Note: This Electronic Research Collection (ERC) is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the
US DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1993
BRIEFER: CHRISTINE SHELLY
Subject Page
YEMEN
Status of Haynes Mahoney ........................1-2
NORTH KOREA
Foreign Ministry Statement re: Nuclear Issues ...2
Response to US Proposals Still Pending ..........2-3
Report of SCUD Shipment to Iran .................3-4
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
Trilateral Committee on Economic Development
Meeting in the Department Today ...............4
UKRAINE
Kravchuk's Promise to Submit START I Treaty/Lisbon
Protocol to New Parliament/Impact on US Aid ..... 4-7
US Economic Assistance ..........................5-7
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
Secretary's Speech to CSCE ......................7
(###)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPC #154
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1993, 1:02 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MS. SHELLY: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I want to
begin with a short update which relates to the kidnapping of our Embassy
employee. Late yesterday afternoon there was some confusion on this and
several reports that he had been released. As it turned out, this was
based on an erroneous press report emanating from the region, and
unfortunately it proved not to be correct.
We are confident, however, that the Yemeni authorities are
doing all that they can to obtain Mr. Mahoney's release. We remain in
close contact with the Yemeni Interior Minister and other Yemeni
officials.
I can confirm that Mr. Mahoney did receive the package I
mentioned yesterday containing clothes and other personal items. We
have received a tape from him. Although the quality of the tape is very
poor, his voice sounds strong, and we believe that he remains in good
health and good spirits.
I'd be pleased to take your questions.
Q Do you know who's holding him exactly?
MS. SHELLY: No. We still don't have anything precise on
that.
Q What's the basis of your confidence that he'll be
released soon?
MS. SHELLY: I think that just the sort of blow-by-blow
reports that we have been getting from our Embassy there. It seems to
be sort of fine-print questions, and still the mood is very positive,
and the expectation is that the release will be made very shortly.
Q Are these people asking anything of this Government, or
is it more an internal Yemeni situation?
MS. SHELLY: My understanding is it is still very much an
internal Yemeni dispute, and that there has been nothing that has been
requested of the U.S.
Q What did he say on the tape? I mean, was it just, "Hi,
I'm fine." You know, "good wishes."
MS. SHELLY: I don't have the contents -- any kind of
indication as to what actually was on the tape. I just know it was poor
quality, but they could tell that it was definitely him speaking, and
his voice sounded good and strong, and he seemed good. But apparently
it was very difficult to hear the precise things on the tape.
Q Could I change the subject? Have we heard anything --
has the United States heard anything yet from the North Koreans on the
nuclear issue?
MS. SHELLY: You're referring to the statement yesterday I
think -- also public statements yesterday by the North Korean Foreign
Ministry on the nuclear issue.
We have taken note of this statement. I don't have a
particular reaction to offer at this time. There really isn't any
change in the U.S. position at this point as it was articulated by the
President last week.
We are still waiting to receive a formal response from the
North Koreans. We are certainly expecting one and expect it within the
near future. No meetings have been scheduled on this subject for the
time being, and the ball still remains very much in North Korea's court.
Q The ball is still in the North Korean's court. That
means it's up to them to act first? Or, as I understood it from the
briefings last week, that what's been decided on is some sort of
scenario or some sort of arrangement where one side moves and then the
other side moves, and that the North Koreans have been waiting for the
United States to make some overtures or some suggestions. The United
States did this. Are we simply now waiting for them to make a move or
to simply say this arrangement sounds okay? I don't know what they have
to -- what the North Koreans have to do.
MS. SHELLY: Last Wednesday, the 24th, we had a meeting with
them to convey our latest thoughts and proposals on how to resolve the
current impasse. They took these proposals back with them and were
going to discuss them. They owe us a formal response to our proposals.
Yes, they have addressed this publicly, but that's not
inconsistent with past practice. We have seen those statements, but we
don't consider that the public statements so far are in any way their
response to our proposals. This is something that we expect them to
come back to us on formally, and they have not done so yet, and no
request for any meeting has been received.
Q At the White House briefing on the issue, there was also
described how there's not much time before the inspections process is
deteriorated to some point where there is a large gap in our knowledge
-- and they said "prompt," "soon." Is there any time period that you're
putting on for their reply?
MS. SHELLY: There's not any fixed deadline. It's a
determination which is made by the IAEA. I understand that they
consider this -- I think it is monthly, something like that. So I
expect that some time -- based on when the last meeting took place,
which I think was somewhere in the first half of November -- my guess is
that it would probably be coming up again in the IAEA for another look
some time in the first half of December. I don't have anything precise
on that.
But on that point, there isn't any fixed date by which
anything happens. It's a determination made on a series of factors made
by the IAEA.
Q I understand what you're saying about this not being a
formal response, but would you agree that the tone of what they're
saying does not sound very conciliatory?
MS. SHELLY: I don't have anything precise for you on that.
We've read very carefully the statements we get -- the text from FBIS.
We certainly do look at it very carefully -- what the content is, what
the tone is, any particular words in it.
I think that it indicates that there's serious discussion
going on, and that they haven't reached a final conclusion in their own
minds about how to respond.
We don't react and we're very careful not to overreact to any
particular word or phrase that they use. I think that they wanted to
send some messages via the public statements, but we don't take their
public statements as indications of their formal response. We take
their formal response as indication of what their position is.
So we've seen them. We've taken note of what they've said
publicly, but we're still waiting for the official response.
Q Are you aware of reports that North Korea is preparing or
is already shipping another delivery of Scuds to Iran?
MS. SHELLY: I have not seen any reports to that effect.
Q Could you take that question, though, and see if you have
anything?
MS. SHELLY: I'll be happy to look into it and see if we have
anything.
Q This meeting today with Ambassador Ross and the
Jordanians and the Israelis -- the trilateral meeting -- what are your
expectations for it, and why is there a photo op with cameras but not
reporters?
MS. SHELLY: I'm sorry. What was the last part of the
question?
Q Why is there a photo op scheduled with cameras but not
reporters?
MS. SHELLY: The very last part of your question, I'm not
sure. I can check into that for you. I do have some details for you
about the meetings, though.
The joint Israeli-Jordanian economic committee is meeting
today in the Department. It is one of the committees which was formed
when President Clinton hosted Crown Prince Hassan and Foreign Minister
Peres at the White House on the first of October.
As to specific details about the positions -- more on the
bilateral talks -- I'd have to refer you to the parties. I'm sorry,
this was yesterday's meeting.
Today's meeting is the trilateral committee. That's U.S.,
Israel, Jordan -- trilateral committee on economic development. That is
what is meeting in the State Department today. As you've noted, the
U.S. delegation is headed in this session by Ambassador Ross.
The committee is expected to discuss economic cooperation and
the whole range of trade and finance issues. They build on the concept
of face-to-face negotiations established at Madrid; they deal with the
economic issues which directly affect the quality of life of the peoples
in the region. That's really, I think, all I can tell you at this
point.
Q Can we go to another nuclear issue. The response
yesterday -- the White House statement yesterday on the President's
conversation with Kravchuk. In addition to the President calling
Kravchuk, is the State Department or Secretary Christopher doing
anything to further enhance, or to further urge the Ukrainians to do
something?
If the problem is not Kravchuk -- the problem is allegedly
with the parliament -- is there something that the United States intends
to do between now and March to convince the incoming Rada to approve
START without any such conditions?
MS. SHELLY: I don't really have much to add to what the White
House said yesterday. I think the characterization is the exchanges. A
very positive one came from the specific statement by the Ukrainian
President that Kravchuk promised to resubmit the START Treaty and the
Lisbon Protocol as a package to Parliament, and that this would be
occurring after the Parliament takes office after the elections which
are to occur in March.
I don't really have any details to add. I just know that the
general feeling from that was that it was a very positive exchange and
there is still a full commitment on everything that Kravchuk has
outlined to senior Administration officials before.
I think that this is certainly going to be a subject of
conversation, regular conversation, between the U.S. and the Ukraine at
probably nearly all levels. It will very much remain on the agenda.
They certainly want to work with us very actively and constructively to
try to smooth over the difficulties that this action has created.
I think the important point here is letting them get on with
the task that they've identified for themselves, which is working with
their own Parliament and try to get the right kind of action on this
when they resume in March.
Q But the problem has not been Kravchuk, if he's to be
believed. The problem has been the Parliament. He made the pledge, the
last time the Secretary was there, that he would submit it for
ratification. He did, and now we see what we've got.
What I'm asking is whether the Secretary, say, on the road
now, plans to raise the issue with NATO allies so that they might help
in convincing the incoming Ukrainian Parliament to do something
different than they've already done?
MS. SHELLY: We have said before that we always expected that
the Rada ratification was going to be a difficult process. I certainly
can't say that the action came as a complete surprise to us. Certainly,
President Kravchuk himself characterized his own disappointment in the
action.
I can't go much beyond what I've said, which is simply that he
and his administration will endeavor to work with their Parliament and
then try to get the situation sorted out. I'm really not in a position
to address specifically whether or not this is likely to come up in
Brussels. I think you'd really have to direct that question to the
party.
Q Is there any change in our view of the aid that we've
promised -- that the United States has promised to the Ukraine?
MS. SHELLY: I can give you sort of a brief update, if you'd
like, where we are on the aid -- economic aid and economic programs
question, if you'd like. I've got a little bit on that.
During his visit to the Ukraine last month, Secretary
Christopher reiterated the U.S. commitment to provide additional
bilateral economic assistance, and to support substantial aid through
international financial institutions, when Ukraine takes steps toward
promoting fundamental economic reform.
As I'm sure you're aware, in the current fiscal year, the
United States has increased its bilateral economic assistance to the
Ukraine to a total of $155 million. The U.S. and Ukraine signed the SSD
-- Safe and Secure Dismantlement -- Umbrella Agreement in October. This
document provides the legal framework for the dismantlement and non-
proliferation assistance to the Ukraine. The U.S. has pledged a total
of $175 million for this.
The U.S. and the Ukraine plan to conclude the implementing
agreements necessary for this in the very near term.
The U.S. has also proposed specific implementing agreements
involving $135 million in missile and bomber dismantlement assistance,
as well as assistance for export control, government-to-government
communications, material control, and accounting for civilian nuclear
material and for emergency response equipment.
I don't believe there's any change in the game plan on any of
these types of assistance at this point.
Q And none of this is dependent or linked in any way to
what the Rada might do in March?
MS. SHELLY: Not that I'm aware of. I'd be happy to look into
that, see if there's anything else to add on that, but not that I'm
aware of.
Q The reason I ask is McCurry, the last time, seemed to
hint that it was one of the things that was on the table in assessing
relations with Ukraine and this issue. That's why I'm asking.
MS. SHELLY: I just don't have anything further to add.
Q You confuse me on your figures, though. A hundred and
fifty-five million, is that for dismantling warheads?
MS. SHELLY: My understanding is that under the SSD Umbrella
Agreement, the amount pledged under this is $175 million. The bilateral
economic assistance, which is through a variety -- for other uses --
that's what's the $155 million.
Q And then there's $135 in addition to the $175 for
missiles and bombers?
MS. SHELLY: My understanding is that there are specific
implementing agreements involved that total that amount -- $135 million
-- and that's for the missile and bomber dismantlement assistance and
the other things I mentioned.
Q That's in addition to the $175, as mentioned?
MS. SHELLY: I think so, but I'll check on that specifically.
If that's not the correct understanding, I'll post something on that
this afternoon.
Q The President said today that he hoped that Muslims would
not take offense at the fact that he met with Salman Rushdie. I was
wondering if the government, officially, has heard any protest from
Muslim governments beyond what the Iranians have said for the fact that
he did meet with Rushdie?
MS. SHELLY: Not that I'm aware of.
Q Christine, do you have any more information about the
offer that the Secretary made this morning at CSCE of increased flights
and food into Bosnia?
MS. SHELLY: I don't really have anything specific to add to
that. I believe that we have circulated the text of the Secretary's
speech. Questions on that, I really have to specifically direct you to
the party.
Q Thank you.
MS. SHELLY: Thank you.
(Press briefing concluded at 1:20 p.m.)
(###)