McCURRY:  In Beirut.  I don't have anything on a stop in 
Lebanon at this point.  As to a timetable, I think they'll be on a 
timetable specified in the Declaration.  I wouldn't suggest that there's 
any other clock that we're working against on the other bilateral track.

         Q    Mike, does Secretary Christopher feel that he's starting 
this trip to the Middle East from a higher point than the one he left 
the area in his last trip?

         MR. McCURRY:  Certainly, yes, because we've had some 
extraordinary events since then.  But I think, as with many trips to the 
region, hard work lies ahead, and we rarely, if ever, leave for the 
region thinking that dramatic breakthroughs are the order of the day, 
because it's much more often the case that hard work and careful 
diplomacy is the order of the day.

         Q    Mike, on the (inaudible) part of the trip, I think you 
said that there may be trips back to Jerusalem.  Is he thinking of some 
kind of shuttle?

         MR. McCURRY:  I hesitate to use the word "shuttle," because 
that has historic connotations.  I think as a practical matter, we 
usually base in Jerusalem and then take trips in the region, using 
Jerusalem as a hub, and I think that's our plan this time.  I believe 
there's one overnight stay early in that week in Damascus.  But by and 
large we will be in Israel and then going to other locations, depending 
on the flow of events.

         Q    Without using the word, is he thinking of going back and 
forth between Jerusalem and Damascus until he gets some resolution?

         MR. McCURRY:  He did on the last trip, but it wouldn't surprise 
me if we did something like that on this trip.

         Q    Are you planning a meeting with Yasser Arafat?

         MR. McCURRY:  Yes.  I think we're planning currently two; one 
sort of early in the trip, location to be determined.  And, as I say, we 
will probably stop in Tunis on the way, and I imagine we would meet with 
the Chairman again on the way home.  That is not necessarily locked in 
at this point but that's the general planning.

         Q    Is there a meeting with Arafat in Europe or Jerusalem?

         MR. McCURRY:  No, it would be in the region.

         Q    Mike, on his trip to Europe, Secretary Christopher is 
going to explain the results of the APEC meeting?  Do you think that the 
successful result of APEC can help him to persuade the European 
counterparts to come to sign up the Uruguay Round on time?

         MR. McCURRY:  That's a good, good question.  It's something I 
meant to stress.  Given the success of the APEC meetings, and the 
importance of the achievements there, I think there will be strong 
interest on the part of the Europeans and exactly the U.S. assessment of 
the outcome of those meetings.

         This will probably be too corny, but I can't resist saying -- I 
was thinking of a little ditty that my wife sings to our little baby 
girl sometime that goes, "Make new friends, keep the old; one is silver, 
the other is gold."  I think our intent in meeting with the Europeans 
will be very much to remind them that the friendship and the strength of 
that alliance is in no way threatened by our emerging relationships in 
Asia.  How's that for smaltz.

         Q    For sophistry, that takes the cake because last week, at 
the APEC Conference, U.S. officials were all over the place pointing out 
to all and sundry who would listen that APEC formed a counterweight to 
Europe if the GATT agreement went down.  How can you stand up there with 
a straight face and repeat this?

         MR. McCURRY:  I think that's a question of perception.  I think 
the Europeans probably, certainly -- the Europeans may, in fact, 
perceive that.

         In stressing the importance of our emerging trade relationships 
with Asia, we've often made the point, in comparing to Europe, the trade 
with Asia now is exceeding trade with Europe.  But that by no means 
understates the importance of that trading relationship.

         As many of you know, it's a very important point in the history 
of our relationship with Europe and the status of the alliance.  I think 
it's a great opportunity both at these meetings and looking ahead to the 
NATO summit to underscore how closely we work with the nations that are 
arguably the United States best friends in the world.

         Jacques.

         Q    Michael, to go back to the trip, is the Secretary planning 
to travel to Jericho?

         MR. McCURRY:  I'm not aware of any plans to do that at this 
point.

         Q    Mike, when he meets with President Assad, will he also 
raise his willingness to let Jews immigrate from Syria, his support for 
terrorism and narcotics trafficking, human rights, in general, or has 
that sort of gone the way of NATO and --

         MR. McCURRY:  No.  Virtually, every bilateral meeting we've 
held with Syria that I'm aware of, that the Secretary has held, we have 
raised those issues in the context of our bilateral relationship.  I'm 
sure they will arise again on this trip.

         Q    You didn't mention Cairo.  Is that off the itinerary?

         MR. McCURRY:  I don't think so.  It's in part of the week that 
I say got murky.  The current plan was to go on Tuesday, but I think 
that there may be some switching around on that.  What day we go to 
Cairo is one of the things that's up in the air.

         Q    So at some point --

         MR. McCURRY:  I should have said Cairo, yes.  We certainly plan 
to go Cairo, Damascus, Amman, and Jerusalem while we're in the region, 
with a stop in Tunis.

         Q    Another area of the world?

         MR. McCURRY:  Another area of the world.

         Q    Is there a meeting underway in New York, at the U.N., on 
North Korea between American officials and North Korean officials?

         MR. McCURRY:  I don't know whether it's underway.  There was 
one scheduled for today that was occurring.

         Q    What's the agenda?

         MR. McCURRY:  The agenda is, not surprisingly, reviewing with 
the North Koreans the discussions that the United States had yesterday 
with President Kim; the discussions that occurred during the APEC 
session last week, all aimed at developing an approach to North Korea 
that can resolve the issues in dispute regarding North Korea's nuclear 
program.

         Q    Who is representing each side?

         It's a working-level meeting.  I don't have the list of the 
participants on the U.S. side.  It's similar to some of the working-
level meetings that have been held in the past.

         Q    That's at the U.N.?

         MR. McCURRY:  I believe it's at the U.N.  I don't know that for 
a fact.

         Q    Mike, are you hoping for a quick reaction from the North 
Koreans given the time urgency there that's been talked about in the 
last few days of the IAEA inspections?

         MR. McCURRY:  We do.  The urgency that you heard the President 
express yesterday is certainly very much on our mind, but I would not 
want to lead anyone to think that we expect an instantaneous response.  
Our supposition is that things will be conveyed today that will then 
need to be discussed in North Korea, and it will be at least a matter of 
days until we get some type of response.

         I'd caution you against expecting any type of readout today, 
nor do I think we'd provide one in any event.

         Q    Mike, yesterday, there was a meeting between Christopher 
and Han Sung-chu -- the South Korean Foreign Minister -- in this 
building.  What was the main content of the discussion?  I wonder if the 
meeting has helped to streamline the general agreement made by the two 
Presidents, Clinton and Kim Young Sam, in a very general sense?

         MR. McCURRY:  They had an opportunity, when they met yesterday 
-- in addition to reviewing the conversation of the two Presidents, they 
also had an opportunity to review some of the documents that the 
Secretary and the Foreign Minister signed yesterday, the multilateral 
agreement, on certain legal issues and some of the other questions that 
came up during the Secretary's brief appearance here yesterday.

         I would confirm that the meetings also were another opportunity 
to review the progress, to review the conversation of the two Presidents 
and to forge a very close and common approach to dealing with this issue 
-- the thorough and broad approach that you heard the Presidents 
describe.  It was an opportunity to really amplify our understanding of 
how the sequence of events would flow from here.

         I'm not going to detail for you, as I have refused to do 
consistently, any of the tactics that we are now pursuing.  But I would 
say, obviously, the broad goals and the thrust of that policy remain, as 
we've told you often and as the President emphasized again yesterday.

         Q    Were there any discussions or efforts to make a definition 
about "deadline," to make a deadline for the North Korean inspection?

         MR. McCURRY:  I don't have anything on deadlines.

         Q    Would you take the question as to the identity of the 
participants in today's meeting, or has a decision been made not to 
disclose them?          MR. McCURRY:  I think they made the decision not 
to disclose them.  I'll still take the question anyhow.

         Q    Anything you'd like to share about the magical mystery 
meeting at the White House today?

         MR. McCURRY:  The one that has probably concluded a short time 
ago?  Not a lot on it.  I think as some of you may know, the Secretary 
met today with British author Salman Rushdie at the White House.  I 
believe it followed a short meeting between Salman Rushdie and the 
President, and the Secretary.  I believe the National Security Advisor 
met for a short time with the author.

         The Secretary's intent was both to underscore the death threat 
that exists against Mr. Rushdie and the bounty that has been offered for 
him by Iran, and to certainly stress to him, and to make the point 
publicly, that such threats and such bounties are incompatible with 
basic standards of international conduct.  I think that the meeting 
reflects the U.S. conviction that freedom of speech is a fundamental 
human right.  There's probably no better example of those rights being 
threatened than the author Salman Rushdie.

         Q    Other than this human rights that I mention of the 
meetings, is there a political message sent to Iran of this perspective?

         MR. McCURRY:  Undoubtedly.  And whether or not it's received 
will be a matter that you can speculate on.

         Q    Another subject?

         MR. McCURRY:  Yes.

         Q    Is the United States informing Congress that it wants to 
get rid of or give up the Pressler Amendment on Pakistan?

         MR. McCURRY:  Let me review a little bit of -- this came up, in 
part, because of Benazir Bhutto's comments.  Let me review a little bit 
where we are.

         The U.S., I think as you know, has been concerned, remains 
concerned about proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, especially 
in a volatile region such as South Asia.

         The objective of our non-proliferation efforts has been to cap, 
reduce, and then finally eliminate weapons of mass destruction and 
ballistic missile weapons systems from South Asia, in particular.

         We believe India and Pakistan are both now in a position where 
they could assemble nuclear weapons in a relatively short timeframe.

         On the Pressler Amendment:  Pakistan remains under the Pressler 
Amendment sanctions in accordance with U.S. law.  As most of you know, 
the Amendment requires the cut-off of U.S. military and new economic 
assistance to Pakistan if the President is unable to certify that 
Pakistan does not possess a nuclear device.  The U.S. has opposed 
nuclear weapons development in South Asia for many years.  We've had on-
going senior level discussions on this issue with the governments of 
Pakistan and India.

         I think you know the Assistant Secretary for South Asia was 
just recently in the region.  I believe that the Secretary may be having 
some meetings later this week on this subject.

         On the Pressler sanctions, that's the law.  It's being enforced 
by the Clinton Administration.  It really is an issue that would lie 
before Congress in considering the new Foreign Assistance Act of whether 
or not there should be any adjustment in the proliferation language that 
is specific to Pakistan.

         Q    But is it -- have you informed Congress that you would 
like to see it go away?

         MR. McCURRY:  I don't know whether we have formally taken a 
position before Congress on that.  I'll take that as a question and find 
out.

         Q    Also, on Congress:  Is the Administration sticking with 
the nomination of Mr. Lawrence to be Ambassador to Switzerland?

         MR. McCURRY:  Absolutely.  He's the President's nominee.

         Q    If the Congress doesn't act, what then?

         MR. McCURRY:  If Congress doesn't adopt it, I don't know.  I 
guess the question is, would there be a recess appointment?  I don't 
know the answer to that.

         But on the point -- I'm going to go back a second to the 
Pressler Amendment.  I think we have taken the view, as we have in the 
past, that extension of the Pressler Amendment sanctions do not advance 
our non-proliferation objectives in South Asia.  I don't know, as I am 
here right now, whether or not we have formally conveyed that to 
Congress in the context of considering the 1994 foreign assistance 
rewrites.  So that's what I will find out.

         Our view on sanctions is pretty clear and has been expressed in 
testimony before.

         Q    So you're saying this Administration feels that the 
Pressler Amendment sanctions should be lifted?

         MR. McCURRY:  We feel they don't advance our non-proliferation 
objectives in South Asia. Q        Can you explain that statement a bit?

         MR. McCURRY:  I could but I don't want to, because it gets into 
the question of how the sanctions apply to various parties in the 
region.

         Q    Mike, the United States has been accused in the past of 
being very selective when it comes to the application of its policy 
regarding proliferation, especially when it comes to Israel.  Do you 
have anything to say on that?

         MR. McCURRY:  I think we effectively enforce the law as written 
by Congress.  It has various applications depending on the individual 
country and the nature of the proliferation program.

         Q    Mike, why doesn't the Administration press Israel to join 
to sign the NPT like they do some of the other states in the world?

         MR. McCURRY:  I don't know the answer.  I haven't looked at 
that question in a while.

         Q    Do we still think they should sign the NPT as a non-
nuclear state?

         MR. McCURRY:  I don't want to answer that without doing a 
little homework on it.

         Q    Can you take it, please?

         MR. McCURRY:  If I really have to on a Wednesday before 
Thanksgiving?  I'll see if I can get anything new to offer on the 
subject that's been addressed often from the podium.

         Q    Also on the Pressler Amendment, I'm trying to decipher 
your language there.  Are you saying that it doesn't advance your 
objectives because it is too specifically aimed at Pakistan and it 
should be broadened to include, for example, India?

         MR. McCURRY:  No, I did not indicate that, other than saying 
simply that it conflicts with our overall objectives.  I want to leave 
it pretty much at that.  The question, as I said, is in the application 
of the sanctions as they affect the region -- broadly defined.

         Q    Do you have anything on this television ad that ran in 
Russia funded by the U.S. Government?  It apparently contained a plug 
for one of the blocs running the (inaudible)

         MR. McCURRY:  I do.  Let me go through that.  As most of you 
know, we do a lot of our assistance, a lot of our democracy-building 
work in Russia through AID.  So we're talking in this case about an AID 
contract.

         It is not the purpose of any of the assistance that we provide 
to support individual political parties or candidates.  The United 
States has an established policy that our election assistance to Russia 
must be politically neutral.  It must help to establish a level playing 
field among all parties and candidates and be spread as equitably as 
possible among the region.  In keeping with this policy, USAID is not 
funding the production or distribution of political ads in Russia.  That 
policy has been conveyed both to the Russian Government and to the NGOs 
that we work with in carrying out some of these assistance efforts.

         In this particular case, there is an allegation -- I think it's 
true that there was a phrase inserted "without the participation, 
knowledge, or funding of the U.S. Government" that altered the content 
and the message of an advertisement that did air in Russia from November 
16 to the 21, inclusively, on Russian Channel Two.

         We are told that when higher levels of the Russian Governments 
realized that the ad, as authored, had a certain political connotation, 
it took the ad off the air.  The Government of Russia has informed AID 
that it will reimburse the contractor for the full cost of this specific 
television ad involved.

         Q    Thank you.

         (Press briefing concluded at 1:40 p.m.)

(###)

To the top of this page