Note: This Electronic Research Collection (ERC) is an archive site. For the most current information, please visit the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Office of the Spokesman Taken Questions of December 3, 1993 1. NORTH KOREA Q: Can you provide a read-out of the meeting with North Korea in New York today? What response did they give to the U.S. proposal? A: WORKING-LEVEL U.S. OFFICIALS MET TODAY WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM NORTH KOREA'S U.N. MISSION IN NEW YORK. THE MEETING LASTED TWO HOURS. AT THIS MEETING, NORTH KOREA PROVIDED ITS FORMAL RESPONSE TO THE U.S. VIEWS ON HOW TO RESOLVE THE NUCLEAR ISSUE PRESENTED AT THE LAST SUCH MEETING ON NOVEMBER 24. --WE ARE STUDYING CAREFULLY NORTH KOREA'S RESPONSE. WE WILL ALSO BE CONSULTING WITH OUR ALLIES BEFORE DECIDING OUR NEXT STEPS. 2. ABM TREATY Q. What's the difference between "theater" and "strategic" defense? If theater defenses are not limited, why do you need a new interpretation of the ABM Treaty? A. THE ABM TREATY SHARPLY CONSTRAINS DEFENSES AGAINST STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILES, BUT DOES NOT IMPOSE THESE CONSTRAINTS ON DEFENSES AGAINST THEATER MISSILES. IT DOES NOT, HOWEVER, MAKE A CLEAR DEMARCATION BETWEEN THE TWO. --WHEN THE ABM TREATY WAS NEGOTIATED IN 1972, THE KINDS OF SOPHISTICATED SHORTER RANGE BALLISTIC MISSILES WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT DID NOT EXIST. THEREFORE, WE FEEL ITS DEFINITION OF "STRATEGIC" IS NOW INADEQUATE; IT DOES NOT DEFINE "THEATER." --OUR APPROACH SEEKS TO REMOVE THE CURRENT AMBIGUITIES BETWEEN WHAT IS "STRATEGIC" AND WHAT IS NOT SO THAT ALL PARTIES TO THE TREATY CAN AGREE ON WHAT A "THEATER~ DEFENSE IS. Q. Have the Russians responded to your approach? A. WE HAVE JUST BEGUN OUR DISCUSSIONS IN THE ABM TREATY'S STANDING CONSULTATIVE COMMISSION (SCC). BY AGREEMENT OF ALL PARTIES, THOSE DISCUSSIONS ARE CONFIDENTIAL. WE DO NOT KNOW HOW LONG THEY MAY LAST. Q. Did the State Department and ACDA oppose this effort initially? A. THERE IS TOTAL AGREEMENT ON THE MERIT OF REMOVING THE CURRENT AMBIGUITIES IN THE ABM TREATY.(###)