Return to: Index of 1994 Daily Briefings || Electronic Research Collections Index || ERC Homepage

.
S DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING 
Monday, February 7, 1994


                          BRIEFERS:      Secretary Christopher
                                               Lynn Davis
                                               Craig Johnstone
                                               Michael McCurry


Subject                                                                      Page




The following subjects were covered in today's press briefing:

DEPARTMENT'S 1995 BUDGET SUBMISSION ......................1-16
Secretary's Remarks .................................................................1-3
Under Secretary Davis' Opening Remarks .........................6-7
Categories of Funds ...................................................................7-8
Middle East ....................................................................................7-8,11
Humanitarian Assistance ........................................................8
Population/Environment ..........................................................9
Multilateral Development Banks/US Arrearages ..........9
Regional Peace/Security ........................................................10-16
Greece/Turkey .............................................................................12-15
India/Pakistan ............................................................................12,15
Narcotics .......................................................................................15-16
Peacekeeping ...............................................................................16

FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
Secretary's Remarks ................................................................3-6
Secretary's Activities ............................................................17-18,22
US Diplomatic Efforts/Prospects for Airstrikes .......17-28
Status of Tuzla and Srebrenica ..........................................26
EU Statements re: Weekend Shelling/US reaction .....17-18
Prospects for Meeting of North Atlantic Council ......17-18
Prospects for Increased Links between Hungary 
   and Serbia ................................................................................19-20
Arms Embargo ............................................................................25-27

NORTH KOREA
Status of Inspection Talks with IAEA ............................28-29

(###)

DEPARTMENT OF STATE DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPC #21

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1994, 12:57 P.M. (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: Good morning. What a good turnout for the budget.

This morning, the President sent to Congress the Administration's budget for Fiscal Year 1995. I'm here to describe to you the international affairs budget and to highlight the new thinking that underlies it.

I'm joined by Under Secretary Lynn Davis, who has been very helpful in shaping our approach, and by Craig Johnstone, who will certainly assume the important new position of Director of Resources, Plans, and Policy.

Before Lynn and Craig take you through the details of the budget, I want to describe to you in broad terms what we have accomplished in the first international affairs budget in the post-Cold War era. Although the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, to this moment, our international affairs budgets have failed to reflect the fact that the world has changed dramatically. Today, we break with that past.

A result of our new thinking is that this budget is organized for the first time, in terms of our overall national objectives, promoting American prosperity, supporting democracy, fostering sustainable development, building peace, providing humanitarian assistance, and advancing preventative diplomacy.

As you know, we worked hard to ensure that we have adequate resources to pursue our strategic priorities. Although this is an austere budget, I am pleased with the result.

Another product of our new thinking that underlies this budget effort is that domestic and foreign policy have truly become two sides of the same coin. In other words, this budget is not just about foreign aid. The mindset that walls off America's domestic and international interests must be wiped away.

Our aim in this budget is to promote the security of Americans through peace abroad and prosperity at home. This budget reinforces what I have characterized as the top strategic priority for our foreign policy -- improving the economic well-being of the American people. It encompasses the Administration's mission to open new markets for our exporters and investors and to help American businesses compete and win in those markets.

This budget also supports America's commitment to promote democracy around the world. Democracy is the best means to promote market reform and to guarantee human rights. This is especially important in Central Europe and the former Soviet Union where support for reform remains the wisest and the least expensive investment that we can make in our own security.

Our preventative diplomacy and our efforts to promote peace remain critical elements of our national security. This budget reaffirms our commitment to European security and it maintains our investment in the Middle East at a time when there is growing hope for peace in that part of the world.

Though the risk of superpower confrontation has receded, the danger to our security posed by the spread of dangerous weapons has increased. This budget funds a combination of programs aimed at preventing proliferation of such weapons.

We also provide in the budget for international peacekeeping efforts. Peacekeeping multiplies -- but not displace the capabilities of the United States by allowing the sharing of burdens and responsibilities. Successful peacekeeping can help, and has helped, to diffuse and contain regional conflicts.

Financial resources are important to obtaining our goals but they're only part of what we need to do the job. Our success depends as much on the skill of our people who staff our missions abroad. Our budget anticipates and supports the needs of these talented professionals in this post-Cold War diplomatic period.

The budget also reflects a shift in our goals from the containment of communism to the promotion of market democracy and sustainable development. We will fund programs that foster economic growth and create export markets for American companies and workers around the world.

Foreign assistance will also be directed toward global issues such environmental degradation and population growth. With this budget, we signal that we intend to seize the opportunities of this new era. I ask you to compare the relatively small cost of supporting reform in Russia to the defense expenditures that would be required if Russia were to revert to dictatorship.

In fact, in all the areas we addressed, the cost of doing too little will, in the long run, be much greater than what we now see.

The international affairs budget represents good value for the American people and a wise investment in our future.

Now, I turn for a few moments to another subject. The civilized world is outraged by the savage bombing of the Sarajevo marketplace on Saturday. The death toll from this shelling is not only the worst since this tragic conflict began, it is also a part of a pattern of shelling of civilian areas by Serb artillery that has continued despite NATO's repeated warnings.

I've been in touch with several of my NATO counterparts over the weekend to discuss how the Alliance and the international community should respond to Saturday's tragedy.

U.N. Secretary General Boutros Ghali has requested that the North Atlantic Council take the necessary decisions to enable NATO military forces to be prepared to respond to U.N. request for air strikes. Under Boutros Ghali's proposal, air strikes would be directed against artillery and mortar positions in and around Sarajevo when UNPROFOR determines that they're responsible for attacks against civilian targets.

The proposal made by Boutros Ghali would expand on NATO's current policy of being ready to respond to U.N. requests for close air support to assist UNPROFOR if it is attacked in carrying out its humanitarian missions in Bosnia-Herzgovina.

We welcome Boutros Ghali's proposal and will support it when we and our allies take it up at the North Atlantic Council later this week. His request indicates that the United Nations and NATO are and will continue to be working closely together on this terrible problem.

At NATO, we're also looking at other possible steps to respond to Saturday's attack, and we're also looking at the larger problem of the Serbs' unacceptable actions against the civilian population in Bosnia's capital. We expect that the North Atlantic Council will decide on a course of action, on an overall strategy, within the next few days.

While attention has been properly focused on Saturday's tragic events, we are continuing the search for ways to reinvigorate the diplomatic efforts aimed at achieving a political settlement in the conflict in Bosnia.

We welcome the statement of the Bosnian government leaders that despite what happened Saturday, they remain committed to the negotiating process. We're looking for ways to bring additional support to these efforts to obtain a viable settlement.

As a matter of fact, I'm late for a luncheon upstairs but I will take a few questions.

Q Mr. Secretary, does this mean that the United States will support air strikes in retaliation for what happened on Saturday, or the next time there is an incident like the one on Saturday?

SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: Over the weekend, John, I've been in touch more than once with most of my NATO colleagues. That whole range of issues is under discussion at the North Atlantic Council. It's under intense scrutiny and consideration. And, as I say, I think in the next few days the North Atlantic Council will be taking important decisions in this regard.

Q Will you be going to the North Atlantic Council meeting? And does the United States favor it at the Ministerial level?

SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: I've been in such close touch with my NATO colleagues over the weekend at the Ministerial level that I feel that we're in very good communication. I've had several communications with the French Foreign Minister as well as the British Foreign Minister and all the other NATO colleagues, or many of the other NATO colleagues.

I don't have any plans at the present time to go to Brussels. I would if it was deemed necessary; but I must say, our communication with our Ambassador there, Bob Hunter, has been in real time and I feel we're proceeding in a responsible way.

Q Mr. Secretary, in what way -- you said that the Boutros Ghali proposal expands on the NATO policy.

SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: Yes.

Q Does it mean that Boutros Ghali's proposal is calling on the allies to move beyond being ready to act militarily merely or only to support U.N. troops in trouble and being ready to move, to use military force to bring an end to at least some of the fighting in Bosnia?

SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: I think it's important to understand exactly what Boutros Ghali's proposal is. It fills a gap that he believes exists at the present time.

As you know, at the present time, NATO is obligated, is committed to respond. As I said in my statement, if U.N. forces are attacked in carrying out their humanitarian mission. What this would do would give NATO the responsibility to respond if there were attacks -- as I said in my statement -- against civilian targets in the Sarajevo area and if that response was asked for by the Secretary General.

His statement does not go beyond that. I refer you to the statement that I made specifically about his proposal, because I think it's very important to understand what it is and what it is not.

Under his proposal, as I said, air strikes would be directed against artillery and mortar positions in and around Sarajevo when UNPROFOR determines that they are responsible for attacks against civilian targets.

Q Who would decide? Who would make the decision about whether to activate, to actually use those air strikes? Would the U.N. decide? Does NATO decide, or does it require a procedure that has not yet been established?

SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: If Boutros Ghali's request is approved at NATO this week, then, in the future, if he were to ask NATO to respond, it would not require another meeting of the North Atlantic Council. His request would go directly to the military authorities, just as it presently now does, in connection with possible attacks against the U.N. peacekeepers if they are attacked. So it's parallel to that. It correlates to the authority that now exists.

Q Mr. Secretary, in this last statement you made, three times you've couched things in the future tense. So to sort of ask you the same question you've been asked or put it slightly differently, can NATO make a decision subjecting the Serbs to retaliation for something they've already done, or does this set up a mechanism for future transgression?

SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: Boutros Ghali's statement -- his request, I think, is future in it character. But I was careful to say in my statement that we're looking at broader issues with the North Atlantic Council at the present time. I think it's important that although we will certainly respond to what the Secretary General has asked, we're not limited by it.

Q You're saying, Mr. Secretary, that as far as the U.S. is concerned, the door is still open for some type of punitive response to what happened over the weekend, or are you saying that's now history, now we're looking at the next phase?

SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: I was saying, as I said before, that we've not ruled anything out with respect to possible actions. The whole range of actions are being considered in the North Atlantic Council. We'll respond to the specific, rather narrow request from Boutros Ghali which we think is appropriate and we'll support, but we'll be not limited by that.

I'll take one more question.

Q Mr. Secretary, you mentioned at the outset that Saturday's shelling was part of a pattern of shelling of civilian areas by Serb artillery. Are you satisfied that the Serbs were responsible for this, and do you, yourself, and does the United States Government favor retaliation for this attack?

SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: As far as I know, there's been no precise determination of responsibility for Saturday's attack. The strong presumption in my mind is that it was by the Serbs, but we do, I think, have -- the United Nations has certified that the attack the preceding day, which killed, I believe, eight individuals in a food line, was the responsibility of the Serbs; and over the last several weeks it has been Serbian attacks that have been plaguing Sarajevo.

So I can't say with authority where this particular attack came from, because the United Nations has not yet determined that; and it may be that the technical means are not available because of he trajectory of this particular shell and the way it landed.

But I am quite confident that the pattern over the last several weeks has been a pattern of a Serbian shelling the Muslim areas of Sarajevo.

Thank you very much.

Q Filing break.

Q This is not personal.

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: I knew that this was going to happen. They warned me, so I would be able to compensate. We appreciate those few of you that remained.

Let me first introduce to all of you Craig Johnstone whom the Secretary introduced as the new Director of an office that will be seeking to do planning and resources for the whole Department of State.

One of the things that we discovered in the course of putting together the 1995 budget, was that as we thought about the goals and how we sought to direct international affairs resources, that for this new world we needed a way to plan our activities in order to carry out those goals and be able to come back and demonstrate how we've accomplished the goals that we set out as we put these resources to those goals.

So Craig's the one now that will be working with all of us to make that possible. I don't have a long preambular statement in terms of what it is that we're seeking to do. I think the Secretary captured that by his remarks. We've been working on it for a long time, and here are the results -- not only the goals but the actual dollars today. So we're ready to take your questions and hear your reactions.

Q Let me ask a couple of kind of detailed or specific questions just to sort of get us off on the right foot. Can you tell us what the various brackets and shufflings mean under the "Promoting Peace" category? What happens to the Middle East aid? There are two different kinds of brackets in the sheets you disclosed. Is the aid increasing? Is it decreasing? Is it being shifted from one budget category to another?

And a similar question that's sort of detailed just under that on providing humanitarian assistance. It's actually ironic that the Secretary would have just completed his statement on Bosnia, but is it accurate to say that the United States after contributing for two years to refugee and disaster assistance in Bosnia, it will be reducing its funding for humanitarian assistance by $77 million?

AMBASSADOR JOHNSTONE: Let me take those questions in order. With respect to the funding categories, you will note that the principal difference between the way this budget is and the way you've seen it in the past is the reordering of the budget along national security objectives. So it does in fact change the ordering.

Some things change in this budget; some things stay the same. In the case of funds for the Middle East peace process, they stay largely the same in this budget. In terms of your specific question with respect to brackets, the brackets here are subtotals. The parenthesis are negative numbers.

Q But look at the Middle East -- Regional Peace and Security. Look at the Middle East peace process line. What does that mean? Does that mean that the United States is asking -- it's under "Promoting Peace" right there. The government is asking for an increase of $49 million?

AMBASSADOR JOHNSTONE: That's correct.

Q And what are those brackets? Those brackets do not reflect a decrease. Those brackets --

AMBASSADOR JOHNSTONE: We knew that there would be an interest in the issue of Middle East peace, so we have essentially broken down this larger number here for regional peace and security into three sub-categories. The brackets simply indicate that you shouldn't add this up as part of the add-up in the column.

Q I see.

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: It's a subset of the overall goal of regional peace and security. On humanitarian assistance --

Q Who gets the extra $49 million, by the way?

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: We can provide you with that. What we've done is add some more funding for the issues supported in the Gaza. We also have been contributing to the Middle East peace process activities. There are some additional funds there.

The overall numbers for Israel and Egypt remain the same as from last year.

Q And the $77 million. Do you want to do that?

AMBASSADOR JOHNSTONE: With respect to the humanitarian assistance, you'll see that the humanitarian assistance level has come essentially out of the refugee assistance column for $37 million and PLO 480, Title II, of $49 million. It's largely the same levels as you had last year.

It does reflect in the refugee categories a reduction in the admissions rate anticipated for next year. In fact, the humanitarian component of refugee assistance goes up next year modestly.

Q What is the single biggest difference between what the previous Administration did and what this Administration is doing in terms of allocation of funds?

AMBASSADOR JOHNSTONE: I think if I were to characterize it, it would be that it's principally a refocusing on the global priorities that we face today. That is to say, this is now a post-Cold War budget. So that the categories that we had of trying to support countries to act as a bulwark of international communism, now that emphasis is entirely one of trying to promote regional stability, democracy and sustainable development in the various countries of the world.

Sustainable development itself, I think, is a very important difference, and that is it's not the same as foreign aid as you used to know it. That is, foreign aid for the purposes of providing some kind of a bulwark against communism, but rather foreign aid for the purposes of trying to promote economic growth which is consistent with environmental programs to eliminate environmental degradation and to deal with the problems of population growth.

Q But can you say how much more money is going into, say, population programs now as to opposed to before?

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: You should be able to see this on the chart there.

AMBASSADOR JOHNSTONE: With respect to the protection of the global environment, there's an additional $58 million. With respect to population, there's an additional $83 million in assistance.

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: And remember this is within a budget that's already constrained and not growing from year's past. So what we've been able to do is to take these resources and shift to this new agenda, while at the same time building on the foundations of the kinds of activities which we've had in the past, and in particular our support for reform in Russia and the Newly Independent States.

Q It seems to me the figures change in authority for the multilateral development banks, a difference of $624 million. Can you tell us specifically where that extra money will go?

AMBASSADOR JOHNSTONE: The $624 million in 1995 for the multilateral development banks includes that payment of arrears which were incurred prior to the 1995 year. So I would caution you on that respect. What we're trying to do in this budget is to catch up with underpayments on MDB arrears as well as to fund programs within the MDBs.

Although these are listed under sustainable development, in fact the multilateral development banks play a very important role with respect to almost all of these objectives that you see arrayed here.

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: Also, one particular part of those resources has to do with our support for environment programs in the MDB. So I think in addition to just focusing on that number going up, you will see that the allocations of resources in some of these accounts will also demonstrate the commitment to these global priorities.

Q Of course, this series wasn't -- in terms of function, does it mean that we will not get any more the country breakout we used to get over the year, or will you still get the country breakdown?

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: You will get the country breakout -- breakdowns. We will put those out in about a week when we send the formal presentation up to the Congress, and we have many of those today. We're just waiting for a few to be finished.

Q And you will have it region by region? Will you put it out region by region?

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: We'll do it region by region so you can watch over all the various activities in each of the parts of the world that you care most about.

Q Also, (inaudible) for sustainable development -- does it mean that you're thinking in terms of a large Marshall plan type of thing in order to do it, or will it be same (inaudible) as this bilateral aid?

AMBASSADOR JOHNSTONE: It's austere, but I wouldn't say that it's modest. That is to say, this represents a pretty substantial commitment to sustainable development. The emphasis clearly here has moved over to the environmental and to the population accounts within sustainable development.

Q Where have you got military or security assistance in here?

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: Okay. Under "Promoting Peace" and "Regional Peace and Security." But you will see that the largest part of that is a commitment to success in the Middle East peace process. Consistent with our view as to how the world has changed, there have been reductions and eliminations of funding to many countries, and only five countries are still left in terms of that overall category.

Q Only five countries in terms of what category? FMS or --

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: The old FMS categories but "new think." We're not talking about it in those ways before, but Greece, Turkey, Egypt, Israel and Jordan.

Q And Jordan -- are the only five. ESF is eliminated.

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: That's right. We're not talking about those functional categories any more. We're talking about objectives and programs to meet those objectives.

Q It's a small one -- how about IMET? Is that still (inaudible).

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: Actually, this is an important change in the sense that we see the value of military training around the world, but what we're going to do in at least half of the programs proposed in the budget is to focus on how to move militaries into thinking about their roles in civil societies and promoting democracy through these training programs. And so, consistent with how the Congress has been thinking about the redirection of some of that training, we're giving emphasis in these programs to democracy training in the old category called IMET. So those kinds of activities would fall here under the "Building Democracy" account, and the ones that are more traditionally supporting military training would remain under "Regional Peace and Security."

Q May I ask one more question on that: Do you actually have a program on that yet, or is this still evolutionary, because as far as I know, the only thing when you were actually doing something like that was supposed to be Haiti.

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: We started with Haiti on some of those ideas, and now you will see in the presentation we'll make in about a week, country-specific programs that will have democracy as their central goal.

Q And will human rights be a strong component of that program?

AMBASSADOR JOHNSTONE: Absolutely.

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: Absolutely.

Q What percentage of the overall aid budget is in the category of the Middle East peace process? And for that matter what's the percentage of the total aid for those five countries? In your statement you made it sound like 'Gee, we're cutting -- everybody's been cut, there's only five countries left.' But what percentage of the aid remains with those five -- earmarked for those five countries?

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: One, I don't do earmarks, but proposed figures, proposed for those countries.

Q I know, you don't talk about earmarks anymore but, they're in there aren't they, by name?

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: That is, there will be country specific programs to carry out these goals.

Q Which you won't call earmarks but I can choose to call them earmarks if I wanted to, but --

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: We'll call them proposals.

Q They're country specific, OK.

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: We will delineate --

Q What percentage of the aid goes to those country specific programs?

AMBASSADOR JOHNSTONE: Of overall assistance?

Q Yes.

AMBASSADOR JOHNSTON: Obviously it's about 25 percent of the entire budget. I'd have to calculate what that is as a percentage of the overall assistance levels in these different categories and I don't have that number.

Q It's a larger percentage, isn't it, of aid that goes to individual countries?

AMBASSADOR JOHNSTONE: Yes.

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: Because the aid to individual countries has been reduced because we've shifted resources relative to these global initiatives.

Q Right, but the global initiatives all have programs that are -- where the money ends up in a specific country, doesn't it?

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: That's true as well.

AMBASSADOR JOHNSTONE: We can do a quick calculation of finding the sections here that are specific to our specific national programs and the percentage that constitutes Middle East out of that, and I'll be pleased to do that for you.

Q Are you going to retain this 7/10 ratio with Greece and Turkey?

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: With respect to military financing these loan guarantees, we will retain the 7/10 ratio.

Q Can you be country-specific or region-specific with respect to the programs for the stabilization of the world population growth and protection of the global environment? What are the target areas that you have in mind?

AMBASSADOR JOHNSTONE: I can't be country or region-specific yet, but we will be in a position to be country-specific, or that is to say region-specific with respect to population and environment a week from now.

Q Ms. Davis, I've got a region-specific question for you here. Last week, Mr. Atwood said the Administration heard Congress loud and clear about the Pressler Amendment and other country-specific amendments.

And Robin Raphel was on the Hill last week and she said the Pressler Amendment was a big obstacle to U.S.-Pakistan relations. She spoke about some sort of a multilateral format. Are you all looking towards sort of a Pressler Amendment towards countries like India, too -- (inaudible) non-proliferation goals?

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: What we're trying to do, as we initially did in the original draft, is to get away from country-specific policies that are marked in legislation, but, rather, to focus on the individual problems.

In this context, we will be looking at India and Pakistan equally and together as we seek to craft a non-proliferation strategy to limit their deployment of missiles, to gain their support for a cut-off of fissile material for nuclear weapons purposes, their adherence to a comprehensive test ban, and to do that in a multilateral framework that could bring in not only countries in the regions but perhaps others from the Security Council.

Q But will you be addressing this individually with those countries?

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: We have a strategy of consultations not only with those countries but up on the Hill as we work through the specifics of that overall policy.

Q What is the total for security assistance, then, this year for the five countries?

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: For the five countries?

Q The five countries you've named?

Q For the five that we enumerated?

Q They're the only five that you say remain --

AMBASSADOR JOHNSTONE: By security assistance, you're talking about military assistance, in this case?

Q Are you suggesting that we pass (inaudible) for India?

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: No.

Q Then, what exactly is --

AMBASSADOR JOHNSTONE: To answer your question, I think the total that we have currently, with military assistance, is about $3.2 billion of which $3.1 billion goes to the Middle East process. It will be something less than $100 million.

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: We can share these numbers with you afterwards. These, we've worked through and some of the development assistance programs that we still don't have the specific numbers on.

Q Does that mean that we're continuing to give Greece and Turkey loans rather than --

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: These are loan guarantees, that's right.

Q -- which doesn't appear in the budget?

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: These loan guarantees do actually show up as a very small amount in this budget just as they did last year and the previous year.

Q There were large amounts, like to Turkey specifically, that were basically, that have a bracket around them.

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: They'll look about identical to last year in terms of our proposals.

Q (Inaudible)

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: This is about the budget now.

Q That bill is replaced a foreign aid bill?

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: We talked to you last week about the new Peace, Prosperity, and Democracy legislation that we're proposing. So that takes the place of the old Foreign Assistance Act.

Now, what we've done here is apply resources to the goals that were outlined in that new legislation.

Q How do you distribute this $160 million for Greece and Turkey?

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: I think we can actually do that. We will show a $453 million loan in brackets for Turkey, which will cost us approximately $40 million in authority in this budget. We will also be proposing $100 million in economic support funds for Turkey.

With respect to Greece, we will show in the brackets a $317 million loan that will cost us approximately $20 million in military financing. Those two together -- that's the sum total on the security side for Greece and Turkey.

Q You just said ES --

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: I know I said that -- economic support. I did do that because I was trying to give you clarity.

Q Mr. Johnstone and I used to have some very big arguments about whether ESF was military assistance or economic assistance, or something (inaudible) political assistance, or whatever. But since you've eliminated that --

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: We're calling it "economic aid" now.

Q -- how are those funds being redistributed? Where are they going?

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: We are calling it economic aid within our overall goals of promoting regional peace and security.

Q Can I follow up a question, on the other side, for a moment? You earlier talked about grouping India and Pakistan together for purposes of consideration of future aid.

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: Not of future aid. I was addressing our overall non-proliferation policy.

Q Of your non-proliferation policy as it affects the U.S. aid program; right?

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: I think he was asking me a question on a different part of my portfolio -- that is, there is no funds in this budget directly for India and Pakistan. There are no doubt AID assistance funds which will contribute to activities in those two countries.

AMBASSADOR JOHNSTONE: I would like for a second to come back to the question that John asked, just to be sure that there is no misunderstanding here.

There are funds within the regional security -- or that is, let's say, the promoting peace category which you could argue were once funds which were categorized previously as economic -- as ESF funds. But also that is true for countries in transition as well as some of the narcotics programs. That is to say, what we've tried to do is see what are these funds actually being spent for? What is the objective that they're designed to try and amplify, and put them in the right category.

This whole process, I think, will make it much easier to track exactly the kind of issues that you and I have talked about in the past. That is to say, what is the objective, what is the money for? You get a much better sense under this new process than under the old system of accountability.

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: And you would come back to us and say, "Let's look at the individual programs to seek security in Turkey." Then we could discuss not only this year what the programs were but next year of how well we thought those programs had accomplished that goal of security.

Q You're proposing an increase of almost 50 percent in counter-narcotics and terrorism. How specifically do you plan to spend this extra money, and whence comes the impulse, the impetus for this major increase?

AMBASSADOR JOHNSTONE: Well, certainly the impetus comes from the domestic problem that we have with respect to crime and narcotics use within our own country. The President has made very clear his priority of addressing this problem.

What we are trying to do with respect to this small percentage of the overall budget on drugs is to address the problem at the producer level, so that a lot of these funds will be focused on producer countries in Latin America, designed to achieve a number of objectives, including the sustainable development of those countries for the purposes of trying to find alternatives to drug production in those countries.

It's part of an overall and comprehensive program to attack drug use within our own country.

MR. McCURRY: Last question back here.

Q Could we talk about peace-keeping for a minute? Are you talking about -- is the Pentagon going to be paying for contributions to U.N. peacekeeping this year? Are you envisioning that?

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: Yes.

Q And how much will that be?

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: The shared responsibility that we're outlining in terms of our overall peacekeeping policy will be reflected in the budget that we're presenting to you -- the international affairs budget as well as the DoD budget. Of that --

AMBASSADOR JOHNSTONE: There are $300 million in FY-1995 which the Department of Defense is programming for peacekeeping -- for Chapter 7 peacekeeping -- and those elements of Chapter 6 that have significant military components.

Q It's kind of a philosophical question about the budget numbers here. I think we would be wrong if we didn't ask this question. You disclosed a few minutes ago that of the five countries that are still getting military aid -- a total of $3.2 billion -- $3.1 billion is going to the Middle East.

Anybody on the Hill, or wherever, who is asked about a budget would have to ask, what is the justification for spending that percentage of your available money in one basket?

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: Recall that this is a process leading to what we hope will be a peace in probably the most important region in terms of the threats to our security as Americans would see these.

Over the past year, peace in that region has been given an important impetus, and it's very important on the part of this Administration to sustain that and perhaps bring peace to this very critical part of the world.

We bring peace to that part of the world by ensuring that there is security for the states in that part of the world, and we demonstrate that by the important mound of resources that were willing to provide.

Q Thank you.

UNDER SECRETARY DAVIS: Thanks for staying.

MR. McCURRY: I'm willing to continue, to hold forth here, if you've got other questions. If not, we'll call it a day.

Q Do you have any further clarification to offer on a variety of Bosnia-related matters? For example, can you tell us, with whom the Secretary has been consulting and the extent of those consultations? Was his statement today an announcement reached after his meeting with President Clinton today -- that sort of thing?

MR. McCURRY: I think his statement today was a result of extensive consultation over the weekend with major NATO allies and then also with Foreign Minister Kozyrev of Russia. I think he, over the course of the weekend, talked to French Foreign Minister Juppe several times; I think maybe three or four times. He talked to Foreign Secretary Hurd several times. He talked to Foreign Minister Kinkel. He talked to NATO Secretary General Manfred Worner on at least one occasion. He talked to Foreign Minister Solana of Spain. As I say, Foreign Minister Kozyrev of Russia.

Q When did he talk to Kozyrev?

MR. McCURRY: I believe yesterday afternoon, if I'm not mistaken. So he has had extensive consultations. In addition to that, there have been several meetings over the weekend at the White House involving the President and several discussions by phone with the President. They all are related to the comments that the Secretary made today. We're very much in close coordination with our allies.

The Secretary didn't say so, but we understand the European Union has just fairly -- a short while ago -- joined in expressing its revulsion at the renewed brutal shelling of civilians; reaffirmed its support for an early meeting of the North Atlantic Council, as the Secretary just announced, and also called for bringing about the immediate lifting of the siege of Sarajevo, using all the means necessary, including the use of air power, a statement that the United States welcomes and will certainly discuss further with our European allies later this week.

Q The United States welcomes the lifting of the siege of Sarajevo with the use of air power?

MR. McCURRY: Welcomes the statement by the European Union, and looks forward to further discussion of that later this week, at whatever point the North Atlantic Council meets.

Q I know. But does the United States welcome the substance of that statement?

MR. McCURRY: Yes. It welcomes the substance of that statement and intends to work closely with the European Union on the substance of that statement as well.

Q Does it agree with the substance of that statement, that the United States favors the lifting of the siege of Sarajevo with the use of air power?

MR. McCURRY: The Secretary addressed that directly in his statement.

Q Mike, please, he didn't. He didn't address that. He said that one of the things --

MR. McCURRY: He talked about the steps that we'll be taking to address the situation in Bosnia, and I'm not going to go further than where he went just now.

Q Mike, the Secretary also talked about continuing the search for ways to reinvigorate the peace process.

MR. McCURRY: That's right.

Q I wonder if you can give us any sense of where that process stands? And, also, is that to figure in the overall strategy that the North Atlantic Council is to adopt?

MR. McCURRY: I think by "reinvigorating the process," we've probably seen an example of that this weekend by the intense level of consultations that's occurred with allies and the work that will lie ahead for the North Atlantic Council as it addresses the situation in Bosnia at a meeting later this week.

Q They're not addressing the peace process, are they?

MR. McCURRY: I think they intend to -- the statement does reiterate the effort that the European Union has made through its action plan to address a negotiated settlement. We certainly concur, as the Secretary said, in the view that a negotiated settlement is ultimately the only way to get these warring parties to stop the killing and stop the fighting.

Steve.

Q In Paris a month ago the Secretary told Mr. Juppe that the United States did not think it proper to bring pressure to bear on the Bosnians to accept a peace settlement. If I understand correctly, what President Clinton said yesterday, and what the Secretary said today, we are ready to pressure all sides?

MR. McCURRY: I don't believe that would be accurate. I think we are interested in seeing what can be done to achieve a negotiated settlement and to bring more active diplomatic measures to bear on achieving a diplomatic settlement.

I don't think the Secretary has changed his view about pressure on one side in this conflict.

Q So the calculus has not changed?

MR. McCURRY: The calculus has not changed.

Q The United States and the European Union almost agree about the necessity of this air strike; also the General Secretary gave his agreement.

What concrete action will be taken to protect U.N. peacekeeping forces in Bosnia if the air strike will happen?

MR. McCURRY: The U.N. peacekeeping forces in Bosnia, attached to UNPROFOR, if under attack and if a commander of UNPROFOR requests assistance, it has long been the policy of NATO and also the policy of the United States Government to provide air support in the event of a request of that nature by a commander on the ground. That remains the case, and certainly would remain the case as we look ahead in the crisis.

Q There was a story yesterday in the Washington Post indicating that Hungary would like to normalize its relations with Serbia. The article suggested that it might endanger the international sanctions. Do you have any comment on it?

MR. McCURRY: We saw the report. We're not quite sure that that report is accurate, mostly because the Government of Hungary has assured us that it will continue it vigorous enforcement of sanctions against Serbia in compliance with the international obligations that Hungary has.

It does appear that there are plans to increase communication between Budapest and Belgrade on a number of topics of mutual concern between the two countries, including consular matters, Customs, border issues, and cooperation in criminal investigations, despite what would obviously be some potential benefits to Hungary of improved relations with Serbia that we view with great concern any action that might ease Serbia's isolation.

I do understand that Foreign Minister Jezenszky was going to make a further comment on that. We have not had an opportunity to review that comment, but I'd refer you to the Government of Hungary for anything additional that they might be saying on that subject today.

Q Mike, when did you receive those assurances? And is this matter under active discussion now between the U.S. and Hungary?

MR. McCURRY: I don't know whether there's been further diplomatic conversation. I expect that there would be. I know that the Secretary himself raised it with the Foreign Minister when we were in Budapest, and it has been a subject that we remain in close contact with the Government of Hungary on, as we do some of the other frontline states involved in sanctions enforcement. The affect of sanctions on each of those countries is something that obviously we're very much aware of, and it's a subject that the Secretary himself has addressed on numerous occasions.

Q As the Secretary stressed here, and the President did yesterday, there's talk about the diplomatic front. Is the State Department contemplating proposing some new ideas? Are there some new assignments? Are we going to see some new personalities? Is there some way that the diplomatic effort is going to be elevated?

MR. McCURRY: I think through all you gathered from the Secretary's own description of his activity and through my recounting of his work this morning, it has been elevated to a very high level. He's in very close discussions with his counterpart Foreign Ministers. There clearly will be some work in the days ahead. Ambassador Hunter will be closely involved; Ambassador Redman, who has been attending the talks in Geneva, certainly plans to attend the talks on Thursday, if they reconvene, as we hope, and expect that they will based on the statements of some of the parties themselves.

Q Mike, you seemed to be quite careful earlier to say that the United States was working very closely with its allies. Can you characterize the Secretary's conversation with Mr. Kozyrev? Would you be able to say that the United States was in as much agreement with its allies as it is with Kozyrev?

MR. McCURRY: I think we are working on this problem directly with our NATO allies. The Secretary certainly had a discussion of the views of Russia with the Foreign Minister. The Foreign Minister himself has addressed this question, as I think some of you are aware. He has expressed some concern about what the impact of air strikes might be. I would say that some of the concerns he's raised are not unlike the concerns that have been voiced by some of our NATO allies. But this is clearly one of the issues among many that they are discussing in these consultations that are underway.

Q Does the U.S. have an answer for him on that? What does the Secretary tell him, "Look, we're just going to have to do it if we have to do it?"

MR. McCURRY: That's an aspect of the substance of the conversations that I'm not going to get into.

Q (Inaudible) described a lot of activity in the past couple of days, and in the next few days?

MR. McCURRY: It's an old spokesman's adage, if you're not in a position where you can give substance, you give process. That's what I'm doing.

Q There's a lot of cynicism going around -- some of it in this building, I suspect -- that there's a lot of activity but not much action. I wonder if this activity looks towards any action?

MR. McCURRY: I'm not aware of any cynicism in the building on the determination of the United States to address this question actively with its allies.

Q If I may, let me just suggest that sometime ago, as I recall, the Serbs were supposed to be out of those Hills because NATO told them to do that. The U.N. told them to do that, and they weren't even supposed to be there.

MR. McCURRY: That's history. What's the question?

Q In the past, people are suggesting to me that there have been horrible acts like this that have simply dissipated into a lot of --

MR. McCURRY: What's the question?

Q -- diplomatic activity but not much action?

MR. McCURRY: What's the question?

Q The question is, as I'm saying, is there any action at the end of this activity that you can tell us about?

MR. McCURRY: There could very well be but I can't tell you about it, as I indicated earlier.

Q In the Secretary's statement, he said, "We're looking at other possible steps to respond to Saturday's attack." Can you give us any idea of what you're looking at?

MR. McCURRY: I can't. I think it would be premature for me to do that. It was obviously something that we are interested in forging a position in common with our European colleagues on this issue. I think that when they're prepared to do that, they will do so, but they are exploring a range of options. I think as you heard the President and the Secretary indicate over the weekend, they're not ruling out any particular options at this point.

Q Did the Secretary speak to Andrei Kozyrev over the weekend?

MR. McCURRY: Yes. As I said, I believe that call was yesterday afternoon.

Q Mike, didn't the NATO -- I'm a little confused about the distinction between what is being done now by NATO and the U.N. and what was done in August and then again in January by NATO and the U.N.

Didn't NATO and the U.N. announce in August that they were prepared to do airstrikes if the strangulation of Sarajevo continued, and what's the distinction between that and what's being done now?

MR. McCURRY: The August 9 NAC communique said that the Council would be ready to reconvene at short notice to decide whether to implement airstrikes. Such a meeting could be requested by any member of the Alliance or by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe or in response to a request from the United Nations.

Then under Security Council 836, the Secretary General also has the authority to request airstrikes. I think, as the Secretary indicated, what is different in this letter is it's response. There's a sense, I think, in the letter of the Secretary General that this is a very specific effort to fill in a gap that exists in both of those -- both the NATO communique and the U.N. Security Council resolutions as it might relate to deterring attacks upon civilian populations.

Most of 836 deals with the so-called "Safe Area Resolution." It deals with using air power in connection with protecting UNPROFOR forces, and it is, I think as many of you have pointed out to me in your questions on many cases, somewhat vague as it relates to protecting civilian populations.

Q Does it require, to the best of your knowledge, further U.N. action?

MR. McCURRY: Not to our knowledge. I know you asked the Secretary that question. I asked him on the way out, too. It's not our view that additional Security Council action would be necessary.

Q So that 836 covers it. That's why I think all of our questions are a little -- trying to figure out what -- trying to define what 836 already covers, then what's the point of --

MR. McCURRY: The Secretary General will speak to that, or the U.N. can speak to that as they can. I think that the point there is that NATO is in a position to carry out the types of airstrikes that are envisioned in the NATO communique.

NATO had indicated to the Secretary General that that could only be activated with an additional decision by the North Atlantic Council. And I think that the Secretary General's letter was not written so much out of concern of how Security Council Resolution 836 might be implemented. It's written more out of concern about what are the procedures by which NATO then calibrates its position with the United Nations in determining future action.

Q Mike, can you define for us how the mechanism would then work as it is evolving now? I mean, there's so many different meetings and groups that have to come together to meet. Are you shortening the red tape trail?

MR. McCURRY: I think that's a good point. It is a cumbersome process, and I think some of you might have heard Ambassador Albright suggest last night that the tone of this letter does indicate much closer thinking between the United Nations and NATO as they look at how they will move ahead in the future.

Q What happens for airstrikes to actually occur?

MR. McCURRY: What has to happen for NATO to commence airstrikes would be to review the NATO communiques of 2nd and 9th of August 1993, reaffirmed in July. A decision of the North Atlantic Council to activate airstrikes would have to be made, and the first use of such airstrikes would have to be approved by the U.N. Secretary General, a point upon which we now have some clarity, I think. Not a change in the process.

Q So what you're saying is that after the North Atlantic Council meets, presumably on Wednesday, and presumably approves Boutros-Ghali's request, the NAC is then out of the process. And in some future instance, UNPROFOR commanders on the ground could either themselves or -- this is the point I don't understand -- it is themselves or with the Secretary General's approval order airstrikes without there having to be a further meeting of NATO? Is that what you're trying to do to shorten the process?

MR. McCURRY: I think that may be the effect of it. It's been our interpretation that that is already the case. It's already been our interpretation that if an UNPROFOR commander on the ground under attack requests assistance from NATO, that that assistance can be provided now without a further action by the North Atlantic Council.

Q This is specifically, according to the Secretary's statement, aimed at calling in airstrikes after civilians have been attacked.

MR. McCURRY: Right.

Q Not for NATO forces or UNPROFOR forces.

MR. McCURRY: That's correct. I don't know that the process there is different. I think the Secretary General was addressing himself to the process that exists now under the NATO communiques. How does the NAC take that decision, and then how is that decision then relayed back through the U.N. through the UNPROFOR chain of command. I think the Secretary General was attempting to clarify what would be necessary to plan for airstrikes in order to deter any attacks such as those that happened this past several days.

Q This is really murky, Mike, and, if you don't clear it up, you know, the stories are going to be all over the lot.

MR. McCURRY: The problem here is that you're asking me to clarify a letter that the Secretary General of the U.N. has sent, and it's not my position or the position of the United States Government to try to interpret the Secretary General's letter to NATO. We're trying to comment upon it in the context of (inaudible).

Q (Multiple questions)

Q You have to vote on it at NATO, and the U.S. is the supreme --

MR. McCURRY: The Secretary indicated that this is one aspect of -- one procedural aspect of what's going on in an attempt by the Alliance to address the situation in Bosnia. By no means is it the only thing that's under consideration. This is just one thing involving the U.N. and the NATO command structure. I wouldn't suggest that that's the entire focus of what the NAC might take up when it meets.

Q We'd be happy to have you tell us if there's something else out there.

MR. McCURRY: That's all we're discussing at this point, obviously.

Q You say it's not the U.S. to interpret the Secretary General's letter, but then doesn't the U.S. want to seek a clarification because it's all murky?

MR. McCURRY: On this issue of what happens if -- this is all sort of anticipating a decision by NAC to move in a certain direction. As I say, we join our European colleagues in thinking that the NAC should address this question later this week, and I think that there's less need for clarification on that point once the NAC actually meets and takes up the issue.

Barrie.

Q Mike, David Owen said this morning that he understood that the Bosnian Serbs were now prepared to negotiate a special separate peace, if you will, on Sarajevo. Do you see this as a possible vehicle for resolving this issue? I mean, if NATO is threatening airstrikes to lift the siege of Sarajevo but the Bosnian Serbs are prepared to negotiate a peace, is this the vehicle for resolving that issue?

MR. McCURRY: There were discussions yesterday about the possibility of a cease-fire in Sarajevo. Sarajevo has in a sense been treated as a separate issue within all the diplomatic discussions and the discussions in Geneva between the parties themselves, because it was to be given a special status in some of the various peace plans that were envisioned.

I'm not familiar enough with the disposition of the parties today in Sarajevo to know if there's any real chance that this would provide for a meaningful peace as it relates to Sarajevo. I'm just not in a position to comment.

Yes, in the back.

Q Could you restate the current United States' position on lifting the embargo, the arms embargo? Has that been under discussion, and where is that?

MR. McCURRY: It has remained a preferred alternative of the United States, but one which we are not pursuing, given the opposition that exists to our closes allies on the U.N. Security Council; and since it involves lifting a U.N. Security Council resolution, that is a subject that would have to be addressed with some concurrence by the Security Council. We have not pursued it because of the clear opposition of other members.

However, as I think the President, the Secretary and others indicate, we are in a situation now where there's a review of Bosnia going on within the Alliance itself.

Q The Secretary didn't raise this again; just another trial balloon in his conversations the last couple --

MR. McCURRY: I think the Secretary was very careful not to direct you to any of the substance of his discussions with his counterparts, and that's for the good reason that he wants to be in concert with them, and then he'll be in a position to describe it publicly.

Q Well, you said we're not pursuing it, so I am taking that to mean --

MR. McCURRY: I was asked to restate historically what our view has been. That's historically what our view has been.

Q As a result of an earlier Boutros-Ghali letter just a couple of weeks ago, the NAC got the go-ahead to do some things to open the airport at Tuzla and complete their rotation of troops at Srebrenica. Have either of those things happened, and has the North Atlantic Council taken action to open the airport at Tuzla?

MR. McCURRY: I think as I've indicated earlier, the rotation at Srebrenica is underway, and the opening of Tuzla airport is under discussion with the Bosnian Serbs. It has been our view that the likelihood of keeping Tuzla airport open for humanitarian purposes is far greater if there's an agreement on the part of the warring parties to allow the airport to operate; that certainly by no means has the Alliance ruled out opening the airport by other means.

Q Mike, you and other officials and the Secretary have made it pretty clear that nothing's being ruled out. That's a nice phrase to use periodically when you want to keep people guessing.

Can we assume that when you say "nothing," you mean "nothing," and that even unilateral action by the United States in Bosnia has not been ruled out? Or are you talking in terms of a multilateral NATO contact --

MR. McCURRY: I think it is very clear from the Secretary's comments and from my description of his activity that he's determined to work cooperatively and closely with our European colleagues on this.

Q So you're ruling out unilateral action.

MR. McCURRY: I'm not the person who rules out unilateral action. It's our Commander in Chief who does that. I don't know that he's addressed himself to that question.

Q You either don't want to or can't discuss the other things that are going to be on the table at NATO, aside from what you've described and the Secretary's described as this narrow issue of responding to the Secretary General's remarks.

But are you able to say whether the U.S. and its allies at NATO will be discussing some NATO initiative or some NATO-wide event, or are you going to be discussing perhaps using small groups of nations who happen to be members of NATO to respond in some way?

MR. McCURRY: That is an excellent question. I don't know the answer to that. I guess phrasing the question differently, it might be our prospect for perhaps using a combined joint task force here. I don't know the answer to that. I don't know that that formal process for carrying forward on some of those recent decisions by the NATO leaders are in a position to be implemented at that point, but it's something I'll raise and see if there's an answer to it.

Saul.

Q Mike, has the Secretary specifically talked to his colleagues about whether to hold a ministerial, and did the Secretary suggest that it was not necessary to hold it at the ministerial level, or how did that happen?

MR. McCURRY: I'm not aware that that came up as a point of discussion, as far as I know.

Q Juppe had called for a ministerial level meeting to --

Q The Dutch, too, at a Foreign Minister level.

Q -- and the Dutch and Belgians as well.

MR. McCURRY: Actually, my understanding was somewhat different from that. I thought that there had been some discussion about whether or not there should be a meeting of the United Nations Security Council convened, perhaps at the ministerial level. But my understanding is that the allies are in broad concurrence about how to proceed at this point.

Q Mike, did you receive any indication from Bulgaria and Romania that they would like to take similar action in Hungary in broadening relations?

MR. McCURRY: I don't know the answer to that. I can try to check on that and see what the --

Q And could you assess the implications of that for the U.S. position on the arms embargo, whether it would strengthen it from a preferred option into some advanced stage? These three countries which all border on Serbia, all of them are suffering heavily economically from the sanctions and now appear to be taking some action on their own to stop observing the sanctions as they have so far. How would that impinge on the U.S. position on the arms embargo?

MR. McCURRY: I don't know that those questions would at all be related. They involve enforcing existing Security Council resolutions. But I'll see if we have any assessment on that.

Q Mike, when you say the allies are in broad concurrence about how to proceed at this point, you mean on the procedural matters of at what level to hold meetings. You don't mean about what to do about Bosnia, do you?

MR. McCURRY: That was an answer on a procedural question involving what steps would they take later this week and what level would they meet, although obviously we have been working very closely with our European colleagues, and they have reached some consensus today, as you can tell from the statement by the EU Foreign Minister himself.

Q Do we know when the NAC will meet? The NAC ordinarily meets informally on Tuesday and formally on Wednesday. Do you know when?

MR. McCURRY: I haven't heard of anything that suggests a different schedule than that. I don't know that that's been announced or decided upon, but that certainly fits with our thinking.

Q Do you have anything on Haiti?

MR. McCURRY: No, nothing. Nothing newer than the statement of where they were still talking about sanctions.

Q North Korea -- have you done that?

MR. McCURRY: North Korea we didn't do. I didn't really have much new to add on it.

Q Other than the fact that the clock is ticking and --

MR. McCURRY: Right. I want to make clear on that, there was some press reporting here over the weekend. It's not up to the United States to set a deadline for North Korea to accept the inspections that the IAEA deems necessary to ensure -- to determine that there's been a continuity of safeguards.

The IAEA has made clear that the longer that these inspections are put off, the more concerned they are that the continuity of safeguards could be broken. As we've said repeatedly, if the IAEA declares the continuity of safeguards in North Korea broken, we'd have no choice but to return the issue to the U.N. Security Council for further action.

There is no deadline, but clearly the Board of Governors meeting by the IAEA will be a critical time for them to address whether there has been continuity of safeguards, and that's a date that is, as I think most of you know, only several weeks off now.

Q But don't they know the expiration dates of these batteries and the cameras and that sort of thing?

MR. McCURRY: There are all sorts of things technically that go into their understanding of continuity of safeguards. We support their determination technically of what is required to establish safeguards continuity. That's not something independently that we try to judge, and I think that we made that very clear to North Korea.

Q Thank you.

MR. McCURRY: You're welcome.

(###)

To the top of this page